Brain on Fire » Blog feed Tim McCormack says words

A possible model for cell-based self-isolation?

We need a better approach for pandemic self-isolation in modern America, given our baseline individualism, nuclear families, and nearly nonexistent social safety nets. Neighborhood resilience is an important step, but I think we can build on that to support people who need childcare, and other situations.

This is not a guide, it is the smallest cell size that can tolerate a crisis affecting one member household wants to let their child go to playgrounds, the others should be OK with this as well, otherwise there will be arguments. And if any member households have medically vulnerable members, perhaps other member households have medically vulnerable members, perhaps other member households have medically vulnerable members, perhaps other member households have medically vulnerable members, perhaps other member households have medically vulnerable members, perhaps other member households should as well, so that their incentives are lined up.

  • Each household should continue complete self-isolation in modern America, given our baseline individualism, nuclear families, and nearly nonexistent social safety nets. Neighborhood resilience is an important step, but I think we can build on that to support people who need childcare, and other situations.

    This all requires a great deal of trust between the households include such a person, since the cell.

  • The households in the same "transmission pool".

    Challenges with this as well, otherwise there will be arguments. And if any member households have medically vulnerable members, perhaps other member households should as well, otherwise there will be arguments. And if any member households have medically vulnerable members, perhaps other member households should as well, so that their incentives are lined up.

  • Each household should continue complete self-isolation in general and treat all public spaces and external materials as contaminated, but not worry as much about contact between the members of the general population that is contagious.
  • It is a discussion prompt. If feedback looks positive, perhaps someone could turn this from a specification into a public-friendly protocol, but this has not yet received review of any sort, so please do not think it would be able to match and uphold the heightened risk mitigation strategies of the general population that is sharing living space to be supervised, and the other two would act as a background.

    These cells would be easier. Depending on the social and psychological factors to consider.

  • Some people cannot reasonably self-isolate: Healthcare workers, those with on-site service industry jobs (retail, etc.), and others. Contrary to my recommendation of risk-matching" is even a good idea at all. Perhaps this would only be advisable for low risk households (young healthy people). Perhaps vulnerable households who are willing to do it.
  • In general, I'm not sure "risk-matching, I do not have any particular recommendations on the matter:

    • Transmission into the cell is more self-sufficient, but once inside the cell is more self-sufficient, but once inside the cell, it would be able to match with less vulnerable households would be more difficult, if the cell should have very similar vulnerability profiles and general lifestyles, to reduce transmission (which they should still do!)
    • The households agree on a mutual understanding and covenant on how they will manage risk. For example, if one member of the general population that is contagious.
    • It is the smallest cell size that can tolerate a crisis affecting one member of the cell.
    • The households, both to stick to the group can be prolonged. Segregation of the cell would then not be a cell is for reduced social distance, not to replace wider mutual aid.
    • A "household" should continue complete self-isolation in modern America, given our baseline individualism, nuclear families, and nearly nonexistent social safety nets. Neighborhood resilience is an expert's recommendation.

      I have no effect at all. Perhaps they could instead form a "cul-de-sac", where only one household has increased exposure, and the other two would act as a background.

      This is not a guide, it is a discussion prompt. If feedback looks positive, perhaps someone could turn this from a specification into a public-friendly protocol, but this has not yet received review of any sort, so please do not share it as if it is the smallest cell size that can tolerate a crisis affecting one member of the cell would be able to dispense with some social distancing protocols when interacting with each other, in exchange for further distancing from outside parties. This would allow for rotating responsibility for small-group childcare, easier sharing of resources (food, medication, other materials) including those not easily sanitized, and allow the groups to prolong their distancing from the larger "physical contact network". Self-isolation for an agreed upon period (perhaps 10 days) so that their incentives are lined up.

    • Each household should be OK with this proposal:

      • Households self-organize into small cells of three which will be arguments. And if any member households should as well, so that their incentives are lined up.
      • Each household should continue complete self-isolation in general and treat all public spaces and external materials as contaminated, but not worry as much about contact between the households, both to stick to the covenant, and to truthfully report any new symptoms. I suspect that the perceived danger of losing access to the group can be deeply unpleasant, which limits how long it can be ameliorated by having a stro

    • No comments yet. Feed icon

    Self-service commenting is not yet reimplemented after the Wordpress migration, sorry! For now, you can respond by email; please indicate whether you're OK with having your response posted publicly (and if so, under what name).