Originally Posted by: biker1

After all he has done...

As was observed on HIGNFY last week, people in the UK should be cautious about throwing stones in the 'you get the leaders you elect' glass house.

However, arguably Trump has done the world a favour in accelerating the collapse of the USA - while a large proportion of the world used to despise the USA, or fear the USA, or distrust the USA, I think now the predominant global response is pity. That can only hasten the decline, which may well be painful, but is not necesarily a bad thing.

Edited by user 09 October 2020 14:34:24(UTC)  | Reason: spalling

Well, the impending imposition of further restrictions in parts of the north has prompted the young people to hit the town en masse to have one more go at spreading the virus, not to mention mass gatherings in London. Saw pictures of one anti-lockdown protest with the usual nutcase holding a banner declaring that 'COVID is a hoax'. What is wrong with these people? As someone whose daughter was very ill with COVID back in April, I take this as a personal insult, and an insult to all those, public and NHS staff, who have died because of the virus, and the grieving families they left behind.

Yes, we have a government who have been spectactularly inept at dealing with the crisis, but this doesn't excuse the thousands of people whose selfish and grossly irresponsible behaviour has kept the virus spreading.

For anyone interested in face covering arguments, I recommend an short essay by Nassim Taleb "Incompetence and errors in reasoning around face coverings". 

If you want to listen to a review and discussion of this, start with Todd Conklin 'Pre Accident Investigation' podcast #289 (June). Tip: Although I like his podcasts, I find the US drawl works better for me at 1.1 speed!

Usual dithering from the government, now a three tier system for alert levels, making the whole thing even more confusing, and how will people be told that further restrictions are coming in? Newspapers, TV news, social media? Contrary to what they seem to think, we are not all glued to the media. And why do they have such a time delay in bringing in the restrictions? Whilst I appreciate that councils etc need some warning, having the imposition days ahead just encourages idiots to go wild while they can, so the whole point of the restrictions is somewhat lost. If they are depending on the trace and test app, sorry to point out that a lot of people haven't got this, and won't be able to access it.

Why don't we just have a two week 'circuit break' - national total lockdown? Oh, sorry, forgot that thousands of people will just ignore it.

The latest figures indicate that deaths from COVID are three times that of flu and pneumonia combined, and if deaths where COVID is mentioned on the death certificate are counted, the figure goes up from 42 thousand to 57 thousand. Figures for a roughly ten mile radius of where I live are that 120 people have died from it since the start, and we are in a relatively 'safe' area. These kinds of statistics seem to be lost on a lot of people.

This new 3-tier area alert thing is confusing me. Anyone want to help unscramble my brain? 

Situation - Our employees work away from home Monday to Friday, some living in rented property and others stay in hotels. We have formed working “team bubbles” on all of our sites which “paired” workers in conjunction with their living arrangements. No probs identified and so far, we have had no issues.  Then came the new rules.

I appreciate that many of the rules do not apply in a work place setting and workers are exempt from a number of restrictions, but what about when they leave work and head back to their accommodation. They are no longer “at work” so are they no longer covered by the exemptions?

Example, the new rules state: You must not meet socially with friends and family indoors in any setting unless you live with them or have formed a support bubble with them.  So, given employees sharing a rented property do not live together and are not able to form support bubbles, are they now breaking the law by sharing a rented property? I looked at the rules for students living in student accommodation which says: “you must not move backward and forward between your permanent home and term time address during term time” but there’s nothing covering workers. Are they not allowed to return home on a weekend?

In addition, what about the guys who stay in hotels during the week. Are they now breaking the law if they don’t sit alone when going for their evening meal and a beer?  Even though they spend all day working in a paired bubble and both travel to the hotel in a shared vehicle?

I am clearly missing something here…. Not just the will to live.

To fry your brain even further do they travel to Wales or Scotland both of whom seem intent on having no one from a high risk area travelling in to their country?

The ban for Wales starts on Friday: ​​​​​​​https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-54540764

Originally Posted by: biker1

there is thought to be an 80% chance that we will go into a national 2 week lockdown at half term. 

Unlike the fixed dates of Christmas or Easter "half term" really depends upon where you are in the country.

Originally Posted by: biker1

According to the news today, there is thought to be an 80% chance that we will go into a national 2 week lockdown at half term. 

That didn't appear to be the case at PMQ's today.  Starmer openly asked for this and Johnson actively defended not doing it (although still saying he wasn't ruling anything out)

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: biker1

According to the news today, there is thought to be an 80% chance that we will go into a national 2 week lockdown at half term. 

That didn't appear to be the case at PMQ's today.  Starmer openly asked for this and Johnson actively defended not doing it (although still saying he wasn't ruling anything out)

Presumably your argument is that if Boris says it's not going to happen, the chances must be much higher than 80%?

Probably!

Trouble is that 80% of all the media speculation based on 'sources close to the Government' have turned out to be hogwash, throughout this pandemic.

(For what its worth I would absolutely support this type of curcuitbreaker lockdown)

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

We have the same situation we have fixed teams using vehicles - but when they get back to base to use the rest area - they have to sit 2m appart! Very hard to exdplain why to them - as it makes no sence!

