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
The Iron Chicken  
#1 Posted : 04 August 2020 18:48:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Interested to know if anyone is taking an 'alternative' approach to their Covid19 risk assessment*, such as:

Using NHS/PHE/ONS data on hospitalisations and deaths to decide who might be harmed and how, and the actual likelihood of this happening.

Determining control measures on the basis of the above evidence, as opposed to simply implementing government guidelines.

Considering the severity and likelihood of harms that may occur from the government guidelines themselves.

Considering the impact government guidelines are having on the economy, businesses and workers' lives and livelihoods, and how this feeds back into the workplace setting.

* Non-healthcare settings

Kate  
#2 Posted : 05 August 2020 06:28:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

The impact of government guidelines on the economy is surely well outside the scope of any workplace risk assessment.

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 05/08/2020(UTC)
John Murray  
#3 Posted : 05 August 2020 07:49:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

"Using NHS/PHE/ONS data on hospitalisations and deaths to decide who might be harmed and how, and the actual likelihood of this happening"

You jest.

Their 'numbers affected by death' drop to near zero at weekends, because nobody in admin is at work weekends.

I wouldn't believe PHE if they told me daytime started at dawn.

thanks 2 users thanked John Murray for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 05/08/2020(UTC), Roundtuit on 05/08/2020(UTC)
HSSnail  
#4 Posted : 05 August 2020 07:51:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

so 2018/19 show 111 deaths at work - population at working age is 36.3M = 3 deaths per million

Covid deaths in UK (in what 6 months?) 682 per million! (above 7 yaer average for that period)

How do you weight that up against the economy?

Stuck record time - this is not a "health and safety at work" issue this is a public health issue - but we had a duty (both moral and legal) to co-operate with imlimenting the public health measures to save lives.

Edited by user 05 August 2020 07:52:26(UTC)  | Reason: missed a 1 off workplace deaths

thanks 2 users thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 05/08/2020(UTC), Roundtuit on 05/08/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#5 Posted : 05 August 2020 08:30:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

If you were going to do a “proper” risk assessment you would need to establish what the risk of catching Covid was to your workers in your work setting was and then decide on the best controls.

Nobody has been able to do that as we simply don’t know who has the infection and how easily it is spread in real life work situation. We just don’t have that information which means we cannot really measure the severity of the hazard, let alone the risk. The things that we are calling risk assessments are nothing of the sort. They’re checklists which we are using to make sure that we are applying the Public Health controls prescribed by government starting with avoiding coming into work at altogether to working with social distancing and enhanced hygiene measures to the use of face coverings or other barriers. They key point is the SFARP bit and to be honest we are simply following government requirements. Until few weeks ago their advice was to avoid coming into work if possible ie essential work only, which was easy except then the economy took a nose dive and so the guidance changed. Basically it’s now get as many people back to work as practicable. I am not sure that the actual risk of catching Covid fell during that time but the government decide we need to get the country back to work.

As Brian says this is a Public health issue and it is down to the government to tell us what to do but I do wish they wouldn’t hide behind Health and Safety terminology – basically it’s down to don’t overthink; do as you are told.

thanks 5 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
chris.packham on 05/08/2020(UTC), HSSnail on 05/08/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 05/08/2020(UTC), Roundtuit on 05/08/2020(UTC), Kate on 05/08/2020(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#6 Posted : 05 August 2020 10:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: Kate Go to Quoted Post

The impact of government guidelines on the economy is surely well outside the scope of any workplace risk assessment.

Thank you for your reply, Kate.

Ongoing uncertainty regarding national/local lockdowns and the ‘Covid-secure’ workplace guidance limit the ability of many organisations to service customers and support supply chains – especially where localised restrictions are implemented/lifted at extremely short notice.

This loss of control of organisations over their current and future activities must inevitably be impacting on the mental health of their people, resulting in anxiety and stress levels well above those that would be experienced in times of ‘normal’ recession, which is why I suggest these should be considered as part of the Covid-19 risk assessment.

HSSnail  
#7 Posted : 05 August 2020 10:09:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

Originally Posted by: The Iron Chicken Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Kate Go to Quoted Post

The impact of government guidelines on the economy is surely well outside the scope of any workplace risk assessment.

Thank you for your reply, Kate.

This loss of control of organisations over their current and future activities must inevitably be impacting on the mental health of their people, resulting in anxiety and stress levels well above those that would be experienced in times of ‘normal’ recession, which is why I suggest these should be considered as part of the Covid-19 risk assessment.

Mine certainly look at that - dont yours? But im afraid ignoreing govenment guideline because of it is not an option. We have increased our staff support ext instead.

thanks 1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
Kate on 05/08/2020(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#8 Posted : 05 August 2020 10:14:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: John Murray Go to Quoted Post

"Using NHS/PHE/ONS data on hospitalisations and deaths to decide who might be harmed and how, and the actual likelihood of this happening"

You jest.

Their 'numbers affected by death' drop to near zero at weekends, because nobody in admin is at work weekends.

