Seeing empty posts brought the Tremeloes recording "Silence is Golden" to mind

When you wonder how that song title came about you arrive at the proverb "Speech is silver, silence is golden"

Proverbs about silence include "Empty vessels make the most sound"

A completed journey from which inner peace can prevail

Now, if *everyone* blocks them, we can get back to normal !

(if you are really masochistic then log-in without a password and continue to read)

Originally Posted by: chris42

I have recently come across a document from outside of our company that suggested that close contact includes being within 1m of someone for one minute while wearing face coverings.

However, the Gov.uk web site lists it as below without mention of face covering:

• been within one metre for one minute or longer without face-to-face contact
• been within 2 metres of someone for more than 15 minutes (either as a one-off contact, or added up together over one day)

Has anyone come across such a definition of close contact regarding time and distance while wearing a face cover?

Not sure if my post got lost in amongst other irrelevant rantings adding nothing or no one had an input or view on it, so I thought I would put it at the end again.

I only wondered because if in England you have so far followed the 1m plus rules with the plus being a face cover then you (your business) are possibly at risk that if one person gets it all have to isolate and so the company could lose a significant section of its workforce.

The Gov web site puts an exception in for plastic screens, but no mention if everyone in group was using a face cover (including the infected person).

Chris

Originally Posted by: chris42

I only wondered because if in England you have so far followed the 1m plus rules with the plus being a face cover then you (your business) are possibly at risk that if one person gets it all have to isolate and so the company could lose a significant section of its workforce.

The Gov web site puts an exception in for plastic screens, but no mention if everyone in group was using a face cover (including the infected person).

Chris

Chris I have constantly advised my employer that face covering are not an acceptable "additional measure" where they want to reduce the 2m rule.

I use this from the test and trace guidance to support this (as well as the workplace guidance documents)

The contact tracers will not consider the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) as a mitigation when assessing whether a recent contact is likely to have risked transmitting the virus. Only full medical-grade PPE worn in health and care settings will be considered.

To date my employer has been supportive and we are sticking to the 2m rule,

Originally Posted by: biker1

If face coverings are not at all effective, why are they insisted on in clinical settings? 

The face coverings the public are expected to wear whilst appearing to be of a "medical" type are not.

Vigilant suppliers even stipulate on their packaging that the product is not a medical device nor is it RPE.

Medical Devices come under Directive 93/42/CEE or Regulation EU/2017/745 and like PPE are CE marked.

There is nothing I believe in that I would willing put other people's lives at risk rather than admit I might be wrong. Wearing a face covering won't kill me, not wearing one might kill someone else. As H&S professionals we deal with this sort of situation all the time. We have to avoid letting our pride put other people at risk. We must do what the scientific consensus suggests, whether we agree with that scientific consensus or not.

For example, our learned colleague Chris Packham knows a lot more about hand hygiene than I do. I believed that alcohol gel was bad for hands, and soap and water was the best option. He gave evidence that I was wrong. He explained why I was wrong. He has much more knowledge on the subject, therefore I have changed my stance. My pride is not so great that I would put the skin of my workers at risk, rather than admit that an expert knows more than me.

The mistrust of experts is now endemic across the world. This pandemic has highlighted just how bad this has become. We can blame Trump for this, but to be honest Trump was the logical outcome of this paranoia. He got where he was because people no longer trusted experts and here pandered to that fear. A perfect example of this was during the ebola crisis "witch doctors" told their followers that the healthcare professionals were killing their loved ones in the hospitals. This resulted in the families rushing into the hospitals to rescue their families, causing the outbreak to spread again. The woo-peddlars were worried they would lose face and believers if the experts proved to be right. They risked the lives of their congregation rather than admit they could be wrong. I find it strange that climate change deniers can't see the power that the oil companies have, and instead point to a "green energy hoax".

For too long blame has been put at experts doors, when none was there to be had. We have a media that distorts facts depending on their agenda, to the point that James Murdoch quit his media empire due to the fact they were knowingly posting lies about climate change being a hoax. This has been excerbated by politians taking donations from groups that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Now we have a situation where literally thousands of people are dying every day and people still don't believe there is a virus or that it is exagerated. Some people don't even believe in viruses themselves, arguing they are just the result of the body "detoxing".

There are conspiracies out there that will be true, but these are not the grand schemes that the "truthers" want us to believe. A conspiracy is only as good as those that can keep it a secret. The millions of people that would have to be in on the virus hoax precludes it from being true. Health care workers, virologists, victims, biologists, governments, etc would all have to be in on it.  The ruling elite doesn't make sense when you see how bungled a response many countries have had. Do they ask governments to delibrately make their response look shambolic? For what end?

Strange that when the truthers get on a plane they trust that experts to get them safely to their destination.

