Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
spud  
#1 Posted : 25 March 2020 14:30:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
spud

Hi Learned friends

Not sure if this has been raised yet if so please point me in right direction. Basically we have workers classed as "Key" workers on "Essential" works who travel to work in same VAN obviously they are under the 2m whats everyones opinion on this ? I will give mine after but interested what people think ?

​​​​​​​Alan

thanks 1 user thanked spud for this useful post.
Kim Hedges on 28/03/2020(UTC)
GeeTee  
#2 Posted : 25 March 2020 14:35:02(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
GeeTee

By allowing then to travel in the same van they'll be worse off than on public transport, if you can't maintain social distancing then you should have a second vehicle or not travel in the van.

thanks 1 user thanked GeeTee for this useful post.
Kim Hedges on 28/03/2020(UTC)
spud  
#3 Posted : 25 March 2020 14:41:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
spud

My Sentiments, but unfortunately this is man that cannot drive, I am sure we are not the only company in uk with this issue. You could argue a common sense approach maybe using an FFP3 mask while travelling to work etc in vehicle but it seems to be all or nothing these days but its the times we live in currently.

Thanks for input thus far

Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 25 March 2020 15:09:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: GeeTee Go to Quoted Post
By allowing then to travel in the same van they'll be worse off than on public transport

Absolute hornswaggle - public because the transport is accessible to all, works van because access is limited to employees

Can we please stop trying to find reasons as to why not and apply a little pragmatism.

Fire crew - all in the same cab, Ambulance crew - both in the same cab, Police - where not solo will be two or more up in a vehicle

As to putting people in masks - PHE are still minded to advise against this there being no benefit

Why does everything have to descend to wrapping people up in (what is currently non-existent) PPE?

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
spud on 25/03/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 26/03/2020(UTC)
GeeTee  
#5 Posted : 25 March 2020 15:19:45(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
GeeTee

It was suggestion not an absolute you must, there are a lot of people confused over the social distancing and whether or not they can be the same sapce. If they can't separate the best they can do is to protect themsleves and from spreading it further.

It's not wrapping anyone in cotton wool I thought suggestions were welcome and not to finger wagged for trying to help.

If people are genuiely trying to get to work the best we can do is help each other, you could have just come out with your views.

thanks 1 user thanked GeeTee for this useful post.
spud on 25/03/2020(UTC)
RVThompson  
#6 Posted : 25 March 2020 15:29:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
RVThompson

WHO only advise wearing masks:

  • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection.
  • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
  • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
  • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

In these difficult times, some preferred options will not be available or even practical. We either shut up shop completely or we do our best.

thanks 3 users thanked RVThompson for this useful post.
Kate on 25/03/2020(UTC), spud on 25/03/2020(UTC), Kim Hedges on 28/03/2020(UTC)
RVThompson  
#7 Posted : 25 March 2020 15:32:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
RVThompson

...p.s. social distancing will not be possible for every occasion, e.g. going to the toilet?

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 25 March 2020 15:39:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

My view is that they would be better off in a works van because:

1) it is not accessible to the general public so less bodies in the seats

2) the cleaning of the interior is under the control of the employer not reliant upon some depot based activity

3) people "at work" are supposed to be non-symptomatic so not coughing and sneezing everywhere

Invert the above to identify why public transport will make them worse off.

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Kate on 25/03/2020(UTC), spud on 25/03/2020(UTC), Swygart25604 on 26/03/2020(UTC), Kim Hedges on 28/03/2020(UTC)
Messey  
#9 Posted : 25 March 2020 16:12:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

I suppose the bigger question is do they NEED to be travelling in the first place?

ie. are they key workers or essential in any way?

So many are still at work who really should not be

thanks 1 user thanked Messey for this useful post.
spud on 25/03/2020(UTC)
spud  
#10 Posted : 25 March 2020 16:17:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
spud

Thank you one and all for some measured great replies much along the lines I was thinking arent we supposed to be reducing to things as the LOWEST practicable level hence if both people in van dont have symptoms sure the chances of catcjhing it from each other is very small at best.

Regarding the mask point again i agree as I saw that many times masks do not protect BUT heard today all the doctors and nurses are suing FFP3 which all our guys use anyway and have face fit tests so was only saying this as a practiciable measure travelling to work for 1 hour.

At the end of the day chaps we are all trying our best inthese uncertain timmes but MUST keep realism and perspective in all we do.

Alan

spud  
#11 Posted : 25 March 2020 16:23:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
spud

Originally Posted by: Messey Go to Quoted Post

I suppose the bigger question is do they NEED to be travelling in the first place?

ie. are they key workers or essential in any way?

So many are still at work who really should not be

As said in first post yes they are essential and key workers at a hospital with a letter from directors telling them they are eseential workers 

thanks 1 user thanked spud for this useful post.
Messey on 25/03/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#12 Posted : 25 March 2020 17:52:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Spud, the test is to what is "reasonably practicable" NOT what is "practicable".