I wouldn't believe PHE if they told me daytime started at dawn.

Thank you for your reply John

There is a lag in reporting deaths at weekends and bank holidays, but the deaths that occur on these days are still counted (which is why there is usually a ‘spike’ after a weekend) in which case a ‘moving average’ graph is perhaps more representative.

The ONS also has graphs showing deaths by actual date of death, which can be found here (scroll down to Section 5 / Figure 6).

peter gotch  
#9 Posted : 05 August 2020 10:37:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Iron Chicken

There is a much broader Q for society to consider.

First HSE tends to highlight numbers of deaths from accidents at work. Less than 200* per typical year in the UK for a long time, but only needs the sort of incident that happened in Lebanon yesterday to change that number dramatically.

* This number EXCLUDES many, many work-related deaths including almost all involving occupational travel.

In contrast it is estimated that about 12,000 per year die prematurely as a result of occupational ill health. So any Covid deaths that can be attributed to the work environment are likely to be a small fraction of that number, particularly outside e.g. healthcare and care home settings.

However, if Covid restrictions are too tight, there will be adverse effects not only on the economy but on general public health.

VERY, very difficult to expect employers to take these broader issues into account in making their assessments of when it is safe for their staff to return to work and with what precautions. 

Almost inevitably their decisions are going to be informed by Government guidance. No 1 duty on any Government is to protect its citizens.

Edited by user 05 August 2020 10:40:17(UTC)  | Reason: Statistical clarification

Kate  
#10 Posted : 05 August 2020 13:19:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Mental health impacts are a routine part of any workplace risk assessment process - there's nothing different about that.

It's in my risk assessment too.  Specifically that people having a tough time working at home due to their individual circumstances and needs should get priority in coming back to the workplace.

Hsquared14  
#11 Posted : 05 August 2020 14:56:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

I think there are a number of separate issues here which I would say are mutually exclusive from each other but which manifest in different aspects of risk.  So my organisation has personal risk assessments for the likes of people in the clinically vulnerable groups, workplace risk assessments for personnel working in shared office accommodation and business impact assessments linked to business continuity plans.  I would be loathe to use a risk assessment based on the economic impact on the company as a justification for putting individual employees at risk!!

The Iron Chicken  
#12 Posted : 05 August 2020 15:49:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Go to Quoted Post

so 2018/19 show 111 deaths at work - population at working age is 36.3M = 3 deaths per million

Covid deaths in UK (in what 6 months?) 682 per million! (above 7 yaer average for that period)

How do you weight that up against the economy?

Stuck record time - this is not a "health and safety at work" issue this is a public health issue - but we had a duty (both moral and legal) to co-operate with imlimenting the public health measures to save lives.

Thank you for your reply Brian

The economy is not ‘money’ per se, but the production and consumption of goods and services – in other words driven by people, both as workers and as consumers – so there is no trade-off between ‘saving lives’ and ‘saving the economy’ as both are interlinked in so many ways.

I agree, Covid-19 is not a “health and safety at work” issue.

My original question still stands though… should businesses be carrying out ‘evidence-based’ risk assessments to determine control measures proportionate to the actual risk?

The Iron Chicken  
#13 Posted : 05 August 2020 16:21:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

If you were going to do a “proper” risk assessment you would need to establish what the risk of catching Covid was to your workers in your work setting was and then decide on the best controls.

Nobody has been able to do that as we simply don’t know who has the infection and how easily it is spread in real life work situation. We just don’t have that information which means we cannot really measure the severity of the hazard, let alone the risk. The things that we are calling risk assessments are nothing of the sort. They’re checklists which we are using to make sure that we are applying the Public Health controls prescribed by government starting with avoiding coming into work at altogether to working with social distancing and enhanced hygiene measures to the use of face coverings or other barriers. They key point is the SFARP bit and to be honest we are simply following government requirements. Until few weeks ago their advice was to avoid coming into work if possible ie essential work only, which was easy except then the economy took a nose dive and so the guidance changed. Basically it’s now get as many people back to work as practicable. I am not sure that the actual risk of catching Covid fell during that time but the government decide we need to get the country back to work.

As Brian says this is a Public health issue and it is down to the government to tell us what to do but I do wish they wouldn’t hide behind Health and Safety terminology – basically it’s down to don’t overthink; do as you are told.

Thank you for your reply A Kurdziel.

The risk assessment should address the risk of harm caused by Covid-19 (the disease) as opposed to the risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 (the virus); transmission of the virus does not in itself cause harm, whereas the resulting disease Covid-19 can have serious consequences.

The ‘harm’ caused by Covid-19 ranges from asymptomatic (low) to death (high).

The ‘likelihood’ of suffering this harm ranges conversely from high (asymptomatic) to low (death).

It was this ‘checklist’ approach to risk assessment that started my train of thought regarding an alternative approach in the first place – there is no assessment of risk involved at all.

