Professor Stankūnas: The risk of becoming infected at home, among oneself, is 10 times higher than in other settings

The professor shared his ideas on the social network Facebook, citing global publications by scientists and giving concrete examples of how quickly the virus spreads to those closest to him.

We quote the post:

The rule of a home: to be or not to be?

At present, perhaps the most discussed COVID-19 management tool is the proposal to allow physical meetings / communications only between members of the same household (i.e. people living in the same household). This should not apply to emergencies where people who are sick or unable to care for themselves need to be cared for. It won’t take me long to describe how it hurts us, how it will affect our communication. I think everyone understands it. I also. Here, I would like to briefly justify why this measure should be considered and even supported.

NVSC data shows that the virus is most widely spread today in families. The publications of the world’s scientists fully corroborate this. Whether studies from China or the US, they all show that households are the main source of the spread of infection. And experts say that the spread of the virus at home is the area that needs special attention. The results of a meta-analysis suggest that the risk of infection is 10 times higher in the domestic environment than among other contacts. This risk is 3 times higher in adults than in children.

A similar claim is confirmed by data from other meta-analyzes due to the increased risk of infection at home (in the immediate environment) in the elderly. In general, we can say that close contacts without the use of masks or a safe distance become the main “road” for the spread of the virus. What should be done? Studies from Italy (which probably suffered the most during the “first peak”) show that the more the quarantine conditions are met and the smaller the quarantine unit (ie household or co-quarantine), the lower the number of secondary infections.

And a recent review of the effectiveness of COVID-19 management measures in 226 countries showed that a ban on small gatherings could lower the Rt to -0.4. This is the most effective tool identified in that review. Now, as is in force, the prohibition of the recommendation to meet with no more than 2 families up to 10 people. This could (perhaps) be an effective tool, but still a more stringent requirement should have a greater effect. At least one other survey study shows that the requirement to stay at home is a more effective measure than the requirement to reduce the number of meetings to 10 people.

I will give an example to illustrate the last statement. Let’s say I am infected with COVID-19. I don’t feel the symptoms or they are minimal and I don’t pay much attention to them. We celebrate Christmas and invite my parents to this dinner (5 + 2). During St. I go to Christmas with my father-in-law (5 + 2), I also visit the family of my wife’s brother (5 + 5). On the second day of Christmas I visit my brother (5 + 5) and eat without my baptism and all his superfamilies (5 + 5). So, I didn’t break the rules in 48 hours. I am in contact with 19 people who are at high risk of contact and can become infected. Let’s say that at least one family member of each of my contacts got infected. The incubation period for the virus before symptoms appear is 5 to 7 days, but a person can spread the virus for another 1 to 2 days before symptoms appear. And what will happen 5-7 days after St. Christmas? New Years Ogi! All my infected relatives carefully follow the rules of two households, feel no symptoms, agree with their loved ones in the New Year and …

This time, I do not want to give conclusions or summaries. I only wish you and your loved ones peace and health. Let’s stay at home.