Rank: Super forum user 
|
HSE and Covid at work: a case of regulatory failure - edited by Phil James
There has been a report put together by 11 specialists in occupational health and safety and labour law, critising the HSE and governments downplaying of the risk in the workplace. I have linked it above, but it is good reading. I know some people on here (myself included) feel that this should never have been a HSE issue, but it still highlights a lot of things that could have been done better, along with obvious failings and some bizarre decisions.
Basically the government sent people to work knowing the risks. They refused to outline what exactly an essential business was. Therefore the pandemice was prolonged and excerbated by allowing these businesses to stay open. This in turn was added to by the wishy-washy guidelines that held no weight of law, and a regulatory body (The HSE) that wanted no part of it and just toed the line. I particularly like the quote "the HSE appears to suggest that staff ‘facing away from each other’, even for lengthy periods of time, is an option that is invariably compatible with COSHH and PPE requirements, as well as the general duties of the HSWA." This all lead to the needless deaths of many workers, a disproportionally large section of which was in the BAME communities. If anybody else fancies reading this 52 page report and share their thoughts I would appreciate it. Hopefully we can remain on topic.
|
 2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
CptBeaky
Thanks for the link – will admit I have only skim read it. I
have always stated I do not consider this a Health and Safety At work Issue (in
most work places) but a public health issue, as the virus is brought in by the
individuals not intentionally by the employer. The comments on PPE are
interesting, and while I accept these have been exceptionally times, with unprecedented
death rates in recent years, I do worry where this will lead.
Unfortunately as we know people die of respiratory
infections every year, we all talk about flu season. Are employers going to be
responsible for those as well?
I would hate to have to wear FFP3 mask in my workplace all
the time – just in case someone had a virus.
I agree some of the “rules” have made little sense – such as
allowing people to sit side by side at 1m if 2 m cannot be achieved. Or Gold
courses being closed but supermarkets open – if anyone has seen me play golf it
the best form of socially distancing ever!
What is interesting are the comments on the declining number
of inspectors (HSE &LA) as an ex inspector myself they come as no surprise –
but once the government declared covid a H&S issue it should have been obvious
we did not have the staff to deal with it – just like we did not have the NHS
staff to man the hospitals.
I wish I could come up with a set of rules which would have
saved lives without destroying our quality of life. I don’t believe current
H&S rules were fit for this purpose. I just hope that the vaccination
programme proves effective and we can get back to some level of normality and
mourn those we have lost.
Sorry for the strage law out - as i am dyslexic i cut and paste from word so i can spell check
Edited by user 12 March 2021 10:49:36(UTC)
| Reason: addint extra line
|
5 users thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hindsight always finds experts that could have done things better than those making the decisions at the time. We are still in a pandemic and yet the ambulance chasers are becoming more vocal in their calls for a Public Enquiry - they believe you should be capable of "pleasing all of the people all of the time"
|
6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hindsight always finds experts that could have done things better than those making the decisions at the time. We are still in a pandemic and yet the ambulance chasers are becoming more vocal in their calls for a Public Enquiry - they believe you should be capable of "pleasing all of the people all of the time"
|
6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: Roundtuit  Hindsight always finds experts that could have done things better than those making the decisions at the time.
- and we will never know whether teh course of action followed has more harm in aggregate than any other course of action, even with hindsight. In particular, the assumption that any course of action that *might* have lead to fewer deaths must be preferable is not true, I think.
Economic harm is real. Child developmental harm is real. Personal mental health harm is real.
Most of those arguing the government should have locked down sooner, harder, or longer seem to be labouring under the impression that all that matters is whether you die with Covid mentioned on the death certificate. I don't think that's true.
We will never know the aggregate of all this harm. We will certainly never know how much harm other approaches would have casued.
FWIW, I also don't think it's true that the pandemic is over and we should immediately lift all restrictions. I've already heard people referring to vaccination as their 'ticket to freedom', apparently believing taht as soon as you've had the needle in your arm, teh restrictions don't apply to you. I think we may well see a furtehr rise in cases (and deaths).
|
2 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Now that we are approaching the first anniversary of the first lockdown we can look and (possibly with hindsight) see several things. - When the whole thing started it was assumed that it would only last a few months at most. Therefore it would have minimal impact of the economy and society. It was only decided to suspend public exams in the spring and that at the last minute which lead to a mighty balls up over how students where going to be assessed.