There is now plenty of evidence-based information on ‘with Covid-19’ deaths available from the NHS, ONS and PHE on which to base risk assessments, and the data clearly shows that the risk has diminished significantly and is now negligible.

Increased Pillar 2 (PCR swab) testing has resulted in a rise in positive cases, but this has not translated into an increase in hospitalisations and deaths, which remain at a very low level.

You hit the nail on the head when you say we are simply following HMG guidelines – but why are businesses (and indeed many in the general population) not questioning the proportionality of these?

HMG continues to refer to Covid-19 as a ‘serious and imminent threat’, which in health and safety terms (regulation 8 of The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999) means something so dangerous that everyone in the workplace must immediately evacuate to a place of safety – this is simply not that type or level of threat.

chris.packham  
#14 Posted : 05 August 2020 16:29:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Yes. but what is the actual risk? We really have so little hard data on COVID-19 on which to identify the real risk. 

We don't have any real data on how many people have been infected, possibly with few or no symptoms but who could infect others. The data on deaths is highly suspect in that, for example someone dies some weeks after having recovered from the infection, but from a different cause and, it appears, that could be included in the COVID-19 deaths! We have little evidence on the main ways in which infection is passed on. Test and trace only identifies the tested person at that moment in time. A few hours later, in the pub, they inhale the virus and are then positive. They were in your workplace today but not a carrier, but back in there tomorrow with the infection and without you being aware of this. Every member of your workforce will have a different propensity to become infected and respond at differing levels of severity (or none at all). 

Even if you decide you can estimate a level of risk, you then need to manage this. I would like to know how, other than by closing the workplace completely.

thanks 2 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
Roundtuit on 05/08/2020(UTC), Kate on 06/08/2020(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#15 Posted : 06 August 2020 08:23:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14 Go to Quoted Post

I think there are a number of separate issues here which I would say are mutually exclusive from each other but which manifest in different aspects of risk.  So my organisation has personal risk assessments for the likes of people in the clinically vulnerable groups, workplace risk assessments for personnel working in shared office accommodation and business impact assessments linked to business continuity plans.  I would be loathe to use a risk assessment based on the economic impact on the company as a justification for putting individual employees at risk!!

Thank you for your reply HSquared14.

Several of you seem to have picked up on my mention of the economy rather than the other points in my initial post. I agree that the economy should not be the sole basis for a risk assessment, but has an effect that businesses may wish to consider, so let me explain my reasoning:

As I replied to Brian (5 Aug at 1549), the economy is driven by people both as producers and consumers.

The fear and anxiety many in society are currently suffering in their personal lives will inevitably roll over into their work lives; some are hesitant to even go into a shop, or panic when others around them get closer than 2m.

These people are consumers, but many of them are also producers. If consumers are not consuming, producers scale back producing, leaving people without jobs, or with reduced income, which reduces consumer spending further, which has the inevitable knock-on to further reductions in production… you see where I’m going with the vicious circle here.

If businesses use evidence-based risk assessments to demonstrate to employees that in fact Covid-19 has caused no more deaths than a bad flu season, and encourage them to question the HMG and MSM fear-based narratives, a return to normal (pre-Covid) life should start to at least arrest the downward spiral, if not start a positive upward one.

When people are less likely to lose their jobs, incomes and businesses, they are less likely to suffer from stress and are therefore in better mental and physical health – improving their lives in general, including at work.

CptBeaky  
#16 Posted : 06 August 2020 08:46:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: The Iron Chicken Go to Quoted Post

If businesses use evidence-based risk assessments to demonstrate to employees that in fact Covid-19 has caused no more deaths than a bad flu season, and encourage them to question the HMG and MSM fear-based narratives, a return to normal (pre-Covid) life should start to at least arrest the downward spiral, if not start a positive upward one.

I say this with forethought and if I get banned, so be it. You Sir, are a moron. In the UK alone we have had excess deaths of over 60,000. That is on top of the regular deaths we expect. This is much worse than "a bad flu season". even if the mortality rate is 0.1% (which we think it is higher), because their is no natural immunity in the world for this novel disease that equates to 7.5 bn x 0.001 = 7.5 million deaths. Globally flu kills between 290,000 and 650,000 people per year (10,000 in the UK). We are already at 711,000 (46,000 in the UK).

If you want a discussion about "evidence" try looking at some facts first.

A Kurdziel  
#17 Posted : 06 August 2020 08:54:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

“The risk assessment should address the risk of harm caused by Covid-19 (the disease) as opposed to the risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 (the virus); transmission of the virus does not in itself cause harm, whereas the resulting disease Covid-19 can have serious consequences.”

This would be true if we were doing a risk assessment under COSHH using the guidance from ACDP etc as a starting point. But we are not. As said, this is public health matter not H&S, so the issue is NOT protecting staff but preventing the transmission of the virus. Or at least I thing that is the case since all of the legal measures that the government have imposed derive  for the Public Health Act not the Health and Safety at Work Act. It’s very hard to know exactly what the government want and rather than to to second guess them I would suggest we blindly follow whatever they say:

Checklists are in overthinking is out.    

