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

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

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.

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

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

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)

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!

Originally Posted by: biker1

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.

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.

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'.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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 

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

^^^^^^ 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.

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.

"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/