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

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
MrBrightside  
#1 Posted : 02 November 2020 12:09:52(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MrBrightside

Hi All,

As we are going into another lockdown, what are everyones thoughts in terms of working from home again. is the expectation that if you can work from home again you should (like the first lockdown) or is it at the companies discretion this time around?

Thoughts. Just looking to see how people are interpreting this one

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 02 November 2020 12:37:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The guidance/advice surrounding travel is to avoid this as much as possible.

Living in an English Tier 3 we were already under "work form home where possible".

If this comes in part of the possible exit strategy is use of the tiers

https://www.gov.uk/find-coronavirus-local-restrictions

HM Gov post code checker for restrictions

CAPTCHA rang

Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 02 November 2020 12:37:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The guidance/advice surrounding travel is to avoid this as much as possible.

Living in an English Tier 3 we were already under "work form home where possible".

If this comes in part of the possible exit strategy is use of the tiers

https://www.gov.uk/find-coronavirus-local-restrictions

HM Gov post code checker for restrictions

CAPTCHA rang

Brian Hagyard  
#4 Posted : 02 November 2020 12:38:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Obvioulsy still waiting for the formal guidance to be published so only looking at news at the moment - Im reading it that if you can work from home you should (just like first lockdown) - but i will be looking at peoples mental health as well - so as long as our sites are covid secure if people want to come in they can.

Also will be encourageing Clinicaly Vulnerable (Not just extreamly Clinicaly Vulnerable) to work from home. This could all change when the guidance is published!

CptBeaky  
#5 Posted : 02 November 2020 12:39:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

I was under the impression that the speech stated that "if you can work from home, then you must", however those that cannot work from home, such as "in construction and manufacturing" must still go to work.

Therefore, we are using the same policy as the first lockdown. Being as this is manufacturing, this means we stay open, with a few of the sales staff working from home. Last time we were forced to close once our suppliers started to close, this time they are staying open, therefore we will stay open.

Brian Hagyard  
#6 Posted : 02 November 2020 13:35:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Only the press release so far not the guidance,

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-announces-new-national-restrictions

I think we are both right Cpt,

From Thursday 5 November, everyone must stay at home, and may leave only for a limited set of reasons. These include:

For work, if you cannot work from home;

So i still think a persons well being must be taken into account - after the first lock down some of my collegues were starting to suffer from ioslation even with zoom calls etc.

However your right it goes on to say,

People should work from home wherever possible. Workplaces should stay open where people cannot work from home – for example, in the construction or manufacturing sectors.

So who know! I was reading the other day that suicide rates are up this year as well - unfortuantly we dont appear to have a whole health approach at the moment.

But as i say the official guidance could say anthing .

I was wronge about clinicaly vulnerable the press relaese states

Those who are clinically extremely vulnerable should not only minimise their contacts with others, but also not go to work if they are unable to work from home.

thanks 1 user thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 03/11/2020(UTC)
Holliday42333  
#7 Posted : 02 November 2020 13:36:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

The edict to work from home if possible came back with the Tier policy.  In all three of the previous Tiers the instruction was to work from home if possible.

The Medium Tier currently states "To help contain the virus, office workers who can work effectively from home should do so over the winter. Where an employer, in consultation with their employee, judges an employee can carry out their normal duties from home they should do so."

That it has been repeated as part of the Lockdown annoucement doesn't in fact mean it is only back from Thursday.

I know of one business visited by HSE a couple of weeks ago and all office staff were asked which elements of their job couldn't be done from home if the technology had been provided. The visit had been going well until then.

I agree that the 'if possible' should also have an assessment of mental health included not just technology.

Edited by user 02 November 2020 13:40:04(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

A Kurdziel  
#8 Posted : 02 November 2020 13:36:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Our campus will remain open for those people who have to come on site.  For example, you can’t teach someone to do an eye examination online: they have to do it with real people. Most of our people are still working mainly from home and most of our teaching is still online. That is something we set up during the first lockdown, so I’ll still be coming into work, some of the time anyway.

chris42  
#9 Posted : 02 November 2020 13:39:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Yes, I thought the message was work from home if you can. However, that makes it sound as if it is all down to the employee. I suspect the employer is the one that makes the decision the majority of the time and I feel some employers don’t trust their employees so want them in work. Of course, if they feel they are “covid secure” then I guess not a problem other than putting load on public transport.