Not nit picking - too many commentators are trying to promote a reaction that is to do what is "practicable", ie. technically feasible.

Part of the problem of the mixed messages that are so prevalent at this time.

spud  
#13 Posted : 26 March 2020 18:25:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
spud

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Spud, the test is to what is "reasonably practicable" NOT what is "practicable".

Not nit picking - too many commentators are trying to promote a reaction that is to do what is "practicable", ie. technically feasible.

Part of the problem of the mixed messages that are so prevalent at this time.

Hi Peter, when I said lowest practicable level i meant "Reasonably Practicable" ie Cost time and Effort its what we are all bred on and one of first things we learn lol

peter gotch  
#14 Posted : 28 March 2020 11:36:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Spud, it might be what you and I have been brought up on, but the messages circling are mostly far from representative of a proportionate response.

Starting with "Stay at home except when it's Absolutely Necessary". Followed by "It's fine for Construction to continue" (without even any get out clause to limit that to construction projects which will clearly aid the national response to Covid - which might include a new hospital or even an extension to a toilet paper factory).

The UK, devolved and other Governments just refuse to admit that they are actually juggling economic and health priorities - by introducing limited restrictions the curve will be "flattened", but then as soon as restrictions are eased somewhat, we should expect numbers to increase again, with two or more peaks. So as soon as anyone suggests that e.g. life can return to normal by Easter or that we will "beat this" in 12 weeks, you should realise that they are telling untruths.

If we did actually ALL stay at home unless absolutely necessary, all that would happen is that the upsurge in cases would slow and then surge again later.

So the pragmatic approach is to plan for a series of peaks that the health services can just about cope with (albeit under enormous strain). If Government admitted this, the pronouncements would be more likely to sound credible.

Kim Hedges  
#15 Posted : 28 March 2020 20:34:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kim Hedges

Good original posting, good comments Round to it. 

My observation is that this is the reason Taxis have been stopped from working. 

On a personal note, I wonder how many will think twice and simply stay at home, when the thousands of coffins start being shuttled to the temporary mortuaries by convoys of army trucks?  It's a bit like the phoney war at the moment of 1939, yes 1019 people have died, but it's still not that personal, in fact it's quite normal, people die every week from all sorts of things, maybe when people start becoming more scared, will the personal risk assements start kicking in and people say, 'I'm as mad as hell and i'm not going to take it anymore', and STAY AT HOME.   

Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 28 March 2020 20:58:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Stay at home merely delays the inevitable. We can't stay at home forever, we can't wear masks forever, we can't rebuild everything to make isolation paths and pods. We are all going to be exposed the only question is when and how badly.
thanks 1 user thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 30/03/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#17 Posted : 29 March 2020 15:09:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

The last bit of Roundtuit's posting can be translated as working out a strategy to extend the period during which enough of the population get the disease for "herd immunity" to emerge.

The challenge is making sure that the strategy is such that the NHS etc can just about cope with each of the peaks.

It's also about balancing economic and health issues.

This morning Michael Gove came up with the classical comment "how do you put a value on life?"

Well, it's something that is done routinely through the application of the Value for Preventing a Fatality (VPF) or various severities of Injury (VPIs) when making investment decisions in the public sector, or a variant QALY, quality adjusted life year in the healthcare sector.

The current value of VPF is approx £2m. This is NOT an official secret. You can find it on the Department for Transport website.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 30/03/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#18 Posted : 30 March 2020 09:14:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

What has not been made clear and I believe that this on the BBC website, is that the model for deaths from the virus (SARS-CoV-2) does not calculate the additional deaths ie as the majority of people who have died in the outbreak already have some underlying condition, a significant number, perhaps the majority, would have died from some respiratory infection in the coming months anyway.

achrn  
#19 Posted : 31 March 2020 09:39:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

What has not been made clear and I believe that this on the BBC website, is that the model for deaths from the virus (SARS-CoV-2) does not calculate the additional deaths ie as the majority of people who have died in the outbreak already have some underlying condition, a significant number, perhaps the majority, would have died from some respiratory infection in the coming months anyway.

My understanding is that at one stage the government were using the seasonal flu additional deaths (i.e. after subtracting the 'would have died anyway' figures) alongside the C19 total deaths (i.e. not subtracting the equivalent from the C19 figures) in their statements.

But you didn't expect politicans to start talking scientific sense just because of a global pandemic, did you?

I'm in two minds about this - if misleading 95% of the population saves a few hundred thousand deaths, is that such a problem?

aud  
#20 Posted : 02 April 2020 12:47:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
aud

I follow David Speigelhalter articles and items when I can. He does this sort of think quite well, and has commended this item on BBC online: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

For those interested in the deep detail try: https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-risk-does-covid-represent-4539118e1196

Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.