The Iron Chicken  
#18 Posted : 06 August 2020 09:17:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Iron Chicken

There is a much broader Q for society to consider.

First HSE tends to highlight numbers of deaths from accidents at work. Less than 200* per typical year in the UK for a long time, but only needs the sort of incident that happened in Lebanon yesterday to change that number dramatically.

* This number EXCLUDES many, many work-related deaths including almost all involving occupational travel.

In contrast it is estimated that about 12,000 per year die prematurely as a result of occupational ill health. So any Covid deaths that can be attributed to the work environment are likely to be a small fraction of that number, particularly outside e.g. healthcare and care home settings.

However, if Covid restrictions are too tight, there will be adverse effects not only on the economy but on general public health.

VERY, very difficult to expect employers to take these broader issues into account in making their assessments of when it is safe for their staff to return to work and with what precautions. 

Almost inevitably their decisions are going to be informed by Government guidance. No 1 duty on any Government is to protect its citizens.

Thank you for your reply Peter.

The HSE have produced a template Covid-19 RA which does not even meet their own criteria for being ‘suitable and sufficient’ - it includes who may be harmed, but does not say how (i.e. what the harm is), or give a likelihood of this harm occurring.

The risk assessment should address the risk of harm caused by Covid-19 (the disease) as opposed to the risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 (the virus); transmission of the virus does not in itself cause harm, whereas the resulting disease Covid-19 can have serious consequences in some people, but many others will experience minimal or no symptoms.

I have also seen a number of other similar templates produced by such as trade bodies and various other organisations – they all gave the residual risk level to be no lower than ‘medium’, after implementing all control measures within the HMG guidance.

The evidence (ONS / PHE / NHS) clearly shows that the number of deaths from Covid-19 is similar to that of a bad flu season such as 1999/2000.

The current increases in ‘cases’ (positive Pillar 2 PCR swab tests - not ill or symptomatic people) is not translating through to increases in hospitalisations or deaths – yet local lockdowns are being implemented at extremely short notice on the basis of ‘cases’.

Take for example the ongoing lockdown in Leicester. ‘Cases’ were already falling when the City and surrounding areas were returned to lockdown towards the end of June. Local testing capacity was immediately ramped up from 1 site to 8 - after the number of ‘cases’ had already started to fall away. Shortly after, City Council workers were going door-to-door in many areas offering home swab tests to all and sundry and collecting the completed test kits afterwards. It’s obvious that more tests will find more ‘cases’, but the important figure is not mentioned: ‘with Covid’ deaths in Leicester have remained at a negligible level throughout the local lockdown period.

There is enough information in the public domain for an accurate assessment of risk, both current and ongoing. Published data from ONS / PHE / NHS is a good place to start. Yes, there are known inaccuracies due to various over-reporting issues, but investigations can only result in the number of ‘Covid’ deaths being the same or lower as those currently available.

There are also many non-SAGE experts in the fields of immunology, virology, infectious diseases, etc. who are publicly challenging the HMG narrative, but are receiving very little, if any, exposure in the MSM.

I’ll post some links in due course for those who may be interested in taking a look for themselves.

CptBeaky  
#19 Posted : 06 August 2020 10:03:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

1999-2000 there were 48,000 excesss WINTER deaths in the UK, of which 22,000 were flu related. The COVID hit over spring, which historically has lower rates of death than the winter. Even by this measure this is twice as bad as the worst flu season for around 100 years, and it isn't nearly over yet.

To tackle a few of your other points, higher testing does increase the number of cases found. This is not what lockdowns are based on though. It is based on the number of positive tests for each test carried out. You sound like Trump, he too does not understand testing.

The death rate no increasing as rapidly as before as a lot more due to the demograph of those infected. Younger people are now disproportionally represented in positive cases (those below 25) as you know, these have a much lower rate of complications.

It is not our place to look after the economy, or even judge the socio-economic impacts of our safety measures. It is our jon to protect those that rely on us in places of work.

You obviously have an agenda, that is not at all related to H&S at work. The message you are preaching is dangerous, and I do not feel the a health and safety forum is the right place to air it.

thanks 2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
HSSnail on 06/08/2020(UTC), Kara Murphy on 11/08/2020(UTC)
Kate  
#20 Posted : 06 August 2020 11:46:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

If it makes you any happier, my risk assessment does state that the hazard effect is an infection that can result in anything from no symptoms to severe illness.

But I think everyone in the world already knows that this is how it is.

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
HSSnail on 06/08/2020(UTC)
HSSnail  
#21 Posted : 06 August 2020 11:47:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

Thanks Cpt - i was trying to think of a polite way of saying that!

Iron chicken.

(quote)

I have also seen a number of other similar templates produced by such as trade bodies and various other organisations – they all gave the residual risk level to be no lower than ‘medium’, after implementing all control measures within the HMG guidance

You would be shocked as i dont have any scoreing or residual risk on any of my risk assessments! But they all have every measure that we belive is "Resonably Practicable" to prevent the Hazard hurting some one. And as Cpt has said - we have no idea what the residual risk is - we dont even realy know why some people die and some dont!