Chris

MrBrightside  
#10 Posted : 02 November 2020 13:50:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MrBrightside

I think you are right about wait until see what the guidance states; this lines "Where an employer, in consultation with their employee" hasn't been used this time, but I am only going by the press release.

Holliday42333  
#11 Posted : 02 November 2020 16:28:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

I don't know what else we are expecting but the guidance is here - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november

1. Stay at home

This means you must not leave or be outside of your home except for specific purposes. These include:

  • where your place of work remains open and where you cannot work from home (including if your job involves working in other people’s homes)
biker1  
#12 Posted : 04 November 2020 11:50:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

It's the usual mess of unclear and inconsistent guidance that we have become accustomed to. Boris seems to think we can all take the guidance and use our common sense - good luck with that!

I await tomorrow with curiosity to see if the amount of traffic I can see from my home office is any less; I suspect not.

John Murray  
#13 Posted : 05 November 2020 11:15:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Pleased to inform you that as of 0830z this morning, traffic was not reduced a bit.

The main arterial route, a dual carriageway connection the M1 and the A1, was congested badly, mainly because of the [brainless] HGV drivers who insist on overtaking each other, for mile-after-mile-after-mile. 8 miles following two trucks, whose maximum speed is the same, with one trying to get in front of the other (and failing).

Will-to-live?

Lost!

biker1  
#14 Posted : 05 November 2020 15:26:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Just as I expected John.

I think the 'lockdown' is going to be even harder to enforce this time around. Too many people have become rebellious and selfish, and there is a danger that the community spirit of the first time around has become somewhat eroded. I don't envy the job of the police.

achrn  
#15 Posted : 05 November 2020 16:22:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post

Too many people have become rebellious and selfish, and there is a danger that the community spirit of the first time around has become somewhat eroded.


Too many people have noticed that it's fine to drive to Barnard Castle and attend dinner parties with cronies and amble through shops maskless and travel on intercity trains with a positive test result and so on if you're one of the political classes to understand why they should comply with the rules when the people making them up apparently don't fell the need to comply.

There is also some genuine uncertainty about what the rules actually are - and again even the people making them up get them wrong when asked what they are a day later.

Too many people are too sick of 'do what I say not what I do'.  The behaviour of the political classes oven recent months makes the pigs of Animal Farm look positively benign.  I'm not surprised that the pronouncements of our politicians are treated with contempt - I'm more surprised that compliance is as high as it is.

thanks 2 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 05/11/2020(UTC), biker1 on 05/11/2020(UTC)
biker1  
#16 Posted : 05 November 2020 17:00:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Can't argue with that, achrn. So many bad examples have been set, often by people who really should know better. The Dominic Cummings affair did an awful lot of damage, both in terms of reducing credibility but also of providing an excuse for others to not comply with requirements and guidance. That he was supported by our leaders just made it a whole lot worse. I like the reference to Animal Farm, very apt. The confusing guidelines and the general faffing around of the PM has not helped to instill a spirit of co-operation across the country, so yes I suppose it is surprising that the majority of people comply. What is happening in the USA has also tended to dominate the news, and even there, the example set by POTUS has been appalling. 

I won't be travelling to Barnard Castle any time soon, just in case there is anyone there testing their eyesight!

Roundtuit  
#17 Posted : 05 November 2020 21:01:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

2 x Cummings, 2 x Johnson (Snr)

versus

2 x Calderwood (eventually had the decency to resign), 2 x Corbyn, 1 x Blair, (1+1) x Ferrier

Reference to the failings of communism in Animal Farm rings very true according to the figures.