Is it not a simple case of reducing risk by reducing close contact time?

It wouldn't make sense if we were in a catch it / don't catch it (safe/unsafe) scenario.

Admittedly if the guys are spending most of their time in close contact, the risk reduction will be slight, but its a risk reduction none the less and also demonstrates consistency across situations so there isn't one rule for the fixed teams and one rule for everyone else.  Multiple and ever changing rules for multiple scenarios is one of the things that we are all struggling with, are we not?

Wasn't the governments stated drive to cut red tape and minimise regulation?

Having noticed that there were a number of regulations published that do not appear on the quick link a search for titles including "Covid" returned: UK 217, Scotland 76, Wales 80, N.I. 91

No wonder we (and they) can't keep up.

Originally Posted by: Cheeky Me

This new 3-tier area alert thing is confusing me. Anyone want to help unscramble my brain? 

Situation - Our employees work away from home Monday to Friday, some living in rented property and others stay in hotels. We have formed working “team bubbles” on all of our sites which “paired” workers in conjunction with their living arrangements. No probs identified and so far, we have had no issues.  Then came the new rules.

I appreciate that many of the rules do not apply in a work place setting and workers are exempt from a number of restrictions, but what about when they leave work and head back to their accommodation. They are no longer “at work” so are they no longer covered by the exemptions?

Example, the new rules state: You must not meet socially with friends and family indoors in any setting unless you live with them or have formed a support bubble with them.  So, given employees sharing a rented property do not live together and are not able to form support bubbles, are they now breaking the law by sharing a rented property? I looked at the rules for students living in student accommodation which says: “you must not move backward and forward between your permanent home and term time address during term time” but there’s nothing covering workers. Are they not allowed to return home on a weekend?

In addition, what about the guys who stay in hotels during the week. Are they now breaking the law if they don’t sit alone when going for their evening meal and a beer?  Even though they spend all day working in a paired bubble and both travel to the hotel in a shared vehicle?

I am clearly missing something here…. Not just the will to live.

Exception 3: gatherings necessary for certain purposes

(4) Exception 3 is that the gathering is reasonably necessary—

(a)for work purposes or for the provision of voluntary or charitable services;

Hi All,

First post on this forumn and posiibly (probably!) missed the specific issue in th eerlier conversations, so appologies if Im resurecting an "old" discussion / debate.... 

Background:

I'm the SHEQ Manager for a specialist engineering company serving the water industry. As such we are classed as "Key Workers" as we serve the National Infrastructure and have remained open for businees throughout..  We have a production area and offices where our designers, managers etc (approx 30% of staff ).  Our age profile is promarily in more vulnerable groups.  Where possible, office based staff had been enabled to work from home, then as things eased we started to get people back into the offices.. We've now reverted back to having more working from home.  An outbreak within the business could be catastropic for individuals and the business.

Controls - Individual COVID-19 RA's, Visitor vetting, Social distancing, Split break time, created "work bubbles", hand sanitisers outside every room, daily temperature monitoring etc surgical style face coverings, and FFP style masks (for a better fit to reduce spectacles steaming up), permitted staff to wear their own face coverings (as a way of encouraging them to do the right thing) and, where staff have an issue with wearing face coverings, face shields where staff are unable to maintain a 2m distance.  For site work staff have FFP3 masks and faceshields.

Due to the recent increasse (and 2 staff being tested positive  this month - thankfully people who had not been in the office, so a "near Miss" - they are first in the company,) we've increased the control measures.

We have now required staff to wear a face covering when moving about inside the buildings.  In doing so we've followed what is happening in most other settings.  If staff are at their "workstation" (office or production) they are not required to wear a face covering unless working within 2m ..

The crux of all this is that we are now being challenged (from one member of staff and our HR) on whether we can insist on the wearing of face coverings (or the alternative face shield) if the person is "exempt".  Signs saying that a person is "exempt" are freely downloadable from the internet.  No medical professional advice is required to sign this off..

- and whether we do not have a right to question or ask for medical sign off for such an exemption .. I appreciate that there are also psychological reasons why some people may not want to wear a mask (hence the provision of face shields as an alternative..)

I have quoted company policy (i.e. wear the face coverings / shields in specified circumstances) and s7 of HASAWA ..

We curently have really good compliance with what we have asked from staff, but this could undermine what we have achived so far.. 

Thoughts please  ...

Many Thanks :-)

Alan

Quite clear in the English regs and the newly advised Scottish regs for workplaces - you cannot force someone who is exempt to wear a face covering, and whilst you may enquire as to the reason they believe themselves exempt you cannot insist upon knowing nor demand any form of doctors letter or certificate as proof.

Scattered across the posts are links to the relevant legislation much of which is collated here

 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/coronavirus

Scottish regs https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/325/contents/made

BTW a visor is not considered to be a face covering north of the border

Edited by user 16 October 2020 11:12:20(UTC)  | Reason: added specific link - thanks Kate

.... forgot to add - we've also had a vast reduction in face to face communications/ meetings - MS "Teams" has become the main way of conducting meetings ...