I too think you are just looking for an excuse to not follow the guidance - well feel free but good luck explaing that to the courts when the HSE/LA call.

We have been given guidance to try and limit this PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE and I belive we Have a Moral and Legal duty to impliment that guidance as best as we are able, while trying to help our collegues with issue in mental health etc at the same time.

Edited by user 06 August 2020 11:47:58(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 07/08/2020(UTC)
John Murray  
#22 Posted : 06 August 2020 12:52:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

We know many things about the virus and its effects by now.

Risk of serious complications is related to health and age. Those with poor health and of more than 40 years, or both, have a poorer outcome.

Not coincidentally, those of advanced years have a poor immune response to this virus. As the years increase, the thymus gland decreases (in size and effect) and the immune system is unable to combat the virus. The Sars-cov-2 virus has the ability to render the inate immune response ineffective, leaving the adaptive immune system to carry-the-can. With no previous infection by the virus, that adaptive system is unable to be of much use.

In some people excessive levels of cytokines are released which then activate more immune cells, resulting in hyperinflammation, which can result in that person ceasing to be alive.

The virus doesn't kill anyone, the bodies own failings do that.

Then there is the problem of those who have had the virus, and recovered, whose antibody count (to that virus) rapidly decreases. With young[er] people the body will have produced memory T and B cells, so probably those can be ramped-up with another virus attack. Not so those with more years under their belts, whose immune system will have a dramatically decreased ability to produce those cells.

Does that help?

No!

However, KFC have apparently decided that in the interest of staff protection, nobody will be allowed into their premises with no face covering. Irrespective of the advice that some are unable to wear them. McD wouldn't allow me in this morning without a face covering (fortunately, I had some FFP3 facemasks in the car (at the table i could take it off).

thanks 1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
The Iron Chicken on 06/08/2020(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#23 Posted : 06 August 2020 16:11:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post

Yes. but what is the actual risk? We really have so little hard data on COVID-19 on which to identify the real risk. 

We don't have any real data on how many people have been infected, possibly with few or no symptoms but who could infect others. The data on deaths is highly suspect in that, for example someone dies some weeks after having recovered from the infection, but from a different cause and, it appears, that could be included in the COVID-19 deaths! We have little evidence on the main ways in which infection is passed on. Test and trace only identifies the tested person at that moment in time. A few hours later, in the pub, they inhale the virus and are then positive. They were in your workplace today but not a carrier, but back in there tomorrow with the infection and without you being aware of this. Every member of your workforce will have a different propensity to become infected and respond at differing levels of severity (or none at all). 

Even if you decide you can estimate a level of risk, you then need to manage this. I would like to know how, other than by closing the workplace completely.

Thank you for your reply Chris.

As you say, the data on deaths is highly suspect - but as you also note, the number of Covid-19 deaths are more likely to have been over-counted than undercounted.

Death data is the most consistent metric available, so that is the evidence on which the actual likelihood of harm can be based – cumulative deaths for England & Wales for 2019/2020 are currently running at 14,523 less than those for the 1999/2000 flu season (InProportion2 has a lot of excellent information and graphs – all kept up-to-date and based on ONS data – and also links to interesting articles).

There is enough data available from mass testing to indicate that an increase in ‘cases’ does not result in a corresponding increase in deaths – take Leicester for example: between mid-May and the end of June, local testing capacity was ramped up from 1 site to 8, and City Council workers were going door-to-door offering swab tests to all and sundry, symptomatic or not; ‘with Covid-19’ deaths in Leicester have remained at a negligible level throughout.

ONS and NHS statistics show which sectors of the population are most at risk – the elderly and those with underlying health conditions.

31.1% of Covid-19 deaths occurred in care home/hospice settings.

Between 28 Dec and 24 Jul 2020 in England and Wales (ONS Section 3 Figure 3): deaths of working age persons registered ‘with Covid-19’ = 5,479 = about 1 in 6753 people = 0.015%

Compare this with 2018 (ONS link here): working age deaths in total for all of 2018 = 79,220 = about 1 in 467 people = 0.21%

Mid-2018 (ONS Sec 6 Fig 4) and mid-2019 (ONS Section 6 Figure 4) estimated working age (16 to 64 years) population in E&W = 37M.

‘With Covid-19’ deaths are comparable to those in a bad flu season and rising ‘cases’ are not causing rising deaths, so why would we implement completely disproportionate measures to control a risk that is negligible?

stevedm  
#24 Posted : 06 August 2020 17:03:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

If you were going to do a “proper” risk assessment you would need to establish what the risk of catching Covid was to your workers in your work setting was and then decide on the best controls.