Roundtuit  
#18 Posted : 05 November 2020 21:01:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

2 x Cummings, 2 x Johnson (Snr)

versus

2 x Calderwood (eventually had the decency to resign), 2 x Corbyn, 1 x Blair, (1+1) x Ferrier

Reference to the failings of communism in Animal Farm rings very true according to the figures.

achrn  
#19 Posted : 06 November 2020 08:56:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

And to add to the tally I see that the UK Statistics Authority has now highlighted that the graph Boris used to sell the new lockdown to the proletariat was known to be wrong before he used it - that scary '4000 deaths a day' prediction was made weeks ago and had forecast there would be 1,000 deaths a day by the end of October when actually we were at a quarter of that level then, and this was known before the press conference when the graph was used.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334

So it's 'do as I say as I lie to you not as I do'.

score  
#20 Posted : 06 November 2020 09:25:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
score

All of our staff have been working from home since March, we were told a month ago that we will probably still be working from home until at least April 2021

Its groundhog day again!

chris.packham  
#21 Posted : 06 November 2020 09:38:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

I would be happier if the so-called 'expert advice' was really what it should be. Some of it is incomplete, some simply does not reflect the scientific evidence that I have been collecting now for years  on the prevention of infection with particular concentration on hand hygiene. Add to this some of the spurious (and sometimes potentially dangerous) (mis)information on social media and is it any wonder that we are not being that successful in managing the pandemic?

thanks 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
stevedm on 06/11/2020(UTC)
chris.packham  
#22 Posted : 06 November 2020 10:27:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Just to add to the previous posting...

The Government guidance is for frequent hand washing with the comment that a sanitiser can be used as an alternative where hand washing is not possible. This creates the impression that the sanitiser is inferior to hand washing. The scientific evidence shows that this is not the case. As it happens the NICE accredited guidance on infection prevention for NHS England (epic3) recommends that the standard for hand decontamination be an alcohol sanitiser with hand washing limited to two specific situations.

Frequent hand washing in healthcare has been shown to be a cause of occupational dermatitis among healthcare workers (Royal College of Nursing review –‘Tools of the Trade’). The damaging effect from frequent hand washing can be somewhat limited by the equally frequent use of a moisturiser after washing, but this does not feature in the ‘official’ guidance.

This is just one example. I could quote others. PM me if you need more on this.

biker1  
#23 Posted : 06 November 2020 10:53:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

There does seem to be mounting criticism of the information presented by government, and some contradictions in it. The graphs used in Boris's briefing weren't terribly convincing; in fact, many of them would support the local tiered restrictions dogma that Boris stuck to, rather than a national 'lockdown'. This contrasted with what we are being told about the effects on the NHS in some areas. The cited figure of 4000 potential deaths per day has been discredited. General forecasts have not proved reliable in the past - wasn't it one of the government advisors that told us early on about keeping the number of deaths below twenty thousand (that didn't pan out, did it?).

I don't doubt that some form of lockdown is needed, indeed SAGE has been saying this for weeks, and the two week circuit break around half term time would have been a good idea, but Boris ignored this. However, if you are going to make a case for a national lockdown, it would be good to have some credible and accurate figures to do so, otherwise you are setting yourself up for failure if people don't believe what you are saying.

chris.packham  
#24 Posted : 07 November 2020 21:47:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

It is certainly reasonable to impose a lockdown given the national situation. How we allow for individual areas where the incidence of Covid-19 is low is not easy to resolve. I live in an area where this is extremely low. However, adjacent areas are high and people are travelling into our area to be able to do things that in theirs are not permitted. There is plenty of evidence that this is not an uncommon situation. How long will it be before our area starts to develop the same high level of infection as theirs? Only a national lockdown can resolve this problem.

If everyone were to be sensible and adopt appropriate standards of behaviour then almost certainly the problem of a lockdown might not have arisen, or not to the same extent. However, whilst many are being sensible we see frequent incidents, like tthe one this week in Yate, where behaviour indicates complete selfish unconcern about the consequences, perhaps not for the young people but their parents and grandparents who they could well infect and effectively kill. I think the older generations should be asking themselves what they have missed in the upbringing of their offspring in terms of social responsibility. 

Unfortunately the situation is exacerbated as much of the information on social media and from 'official' sources is either misleading or simply wrong. Add to this the impression created by certain individuals that there is one rule for the general population and another for those in Government positions and is it any wonder that some do not take the threat seriously?

thanks 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
biker1 on 09/11/2020(UTC)
biker1  
#25 Posted : 10 November 2020 11:08:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

The idea of local restrictions seemed on the surface to be logical, but failed to take account of the mobility of people these days, so was doomed to hit problems. Somebody posted in our local press that they lived in a high risk area and would travel to our area for a pub crawl with their mates. With this sort of behaviour, local lockdowns are never going to work. Whilst I appreciate that this pandemic could be the final nail in the coffin for pubs, which have been disappearing rapidly for some years, we are faced with a choice between protecting lives or allowing unfettered social interaction.

