'Isolation cells' of quarantined friends and family may be a way to start socializing again, but they're still risky

• As social distancing efforts to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus continue, it's normal to wonder when you might see friends and family again.
• The concept of "isolation cells" or limited groups of previously quarantined people gathering to socialize may provide a safer alternative to widespread social interaction.
• Experts say this could be a first step to resuming some semblance of normalcy as cities begin to flatten the curve, but it isn't without risk.
• Safety depends on the number of people, how meticulously they've quarantined, and where they meet.
• Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.

As coronavirus lockdowns continue, and people who've been diligently keeping quarantine for weeks (or months) are missing friends, family, and social activities, a reasonable question has emerged — can't we hang out just a little bit? If small group of people are symptom-free, might it be safe for them to interact with each other?

The concept of "isolation cells" — a limited number of symptom-free people, otherwise quarantined, meeting for a social gathering — first appeared more than a month ago.

Politico reporter Tina Nyugen shared a text thread from a friend and public health official suggesting that it might be possible to socialize in small, controlled groups.

That option is now becoming more and more appealing to people deprived of social (and physical) interaction with people they care about.

It could actually be a viable option, according to epidemiologists and public health experts — but with many caveats. Here's what to consider if you're thinking of starting an isolation cell of your own.

Limited social interaction could be a safer alternative as 'quarantine fatigue' sets in, but its not risk-free

The longer quarantine continues, the harder it will be for people to stay put, Dr. Amesh Adalja, epidemiologist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Insider. As such, there could be benefits to allowing limited socialization if it means more people are likely to follow the rules instead of socializing at will.

"People have to weigh these risks and make these decisions. I don't like to be over-prescriptive." Adalja said. "We know the longer distancing goes on, the more likely people are to want to try these kinds of things. It's lower-risk than what people are doing haphazardly."

The question of whether creating an isolation cell is a good option depends on individual circumstances.

"The issue is around risk tolerance," Peter Jacobson, professor emeritus of health management and policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, told Insider. "We're already starting to see sheltering-at-home fatigue. There's a point at which the public is not going to tolerate a stay-at-home order."

Controlled groups of people, interacting only within the group and otherwise minimally exposed to potential infection, could be a first step in re-starting life as we used to know it.

"This represents a very modest transition to reopening society in a more staggered way," Jacobson said, adding that the risk is still "nontrivial."

People with chronic health issues, including the elderly, may want to be particularly wary even of small gatherings, he said.

Limiting groups to 4 to 6 people, following hygiene precautions, and socializing in a safe area could lower the risks

Many factors could influence how safe a hypothetical hangout might be.

One major variable is location. People living in areas where the number of cases continues to rise would be riskier candidates for small group gatherings than somewhere the virus isn't as rampant. Groups also have to consider whether they'd feel safe meeting at someone's home. A public area like a park could leave more room for distancing, but may also be crowded and have more risks because of that, according to Jacobson.

The number of people involved is also an important factor. Health guidelines in many places advise against groups of 10 or more. For each person involved, it's important to consider what their individual risk might be, and how well they've followed precautions, to understand how they may put the group at risk.

"It has everything to do with how meticulously folks have been adhering to recommendations," Dr. William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told Insider. "Before I let anybody into my home, we'd want to know an awful lot about the folks coming into the house."

Consider the potential awkwardness and anxiety someone were to starting sneezing or coughing, even if they say it's only allergies, Jacobson said.

Jacobson said he would personally be comfortable with seeing a few friends who had been leaving the house only for essential business, and consistently wearing masks and washing their hands.

"I myself would have no compunction at this point with getting together with friends who have been largely quarantined and are showing no symptoms, but it's not without risk," he said.

Even in that situation, he would take additional precautions, and advises others to do the same. That includes keeping a reasonable distance and, if you are hugging or physically interacting, consider wearing a mask and washing your hands before and after.

Whether people decide to risk a small dinner party or continue relying on virtual get-togethers, it's likely some form of distancing will continue for the foreseeable future, Schaffner added.

"Every time you figuratively or literally open the door a little wider, there's that risk," Schaffner said. "You have to decide how much of that increased risk, however small, you're willing to accept."

See Also:

The coronavirus has probably infected far more children in the US than thought, a study says