Nobody has been able to do that as we simply don’t know who has the infection and how easily it is spread in real life work situation. We just don’t have that information which means we cannot really measure the severity of the hazard, let alone the risk. The things that we are calling risk assessments are nothing of the sort. They’re checklists which we are using to make sure that we are applying the Public Health controls prescribed by government starting with avoiding coming into work at altogether to working with social distancing and enhanced hygiene measures to the use of face coverings or other barriers. They key point is the SFARP bit and to be honest we are simply following government requirements. Until few weeks ago their advice was to avoid coming into work if possible ie essential work only, which was easy except then the economy took a nose dive and so the guidance changed. Basically it’s now get as many people back to work as practicable. I am not sure that the actual risk of catching Covid fell during that time but the government decide we need to get the country back to work.

As Brian says this is a Public health issue and it is down to the government to tell us what to do but I do wish they wouldn’t hide behind Health and Safety terminology – basically it’s down to don’t overthink; do as you are told.

Mostly agree, we have been reviewing clients OH and COVID aging staff which then gives them workplace or personal control measures...based on their clinical vulnerability to COVDI 19 ...which features in your evidence based RA...we've done it a few times now and it seems to work fairly well...which has also meant changing teams around so that low vulnerable people are grouped for higher potentially exposed contact tasks...so in essance it can be done and even with todays COVID RAs that are floating arpund you need a little more than 'we have told them to wash thier hands'... :)

The Iron Chicken  
#25 Posted : 06 August 2020 18:07:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

“The risk assessment should address the risk of harm caused by Covid-19 (the disease) as opposed to the risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 (the virus); transmission of the virus does not in itself cause harm, whereas the resulting disease Covid-19 can have serious consequences.”

This would be true if we were doing a risk assessment under COSHH using the guidance from ACDP etc as a starting point. But we are not. As said, this is public health matter not H&S, so the issue is NOT protecting staff but preventing the transmission of the virus. Or at least I thing that is the case since all of the legal measures that the government have imposed derive  for the Public Health Act not the Health and Safety at Work Act. It’s very hard to know exactly what the government want and rather than to to second guess them I would suggest we blindly follow whatever they say:

Checklists are in overthinking is out.    

Thank you for your follow-up A Kurdziel.

Interestingly, there seems to be no mention of the HSE in the ‘Authorities administering Act’ section of the PH Act 1984!

HMG seems to be giving out so many mixed messages now that it's hard to keep abreast of what we are "allowed" to do - even more so in those parts of the country subject to local lockdown.

HMG guidance: Covid-19 risk assessment; cleaning, handwashing and hygiene procedures; working from home; 2m social distancing (language used - ‘should’ and ‘where possible’).

HSE Working safely during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: guidance

So the above is just guidance, right?

Oh, wait. Business owners must implement this ‘guidance’, under threat of enforcement action by the HSE, EHOs and Police in the event of non-compliance.

So it’s not guidance after all.

Why are measures needed to prevent transmission of this virus when none have been required for more virulent viruses in the past?

I think HMG are quite happy that many people are blindly following whatever they say…

The Iron Chicken  
#26 Posted : 06 August 2020 19:18:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

CptBeaky wrote:

I say this with forethought and if I get banned, so be it. You Sir, are a moron. In the UK alone we have had excess deaths of over 60,000. That is on top of the regular deaths we expect. This is much worse than "a bad flu season". even if the mortality rate is 0.1% (which we think it is higher), because their is no natural immunity in the world for this novel disease that equates to 7.5 bn x 0.001 = 7.5 million deaths. Globally flu kills between 290,000 and 650,000 people per year (10,000 in the UK). We are already at 711,000 (46,000 in the UK).

If you want a discussion about "evidence" try looking at some facts first.

CptBeaky, thank you for your reply.

I’ve never been called a moron before, so thank you for a new experience in my otherwise humdrum sort of day.

I must however apprise you of the fact that I have not been granted a knighthood by Her Maj the Q, so the title ‘Sir’ is at present inaccurate. Although I live in hope that one day I may get the opportunity to ‘take the knee’.

“It’s a new virus and we don’t know anything about it”

Coronaviruses have been in circulation for centuries, causing various illnesses from the common cold to the more recent MERS and SARS outbreaks.

The identified gene sequence of SARS-CoV-2 shows it’s related to the 2002 SARS virus SARS-CoV - note the similar name that the 2019 version has been given.

So… is this virus really ‘new’?

“There is no immunity against it”

Most people have had previous exposure to other illnesses caused by various coronaviruses (such as the common cold) and developed immunity to these.

Why should SARS-CoV-2 be different?

I would suggest you read this article which is a translation of the original published in the Swiss magazine Weltwoche (World Week) on 10 June 2020 by Beda M Stadler, the former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern.

Another good source of information with graphical representations of ONS data can be found at InProportion2.

With respect, 711,000 is nowhere near 7.5 million – have you been using the Professor Ferguson modelling method here?