Mark-W  
#26 Posted : 10 November 2020 18:24:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mark-W

Have a bit of a dliema. In my clients office today, a manager who is desperate to work from home, and did during lockdown1.0, and wasn't the most efficient shall we say with her workload has announced that she has been in a car for 30 mins with a refugee who has tested positive today for COVID. She said they were all masked up but couldn't achieve the desired 2m spacing

It was only last week that she came in and informed everyone that she'd had the antibody test and it had come back that she'd had covid in the past and was showing antibodys.

She has decided heself that she should work from home, her boss wants her to stay in work, due to the antibody results and her work ethic.

I've been given the job of deciding, If I follow the rules exactly then she should go home, but if I apply some logic and common sense then she would be in work.

What would you do?

John Murray  
#27 Posted : 10 November 2020 20:23:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

Maybe your "logic and common sense" can stretch to recognising that being exposed to this virus, and thereby having antibodies, seems to not protect you to becoming ill again if further exposed to the virus?

The antibody count for this virus drops fairly rapidly over time in many people, particularly children.

Roundtuit  
#28 Posted : 10 November 2020 22:00:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If they have been in close proximity (a car counts) for a period (likely over 15 minutes) with someone who has tested positive then they should be isolating - if they start to develop symptoms they should be getting tested.

As JM indicates the "protection" from exposure appears short lived and there are several documented cases of repeat infection within individuals which nulifies any perception of "acquired immunity".

Why are you being asked to decide? They should already have their documented controls and policy from Lockdown 1.0 so why was this manager in a car with this refugee in the first place?

There are some who will swing the lead so remind the manager that home working during isolation means exactly that. Tell them they will be monitored whilst working from home and if found to be "away" without reasonable excuse (medical appointment) will be reported to the authorities and may be considered in breach of company policy. Some will cite shopping and excercise - these can be completed outside of office hours.

If they are unhappy with such a pitch they can always go "sick" for the isolation period.

Your issue is more correctly how to keep this manager away from further sources of infection whilst conducting their employment duties.

Roundtuit  
#29 Posted : 10 November 2020 22:00:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If they have been in close proximity (a car counts) for a period (likely over 15 minutes) with someone who has tested positive then they should be isolating - if they start to develop symptoms they should be getting tested.

As JM indicates the "protection" from exposure appears short lived and there are several documented cases of repeat infection within individuals which nulifies any perception of "acquired immunity".

Why are you being asked to decide? They should already have their documented controls and policy from Lockdown 1.0 so why was this manager in a car with this refugee in the first place?

There are some who will swing the lead so remind the manager that home working during isolation means exactly that. Tell them they will be monitored whilst working from home and if found to be "away" without reasonable excuse (medical appointment) will be reported to the authorities and may be considered in breach of company policy. Some will cite shopping and excercise - these can be completed outside of office hours.

If they are unhappy with such a pitch they can always go "sick" for the isolation period.

Your issue is more correctly how to keep this manager away from further sources of infection whilst conducting their employment duties.

achrn  
#30 Posted : 11 November 2020 08:21:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

I don't understand:

Quote:
If I follow the rules exactly then she should go home

Which rules say that? The relevant government rukles are at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-contacts-of-people-with-possible-or-confirmed-coronavirus-covid-19-infection-who-do-not-live-with-the-person/guidance-for-contacts-of-people-with-possible-or-confirmed-coronavirus-covid-19-infection-who-do-not-live-with-the-person and say they apply to "a person who has travelled in a small vehicle with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19"

Quote:

If you have not been notified that you are a contact, this means you do not need to self-isolate and should follow the general guidance, for example, social distancing, hand-washing, and covering coughs and sneezes.

So until Test and Trace tell her to isolate, applying the rules exactly means she should be followig the general guidance - social distancing, hand-washing, and covering coughs and sneezes.

As soon as Test and Trace do tell her to isolate, then it's an offence if she doesn't (and an offence by the company if they knowingly allow her to work other than in isolation).  So then it's out of your hands.

I don't think it's down to H&S to make threats about being monitored, or reporting her - that's her manager's job, or possibly HR.

