As I read it, any decision or course of action may or will mean some fall between the gaps and be at risk.  I kind of agree, we would not expect them to wait on a decision whilst they cheat a document that deals with all possible permutations to creat a zero risk position.

I think this is simply a reassertion of what we as H&S professionals who manage risk all the time have always known but  the great British public have not grasped: there is no such thing as ‘zero risk’. Furthermore their perception of risk is very distorted. I saw someone riding along the road in the dark on their bike who had a face covering, which he had lowered so that he could smoke his cigarette. It was getting dark and he was dressed all in black and the bike did not seem to have any lights. I think he was worried about the coronavirus; I’d be more worried about the number 6 bus and then lung cancer from the cigarettes and vehicle fumes rather than the virus!

It's an interesting concept. Zero Harm. We all know that in life there will always be harm of some sort inflicted upon us. Be that social or work related, it's how we deal with it that matters.

With C19 pandemic, we try and reduce the harm of ifection by "lockdown". But that then causes harm due to self isolation and feeling helpless against the virus.

I always used to joke that we can remove all harm and risk from the workplace by wrapping people in bubble wrap and make them stay at home. This is causing just as much risk in my minds.

A social media post that amused me the other day was a petition asking for nurses and other frontline staff to receive the same level of support for PTSD as sodiers returning from foreign lands. From experiences of friends, not me, there are far to many falling through the cracks, so if the NHS want that level of support then I would be worried

One problem that I encounter with the concept of zeruo harm is that with occupational health the consequences of contact with a harmful substancee is often chronic. It may not become apparent for some considerable time, perhaps years (asbestos comes to mind here!). So how would you know whether the fact that no-one has reported any adverse health effect at any given time really was zero harm?

There is no such thing as zero harm, reduced harm maybe.  99.9 % of germs can be killed it says on bleach. 

Edited by user 18 May 2020 17:51:24(UTC)  | Reason: Edited

As it is impossible to measure nothing, only down to the lowest detectable level, how can we have 'zero risk'?  There may well be some risk that we cannot yet6d detect. So perhaps 'zero detectable risk' might be more relevant.

Chris, whilst fulling taking the point that there are some risks that we don't sufficiently understand I think that the whole concept is fundamentally flawed.

We accept that life involves risks. If we wrap people up in comfort blankets and don't let them outside then their physical and mental health with suffer. So all we do is remove one set of risks and introduce another.

It is said that "you can't put a value on a life" but we do precisely that.

There are official UK Government figures for the Value of Preventing a Fatality (VPF) and for various severities of injury and ill health (VPIs).

So, when as example there is a project to convert a single carriageway road to dual carriageway, one of the project objectives might be to reduce the number of incidents AND/OR the severity of typical carriageways, it is never done with some misconception of reducing road risk to ZERO. 

We can make that road even safer for its users by converting it into a Motorway, but at the social cost of excluding some members of the community such as pedestrians from using the road. Less pedestrians means less accidents AND reduced (average) severities. One of the unintended side effects (sometimes recognised, sometimes not) might be to put those excluded at greater risk if they are then forced to travel by alternate routes.