You know, the one that was proven time after time to be wildly inaccurate in predicting:

2002 BSE – between 50 and 50,000 deaths (actually 177 in the UK)

2005 Bird Flu – 200 million deaths worldwide (actually 282 between 2003 and 2009)

2009 Swine Flu – 65,000 UK deaths (actually 457)

Edited by user 06 August 2020 19:21:30(UTC)  | Reason: Added attribution for original quote

The Iron Chicken  
#27 Posted : 06 August 2020 20:07:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

1999-2000 there were 48,000 excesss WINTER deaths in the UK, of which 22,000 were flu related. The COVID hit over spring, which historically has lower rates of death than the winter. Even by this measure this is twice as bad as the worst flu season for around 100 years, and it isn't nearly over yet.

To tackle a few of your other points, higher testing does increase the number of cases found. This is not what lockdowns are based on though. It is based on the number of positive tests for each test carried out. You sound like Trump, he too does not understand testing.

The death rate no increasing as rapidly as before as a lot more due to the demograph of those infected. Younger people are now disproportionally represented in positive cases (those below 25) as you know, these have a much lower rate of complications.

It is not our place to look after the economy, or even judge the socio-economic impacts of our safety measures. It is our jon to protect those that rely on us in places of work.

You obviously have an agenda, that is not at all related to H&S at work. The message you are preaching is dangerous, and I do not feel the a health and safety forum is the right place to air it.

CptBeaky, thank you for the further character assassination attempts.

1957/1958 Asian Flu – 33,000 UK deaths

1968/1969 Hong Kong Flu – 80,000 UK deaths

The local lockdown in Leicester was based on the number of ‘cases’ per 100K population, not the number of positive tests as a percentage of the total number of tests.

This was deemed to be high when compared with the number of cases per 100K population in other areas of the country.

Leicester at the point of lockdown had 8 testing stations plus a (still ongoing) door-to-door swab test campaign, so with much more testing here than elsewhere in the UK inevitably more cases were found per 100K population.

Therefore, the Leicester Local Lockdown was based on misrepresented data.

The death rate is not increasing at all; the number of UK Covid-19 deaths per week continues to fall, as shown by the ONS stats for the last few weeks – 606, 532, 366, 295, 217.

I have a right to voice my opinion. Opinions are not right or wrong. You may not agree with my opinion, but that does not mean I am wrong and you are right.

chris42  
#28 Posted : 06 August 2020 20:07:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

ooo did someone drop a Clanger :0)

Its almost Friday

thanks 1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
HSSnail on 07/08/2020(UTC)
HSSnail  
#29 Posted : 07 August 2020 07:54:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

Chris i have been bying to say that!

i dont know what Iron Chickens agenda is here - i still think he or she is just trying to make trouble and find a reason to stop people following the guidance.

Dont know if everyone else new (I only found out this week) but all the member voluntears who used to moderate this forum either resigned or were removed over 12 months ago - IOSH clearly have no interest in whats posted anymore.

Iron Chicken.

I would not call you a moron - your post are elequent and reasoned argument - but unfortunatly they are based on purly your ideas of what should be included and give no indicatiuon of what you are trying to achieve. I have a number of family members who are shielding, i have 2 family members and a very close friend who have had Covid who thankfully survived - i will continue to impliment the guidance to try and limit the impact on both the economy and individuals in this time of a public health crisis.

And on that note i will make no further comment on this post - no point when someone will argue black is white reguardless of the number of other people who digagree - i wish i was perfect!

Edited by user 07 August 2020 07:55:29(UTC)  | Reason: No spell check Still i see. Can i claim discrimination againt us dislexic members?

A Kurdziel  
#30 Posted : 07 August 2020 07:59:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

"Interestingly, there seems to be no mention of the HSE in the ‘Authorities administering Act’ section of the PH Act 1984!"

Yes do live in interesting times
CptBeaky  
#31 Posted : 07 August 2020 08:28:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

"The identified gene sequence of SARS-CoV-2 shows it’s related to the 2002 SARS virus SARS-CoV - note the similar name that the 2019 version has been given. So… is this virus really ‘new’?"

YES, it may be a corona virus, but it is a new strain, hence the term "novel". I take this from WHO. They are the experts, I have no reason to doubt them. Just because it is related to SARS does not mean it is the same as SARS. Lions are not tigers.

You seem to link me to an article, not a peer reviewed paper. I prefer to read peer reviewed papers, so that I am protected against biases. The article is published on medium.com which (acording to the media bias site) has the following rating

"Overall, we rate Medium Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of sourcing and some articles that promote conspiracy theories and pseudoscience."

The article linked was published june 10th, and states the virus is in decline, well given the numbers now, that seems a little off... It even includes the line "The virus is gone for now. It will probably come back in winter, but it won’t be a second wave, but just a cold.". Death rates have been steadily rising (worldwide) since June. He says "If we observe a significant rise in infections in 14 days [after the Swiss relaxed the lockdown], we’d at least know that one of the measures was useful." By June 20th the numbers in Switzerland started going up again....

The graphs (in your second link) don't take into account that in previous pandemics there were no controls. You are comparing a flu with no controls, with a virus that shut down the world, and then ask why there hasn't been as many infections. Then you recommend re-opening the economy, with no controls as the safest thing to do.