Edited by user 11 November 2020 08:23:03(UTC)  | Reason: spalling

thanks 2 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 11/11/2020(UTC), Mark-W on 15/11/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#31 Posted : 11 November 2020 11:40:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Mark - what bothers me about your dilemma (and it doesn't really matter that you are a consultant rather than an in-house adviser) is that you are being asked to act as the referee.

I am presuming that the scenario you refer to is not atypical and that the employee is regularly dealing with refugees or other vulnerable people and might need to be working in circumstances where social distancing is difficult.

If so, then the organisation should have had a plan in place for months to deal with exactly the sort of scenario you present. A plan that needs to be adapted as more evidence emerges about how Covid spreads and guidance on precautions is amended. It is for line managers to manage, NOT you.

So, it seems to me that your role as a consultant is to identify the relevant guidance and explain why some applies and some doesn't - then to inform your client and then leave it to management (including HR) to make decisions with such input from the employee is appropriate. If this also means getting a medical opinion, so be it.

Be careful that you don't take on liabilities that should rest with others!

Roundtuit  
#32 Posted : 11 November 2020 13:25:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Last Wednesday HM Gov updated its web site on shielding in preparation for Lockdown 2.0

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19

Mrs R got a confirmation email that evening

One week after the event a work colleague has finally been informed they should go back in to shielding as they had been doing under Lockdown 1.0

How many others have been out and about when they should have been at home?

Roundtuit  
#33 Posted : 11 November 2020 13:25:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Last Wednesday HM Gov updated its web site on shielding in preparation for Lockdown 2.0

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19

Mrs R got a confirmation email that evening

One week after the event a work colleague has finally been informed they should go back in to shielding as they had been doing under Lockdown 1.0

How many others have been out and about when they should have been at home?

biker1  
#34 Posted : 11 November 2020 17:00:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

A major problem with the track and trace system is that a lot of people won't have/can't have the app. Silver surfers aside, people of advanced years are more unlikely to have smart phones. I don't have one myself - my mobile is a basic phone with no internet access, so the much lauded app has passed me by. It is never therefore going to reach everyone, and since great reliance is placed on being informed to isolate, there are likely to be a substantial number of people who won't be informed and will therefore not isolate. 

Mark-W  
#35 Posted : 12 November 2020 15:56:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mark-W

For some reason, I'm not getting email notifications.

So to update,   The manager does charity work outside of and not connected to work.  She was the main protaganist in the office during lockdown 1.  The company implemented all of her requests despite me telling them they weren't required.

But now she seems to of got a suspected COVID positive person from a hospital and transpiorted them to a test centre. No one in the office can believe what she has done, when you compare it to her stance. Even now if you get to close to her in the office she'll hold her hand up and tell you to stop and move away.

Anyway, she has now shown symptoms and was trying to book a test for today. 

So she's at home working , where she wanted to be a week ago. MD isn't best pleased

thanks 1 user thanked Mark-W for this useful post.
Kate on 12/11/2020(UTC)
Kate  
#36 Posted : 12 November 2020 16:18:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I can't believe that either!

Mark-W  
#37 Posted : 15 November 2020 21:54:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mark-W

Just to close this off, she has had her test results and she is negative, but test and trace have told her to complete her 14 day isolation.

This is the bit that I'm finding hard, she's been tested and it's come back negative but she still has to self isolate. Surely if she is COVID free then she should be back at work. She was tested 3 days after exposure 

Roundtuit  
#38 Posted : 15 November 2020 22:07:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

You are coming from the assumption that the test is an absolute, incorruptable and definitive "Yes" or "No" with 100% accuracy. Lets be clear (as stated in Brewster's Millions) "none of the above".

https://www.techspot.com/news/87592-elon-musk-calls-covid-19-tests-bogus-after.html

Edited by user 15 November 2020 22:53:15(UTC)  | Reason: added link

Roundtuit  
#39 Posted : 15 November 2020 22:07:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

You are coming from the assumption that the test is an absolute, incorruptable and definitive "Yes" or "No" with 100% accuracy. Lets be clear (as stated in Brewster's Millions) "none of the above".

https://www.techspot.com/news/87592-elon-musk-calls-covid-19-tests-bogus-after.html

Edited by user 15 November 2020 22:53:15(UTC)  | Reason: added link

Wailes900134  
#40 Posted : 16 November 2020 05:30:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wailes900134

Accepting that the test results have the potential for error, if the outcome behavioural expectation of a negative result is the same as for a positive result, there isn't much point for the individual to bother testing.