Thanks for your thoughts,

Part of the objection raised was that we were "not medically qualified and should not question the opinion of medical professionals.."

I'm not about to question a medical professional - the ones that I talk to have the opinion that if you have a medical condition (e.g. asthma), then there is GREATER reason to wear a mask, not a reduced one... Ive been advisd by a friend whos a partner at a local GP practice that they dont and wont issue exemptions...  

In the case in point we dont have an opinion from a medical professional - just the word of the member of staff .. I'm not questioning a medical professional, I'm questioning the validity of such an "exemption"

My concern is that, as an employer we are required to reduce the risk ALARP and that anyone can claim to have an "exemption" if they simply dont want to wear a face covering  - which then potentialy impacts upon the health of other staff as well as the individual ...

The wearing of facce coverings when moving around the building is included as one of the control measures in our COVID-19 Risk Assessment...

Aside from undermining adherance to rules, the risk to colleagues and their famiies, subsequent risk to the business and staff livelihoods, if we can't challenge an employee who fails to abide by the rules that the company has resonably put into place for the H&S of its staff,  can the company be held liable for any negative health impact on its staff .. ??

COSHH - see post 641 in this thread.

Can you demonstrate an adequate level of protection from your devices that would stand up in a court of law in the event of a claim? There are no standards for face coverings, some have exhaust vents actually blowing exhaled air on to others and that is if they actually get them covering nose and mouth simultaneously.

When you read the regulations you will see that exemptions do not require a medical opinion - this was very deliberate not only in protection of the rights of the individual but recognising accessing medical appointments for critical care was already an issue without adding unecessary administration to overloaded systems.

A recent TV article on juvenille mental health showed people waiting nearly two years to get their first assessment, long before some jobsworth started incorrectly demanding a doctors note so they can board a bus.

Even if someone catches Covid at your workplace you would be hard pressed to definitvley prove the source as a particular employee not wearing a mask. Your assumption forgets all the interactions every employee can have outside of working hours any of which can inflict the termoil described.

ALARP can include employees not wearing masks - you have reasonably requested and they have reasonably refused - document it as a consideration of the employees mental well being and move on.

ERICPD - can't see face coverings in the heirachy of controls under HASAW as there are NO applicable standards for construction or protection. What regulation has been published permits exemption.

WE need to remember that the employees we are advising to protect are NOT identical drones and that consideration must be made of the individuals that comprise our business when assessing and controlling risk.

Instead of insisting on a face covering "mask" typical of the one size fits all mantra effort should be directed to consultation rather than trying to find a legislative hammer to beat non-conformists in to submission.

Given the modern day numbers of children diagnosed along various psychological spectra perhaps that old classmate and now work colleague was not just "a disruptive pupil" but had, and likely still has today a degree of undiagnosed mental health issue meaning they find themselves unable to comply.

We are considering facial coverings to protect others which some claim they cannot wear for a whole variety of reasons.  If we have a policy that requires in certain areas facial coverings (of course provided and maintained by us to ensure a suitable standard) are worn why should we treat this differently than when we have a policy that a specific respirator should be worn given the presence of a chemical vapour or dust. After all, Covid-19 can be lethal. 

Originally Posted by: chris.packham

why should we treat this differently than when we have a policy that a specific respirator should be worn given the presence of a chemical vapour or dust.

A specific respirator is to protect the wearer where we have exhausted other control measures and for business reasons continue to work with the vapour or dust.

A face covering is to protect others so is a different use of an entirely different product.

"I'm not about to question a medical professional - the ones that I talk to have the opinion that if you have a medical condition (e.g. asthma), then there is GREATER reason to wear a mask, not a reduced one... Ive been advisd by a friend whos a partner at a local GP practice that they dont and wont issue exemptions...  "

Are you serious?

3 million in the UK with COPD, 4 million + with asthma. All have a valid reason to not wear the type of crude respiratory protection that is socially accepted as necessary. I wear FFP2 RPE, which is easily available from many sources, as routine when needed (shops/restaurants etc) and is far superior to a doubled-up tee shirt or scarf. I also have asthma and COPD, so have issues with breathing wearing them. No problem for short periods, but longer, or with more effort, I run into breathing difficulties. When at work, I wore RPE daily, but RPE that supplied filtered air from an electrically-powered air pump. I suggest if you cannot provide that, and the person has breathing problems, you look at your companies provisions for accomodating employees with disabilities. Or maybe you are just hawking for a legal way out? Good luck with that. Hopefully, your employee is a union member.

Originally Posted by: John Murray

Carry-on wearing your crude masks, which offer the very minimum of protection (if that).

FFP2 etc. PPE masks are designed and intend to protect the wearer.

Face coverings aren't intended to protect the wearer. Face coverings protect everyone else. Face coverings are supposed to limit the degree to which an infected wearer passes it on to everyone else.

It's no great surprise that something intended to do one job isn't very effective at the opposite.