... or recently returned from high risk areas ...
I suppose what I am saying is, this is the bit I struggle with. It is too tenuous. It is almost like saying that I should self-isolate because my next door neighbour's dog's dog walker's next door neighbour has the virus.
The same with VV at the match. What if that had been me? My wife would not have been able to contact me, as I switch off my phone (always) during the match. IF his wife had the virus, but she had not. She had been a 'contact' of a confirmed case. On that type of basis, that one confirmed case probably had thousands of contacts, and if PHE were then asking contacts of those contacts, that could amount to, maybe a hundred thousand secondary contacts. Should all the people in the madstad now self isolate, as VV was there with them? Where do you stop in this?
For me, it should be immediate contacts only. The health 'professionals' have decided to be far more cautious. Well, they would, as they don't want the blame. But, at this rate, we will very quickly all be self-isolating. You only have to model it using some maths to see how it gets rapidly out of proportion. But, we are talking about fear and panic here.
It is all about probabilities. What is the probability that a secondary contact will actually infect a tertiary contact and that someone would die as a direct results of that ONE contact? Very, very small. So small that if I let that govern my life, I wouldn't drive a car for fear that this day I would run someone over. Those sort of odds.
As soon as a decent number of folk in the UK actually get this virus (and that may be as low as thousands), a person without the virus will have multiple opportunities over a very short timescale to come into contact with someone who is infectious. Which of those contacts would be to 'blame'? I suspect that, already, the UK has the needed number to make this outbreak beyond the control that isolation might bring.
For me, I object to fear being the factor that rules my life.