I am aware of both individuals and employers who are acting upon negative results on face value.
Mark-W  
#41 Posted : 16 November 2020 07:23:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mark-W

^^^^^^ What as said there. If we aren't going to take the test at face value then whats the point in testing? Any other test we'd take at face value. Why not this one?

Not knowing to much about the methodology of the test. I'm assuming it's looking for the presence of something or looking for the absence of something. So if it's there when it should be there or not when it shouldn't then the test result should be taken at face value.

Mark-W  
#42 Posted : 16 November 2020 08:04:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mark-W

On social media over the weekend I picked up on an argument.

Woman who lives in East of England asked if her son would be allowed to travel to her during the lockdown. He normaly resides with her but just before lockdown 2 started he went to his dads in Wales. Loks like he got bored and wanted to go home.

That was all the info she gave.

So a load came on and said yes, should travel, the child can pass between parents with no regard for lockdown.

Someone pointed out that travel out of Wales should only be for essential reasons and that a child travelling between parents wasn't essential. No positive |COVID test, no symptoms, just child wanted to return home.

The mother was then questioned that the child should be at home with her so they could attend school.

Mother then admitted that the child was in fact 18yrs old. So not realy a child at all.

So a grown adult wanted to know if another grown adult could break lockdown rules because they were essentially bored.

It amazes me that people will go on social media, give 1/2 the facts and then rely on that advice to suit their own agenda. The mother was quite insistent that the child travelling was essential travel and could see no wrong in her planned actions

thanks 1 user thanked Mark-W for this useful post.
biker1 on 16/11/2020(UTC)
Kate  
#43 Posted : 16 November 2020 08:37:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

The test can make a difference.  If you have been in close contact with a confirmed case then you have to isolate for 14 days from the exposure.  If however you test positive you have to isolate for 10 days.  Either way you have to isolate but the period of isolation may differ.

The reason a negative test result isn't reliable in this situation is that it is less reliable in people who don't have symptoms (or don't yet have symptoms).  When someone does have symptoms, there is more of the virus in their system and the test is more likely to find it.

thanks 2 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
Mark-W on 16/11/2020(UTC), Roundtuit on 16/11/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#44 Posted : 16 November 2020 12:03:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Mark - almost all clinical tests can come up with "false positives" and "false negatives". That feeds into the recommendations for different self-isolation periods.

As Kate indicates, if someone has Covid symptoms it appears that the evidence is that they are less likely to get a "false negative" test.

All comes down to probability theory. Just the curve varies depending on what you are looking at. So, typically there is a peak with outliers at each end. Sometimes you have what statisticians call a "normal distribution", sometimes it is skewed.

Hence, as example, the evidence indicates that very few of the younger will become seriously (acutely) ill or die if they contract Covid. "Very few" does not equate to "None"! ....and, we don't yet know much about whether the younger generations might be impaired by "Long Covid".

At the other end of the graph, the evidence indicates that the very old have a relatively high chance of death if they contract Covid. But "relatively high" is not the same as certain and some will survive, and some of those without significant impairment to their health. 

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Mark-W on 16/11/2020(UTC)
John Murray  
#45 Posted : 16 November 2020 12:53:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

"Since the start of the pandemic, there have been 55,311 COVID-19
deaths registered in England and Wales, up to 23 October 2020 (30,542
men and 24,769 women).

The majority of deaths involving COVID-19 have been among people aged 65 years and over (49,420 out of 55,311)"

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundupdeathsandhealth/2020-06-26

  • In age groups up to and including 60-69, fewer than 1 in 1,000 people have died from coronavirus.
  • Age 70-79, it’s 2 in every 1,000 people.
  • Age 80-89, it’s 7 in every 1,000 people.
  • Age 90 and over, it’s 18 people in every 1,000 people.
  • Males have a higher risk in every age group than females.

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/discover/2020/06/coronavirus-risk-for-older-people-updated/

Users browsing this topic
2 Pages12>
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.