Remember, as Carl Sagan said, all claims require evidence, extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence 

Sorry my question was not about the wearing of face covings in terms of “must we” I am happy to wear them with the hope it does something to protect others and as far as I am aware, we have no one in work that have expressed a problem with wearing them. I do also suggest that everyone should stay 2m apart when possible, but there are times they do need to be closer for a short period of time, so have suggested they can be 1m plus face cover away (plastic screens not appropriate for our scenarios)

I believe our duty is to help protect not only employees, but our employers, I’m part of the management team and sit in board meetings etc. Government guidance allows for the distancing down to 1m plus an additional measure (latest update 07/01/2021) and that measure can be a face cover (link below)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing

My question was regarding employees who have to self-Isolate because they have followed this guidance, and worked 1m with face cover for more than 1 minute, and end up on SSP for 2 weeks. Obviously at the same time it could remove a significant amount of the workforce and become an issue for my employer for two weeks. We work in relatively small groups around the country, say 2 dozen in one place, and any qty of people having to isolate means we close that site. We are considered to be providing an essential service.

It just seems that on one hand they are saying it is safe to be 1m plus face cover from someone else, but if you do and they get the virus you have to isolate because it was risky for you to do that.

Just wondered about others views on this.

Chris

Originally Posted by: chris42

My question was regarding employees who have to self-Isolate because they have followed this guidance, and worked 1m with face cover for more than 1 minute, 

Bit of a leap to declare self-isolation was "because" - ever since the concept of Covid secure these forums have concluded that in the general populations (not virology labs or treatment wards) work environment it would be impossible to draw conclusion that someone definitivley caught the virus as a consequence of work.

Good that this thread appears to be reverting (in the main) to discussions about real life problems and real life solutions.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9151577/Germany-passes-two-million-coronavirus-infections.html

Here you go Biker - Angela is upping the required standard for face coverings to "medical"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9149537/Covid-EU-leaders-discuss-plans-week-roll-vaccine-passports.html

Well what a great idea from countries desparate to have holiday maker money.

Why don't they do it the other way - free vaccine with every holiday?

Based on Janet Street Porters latest article the fact so many "non" celebrities are being photographed in Dubai may be down to a concierge service offering "tourist vaccine packages"

BoJo should have closed the airports immediatley - not Monday morning

SLord80 - in your reply to CptBeaky you commented:

On that note, I’d be genuinely interested of the evidence that changed your mind regarding alcohol gel being better than soap and water?

Since CptBeaky had already referred to the expertise of Chris Packham, I suggest you do a search for posts by

chris.packham

(complete with the full stop in the middle)

Chris has set out the evidence base for his rationale on more than one occasion on these Forums. Little point in his repeating himself without good cause.

Chris's explanations do not tackle the subject of any fire risks associated with alcohol based sanitisers. But these appear the domain of a number of urban myths and have been debunked and discussed at various times on these Forums over the last year.

I think it is important to look at the holistic view of the pandemic, and not to confuse government incompetence or developing scientific understanding with any form of conspiracy, or detract from the seriousness of the pandemic.

A statistically high survival rate has often been cited, but this doesn't even begin to tell the full story. Even with this, the number of deaths could run into the millions, and I for one don't consider this acceptable. Added to this is the misery and suffering that many who do survive the virus go through.

I have criticised the track and trace system, which was badly conceived, took a ridiculously long time to develop, and which has some basic flaws in it. This can be put down to incompetence, but doesn't detract from the logic of developing such a system.

A comment has been made about the perceived wideness and vaguary of reporting of deaths. Although I would question some of the massaging of figures, the standard criterion now is for deaths that occur within 28 days of a positive COVID test (not months). There are other reporting criteria, which might be equally as valid, such as those where COVID is mentioned on the death certificate, or the number of excess deaths above what would be expected. There is always the difficulty of separating deaths from the virus from deaths due to existing medical conditions that were exacerbated by the virus, and I'm not sure we have bottomed this one out, or indeed whether we ever will.

The simple quick COVID test, the lateral flow test, is acknowledged by the medical profession to result in false negatives. Carried out repeatedly it can give an indication of infection, but as a one-off test it is far from useful. The full PCR test is far more reliable, and will no doubt improve in this respect as our understanding of the virus improves, but there are variables that can affect its accuracy, such as the time it was carried out in the cycle of infection.

The term 'lockdown' has achieved a relative meaning. We are currently in our third lockdown in the UK, but in practice it is far from being anything that can be meaningfully described as a lockdown. The first lockdown came closest, but restrictions have been watered down for this current one.

The purchase of protective equipment for the pandemic has had elements of dodgy dealing, corruption and incompetence. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, this was almost inevitable given the considerable amounts of money involved. There seems to have been little effective oversight of such matters.

I have already commented on the issues of face coverings and other precautions, so won't repeat myself.

Yes, we have probably been guilty of lumping together people who object to current COVID practice for various reasons, which carries the danger of over-simplfying their objections. I woud only say that whether these objections are for reasons of conspiracy theories or interpretation of research, the end result will be the same in terms of not complying with restrictions, and therefore putting people's lives ar risk. This could be why objectors have been lumped together in people's minds.