Do we have immunity to it?

All the peer reviewed evidence I have seen suggests that previous exposure to corona viruses, such as the common cold, my reduce symptoms in some people, but nobody has a natural immunity to it, in the same way nobody has a natural immunity to the common cold. Given that the complications with COVID-19 are so much worse than the common cold, or influenza (again read the WHO site for more info) it can be extremely dangerous.

My calculations were based on your assumption that this is no worse than a bad flu season, combined with your belief that lockdown controls are not necessary, and the scientific consensus of the lack of  immunity. This is of course a worse case scenerio (assuming the 0.1% death rate, some think it may be as high as 0.3%), but your vision of safer seems to point that way. Basically you seem to be taking a high risk approach. Even by your own admission there is a lot we don't know about this virus. I prefer to err on the side of caution and be proved wrong, you seem to want to gamble with people's lives.

You are pursuing a dangerous agenda, based on biased "facts". I could spend an entire ripping that second link apart, especially when it completely fails to understand why Japan has less cases and passes it off as it being because they didn't lock down, rather than look at the fact they all started wearing masks straight away, they have previous experience with SARS and they showed greater disipline in following the rules. It asks why the strictest lockdowns only happen in places with the most cases, eluding to them not working, rather than being the cause of the lockdown. It questions wether lifting lockdown rules change the infection rate at all, when the shambles happening in the USA at the moment show that lifting restrictions too early causes people to die. It has a stringency graph that it completely mis-represents (eluding to a negative correlation by highlighting select countries, rather than looking at the trend in the whole graph). I can continue if you like.

Why not just come out and reveal your reasons for wanting the economy to open? It certainly has nothing to do with H&S at work.

CptBeaky  
#32 Posted : 07 August 2020 09:11:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

[/quote=The Iron Chicken;801469]

The local lockdown in Leicester was based on the number of ‘cases’ per 100K population, not the number of positive tests as a percentage of the total number of tests.

This was deemed to be high when compared with the number of cases per 100K population in other areas of the country.

[/quote=The Iron Chicken]

You are using the mainstream media as your facts if you believe this. Whilst people per 100,000 was talked about, and part of the warning signs, it was the fact that areas were testing at 15% positive test rates that set the alarm bells ringing. It is now back down to around 4.8%.

I live in the surrounding area, I followed this closely.

John Murray  
#33 Posted : 07 August 2020 09:56:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Seems we have the return-to-work-even-if-you-die troll on the site. Loads of them about now.

I have just finished anal-ising the comments section on a leading economics/right-wing website. Many of the comments are seen on various other sites, twitter for one, and seem to point to a troll-factory with an agenda.

Sadly, they are spreading quite fast.

There was an article in The Lancet which they may like to troll to death: https://www.thelancet.co...nf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30484-9/fulltext

As for the comments about Ferguson, he said that if action was not taken to prevent transmission, the number of deaths may exceed 500,000. Action was taken, and *only* 46,000+ poor souls died.

The long-term effects after recovering from an infection of Sars-CoV-2 will blight the lives of many.

thanks 2 users thanked John Murray for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 07/08/2020(UTC), stevedm on 07/08/2020(UTC)
John Murray  
#34 Posted : 07 August 2020 10:01:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Try this URL, this site has problems with long URLs'

https://tinyurl.com/y9z5ye4t

thanks 1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 07/08/2020(UTC)
Kate  
#35 Posted : 07 August 2020 10:20:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Assessments of the impact on the economy have been and are being done - by economists.

Assessments of the impact on individual businesses have been and are being done - by business leaders and owners.

Assessments of the likely development of the outbreak have been and are being done - by epidemiologists.

Being none of the above, I am in no position to make any such assessments.

What is within my abilities as a health and safety adviser is to interpret workplace guidance and propose proportionate control measures that are suited to the organisation I work for.  So that's what I'm doing.

As for challenging the guidance and whether it strikes the right balance, that is a political matter.  I suggest writing to your MP with objections to it.

thanks 2 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 07/08/2020(UTC), Roundtuit on 07/08/2020(UTC)
The Iron Chicken  
#36 Posted : 07 August 2020 17:28:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
The Iron Chicken

FOR THE RECORD

I am not a troll.

I have no agenda.

I am a qualified engineer and have been working as an H&S Professional for 23 years.

I have also been a member of IOSH throughout those 23 years.

I do not use social media platforms and I have never posted on this forum before.

I have an open and enquiring mind and use it to research facts and figures to support the decisions I make; I also use it to challenge the views of others and encourage discussion, through which I learn and develop in both a professional and a personal capacity.

I asked a simple question, to which some of you responded with courtesy, others not so much.

In general, your responses were more or less as I was expecting, which in itself is an answer to my question, so thank you for your time and thoughts.

Feel assured I will not be posting again on this thread, or indeed on this forum.

Enjoy your weekend all.

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.