No doubt I will get flamed by certain people for these comments, but whilst I may not be a leading expert on such matters, on the other hand I do have a good idea of what I am talking about, but try to keep an open mind as our understanding develops.

Edited by user 18 January 2021 17:47:37(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Biker 1 and Chris

No argument from me on any of this - you know my view that this is a public health matter not H&S but i agree with doing everything we can to reduce the effect of this virus. The world has changed since the Spanish Flu epidemic and i think everyones expectations have changed.

For me i just look at the number of people in hospital and the excess death figures - I belive last year saw more deaths in a year (when adjusted for population age profile etc) than at any time since the 2nd WW.

I can see no other reason at the moment for these deaths other than by the direct effect of Covid or the nock on effect of streatching the NHS, cancelled treatments etc - and i think this effect will continue for some time even with a succesful vaccination programme. I hate to think what the effect would have been in the UK without the measures that have been taken.

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

I hate to think what the effect would have been in the UK without the measures that have been taken.

Just give it year and you will see what lockdown brings.   Next year it will be the healthy who have lost everything paying the price. 

taken from BBC daily news - sorry part of a bigger story so no easy link. 1 way of ensuring people self isolate i soppose - glad i have some people blocked on this site as i can just see thier comments on this.

Over the last couple of weeks, cases of Covid-19 have been rising in the northeast of China, particularly in the city of Shijiazhuang.

And so, on 13 January, work began in the city to construct 3,000 prefabricated rooms to accommodate the growing numbers of people who need to quarantine.

China says that a third of these 18 sq metre rooms – a full 1,008 of them - have now been completed and will soon be in use. The task took 98 hours, just over four days. Twenty per cent of the workers were retired soldiers.

A journalist from state broadcaster CCTV visited the facilities today, and showed viewers inside one of the rooms, which has electricity, air conditioning, showers, and a wireless network.

She added that people at the site have confirmed that the number of rooms is going to be increased in the coming days from 3,000 to 4,200.

Shijiazhuang is one of three cities in northeastern China that is currently deemed high-risk because of growing infection. It has recorded more than 700 symptomatic cases of Covid-19 since the beginning of the year and has a population of around 11 million.

But China has a track record of being able to construct massive facilities in a short space of time. This time last year, construction workers built two hospitals in under two weeks to provide thousands of extra beds for Covid-19 patients in Wuhan, and this helped bring the virus under control.

Originally Posted by: achrn

Depending how you define "the effects of teh virus", I disagree. 

We shouldn't do things that kill or harm more people than the virus does (for example: suspend all other NHS care).

We shouldn't do things that put large number of people into multi-generational poverty (for example: write off two or three years of school-leavers and just resign them to never getting employment).

We shouldn't do things that do societal harms for a lifetime (for example, abolish social interaction for under-6-year-olds - look out for a prison population spike in 12 years time).

If you count them as "effects of the virus", then I agree, but all too often "effects of the virus" is used to mean deaths and virus-specific health consequences only.  The difficulty is identifying what's the least harm.  Is an 85-yr-old dying a year earlier than they would have done more or less harm than a 17-year-old never getting a job and they and their children living entire lifetimes in poverty?

For suspending care, there is not really much choice.

The local hospital now has no "green" wards, they're all "red".

The outlying treatment areas, like endoscopy, have been changed to treat non-covid patients. The theatres have largely been converted into high-dependency units. 1 nurse died last week, from covid, others are ill and some are absent while sheltering. Doctors = 2 dead so far, others ill. My outpatient care is now via video-conferencing and phone. Many admin are working from home. All hospital staff have received their first dose of vaccine.

The hospital car-park, usually full, is now half empty (and they are currently building another 300-car one). Look on the bright side, A&E is being expanded.

I would just like to say "AAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!"

In the same week our supermarkets finally begin to participate with the "face covering" regulations the French join ranks with the Germans recommending disposable professionally manufactured medical devices instead.

Anyone giving odds on when "wee Jimmy" discards her tartan nosebag and brings out yet another instruction?

For an accumulator what odds on the time for CW/JVT/MH to join the chorus?

Some good points. I think the jury is still out on how the virus started and spread, and given the historical secrecy of 'communist' regimes, I am not holding my breath for an answer. One theory was that it was manufactured in a lab in Wuhan, but they have been quick to deny this, although the whistleblowers who could have told us disappeared from sight rather quickly. The first explanation, about wet food markets, although having some credibility, neglected to explain why this hadn't happened before (although it wasn't the first virus outbreak in that part of the world, was it?). I can only imagine how rushed and unsafe the erection of hospitals was. As for lockdown, if you wsant to control people, a totalitarian regime is the way to do it. It stands in stark contrast to the UK (and US) experience of the pandemic, where people were too fond of their own freedom to consistenly comply with restrictions, even for a relatively short time. It is ironic, and I will not phrase this any more than this, that we have continued to buy a lot of equipment to protect against the virus from China. I can quite see how this could give rise to conspiracy theories, although it is worth bearing in mind that we import a lot of stuff from China anyway.