- As it was assumed that it was going to be a short term problem the new legalisation was not really thought out properly as by the time issues would emerge it was assumed, we would be back to normal. The idea that the HSE would try to enforce covid 19 restrictions in the workplace was not taken seriously. (as an aside I agree that covid is not and never has been an H&S issue. It is purely a public health matter; all of those risk assessment that people have been putting up on their website are nothing of the sort- they are just checklists to show compliance with government guidance)
- If there is an inquiry, they should really look at the lack of surge capacity to deal with the outbreak. Under the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act the government is obliged to prepare for national emergencies and one of the scenarios was a pandemic involving a respiratory infection. Yes, they were probably looking at something like a new flu but the stocks of PPE and disinfectant needed to deal with covid would have bene the same. They should also looked at the testing resources that might be needed. In the last 10 year the resources committed to such contingencies were reduced or even removed, and it was decided we could just “muddle through” with obvious consequences. Note that the government has decided to spend £37 billion on trying to set up a track and trace system quickly. Major wars cost less than that.
- The HSE and our profession was dragged into this against our will. If you look at the COSHH ACOP it still says that COSHH does not apply to infections brought into work as opposed to diseases arising out of work. They can’t really change that as then an employer might be liable for every cold outbreak or food poisoning incident from someone bringing in there home cooking
|
3 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just like Covid news of this report is spreading - an article from Construction News: IER (a trade union think tank) chair Lord John Hendy was quoted as saying “Something has gone very badly wrong when enforcement action has been taken against over 40,000 members of the public, and holidaymakers are threatened with 10 years in jail, but employers known to have put thousands of people at risk are getting off scot-free." How did most employers put anyone at risk? I don't recall my boss running round with a bottle of Covid spraying it in everyones face nor asking us to set up a sales desk in the middle of a Covid treatment ward. What they did do was segregate the shop floor in to bubbles, send the office staff to work from home, ban all but essential travel, insist meetings were solely held over the internet, cancelled all site visitors. Perhaps if the academics descend in to reality occassionally.......
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just like Covid news of this report is spreading - an article from Construction News: IER (a trade union think tank) chair Lord John Hendy was quoted as saying “Something has gone very badly wrong when enforcement action has been taken against over 40,000 members of the public, and holidaymakers are threatened with 10 years in jail, but employers known to have put thousands of people at risk are getting off scot-free." How did most employers put anyone at risk? I don't recall my boss running round with a bottle of Covid spraying it in everyones face nor asking us to set up a sales desk in the middle of a Covid treatment ward. What they did do was segregate the shop floor in to bubbles, send the office staff to work from home, ban all but essential travel, insist meetings were solely held over the internet, cancelled all site visitors. Perhaps if the academics descend in to reality occassionally.......
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
“Failures of State: The Inside Story of Britain’s Battle with Coronavirus” by Jonathan Calvert (Author), George Arbuthnott (Author) which from the reviews I have read describes how the UK decided not to prepare for a pandemic. This it what I have been boring people with for the past year: the government refused to plan for a pandemic and hoped to muddle through.
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Roundtuit - you wrote.... What they did do was segregate the shop floor in to bubbles, send the office staff to work from home, ban all but essential travel, insist meetings were solely held over the internet, cancelled all site visitors.
But not all employers have consistently applied such a response. The report you quote highlighted that enforcement such as there has been has been targeted at the "little people", sometimes rather (very?) heavy handedly. Some businesses (and even the likes of Government Agencies) appear to have taken Government guidance with a huge pinch of salt (and of course also appear to have taken advantage of any loopholes in that guidance) and have been highly unlikely to be sanctioned. Similarly, we wait to see what, if any, sanctions will be applied to those in authority, responsible for failure to manage the risks of the pandemic, and to this and successive previous Governments for the documented failure to plan for such an event (as AK has, rightly, repeatedly reminded us). Edited by user 15 March 2021 10:54:26(UTC)
| Reason: Omitted a comma - my English master would not have been pleased
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing. However, there have been many issues where lack of planning and resources have come home to roost. The crisis that the NHS found itself in trying to cope with COVID was predictable - it has suffered from a lack of adequate investment for decades, demonstrated by the increase in waiting times for treatment and fudged criteria from the government to try and hid the basic deficiencies. Lack of PPE - no private company wishing to stay in business would allow PPE supplies to become so depleted. Lack of crisis planning - a pandemic was predicted many years ago by many experts, based in part on the history of such things in recent times. Lack of timely measures - some other countries were quicker to impose restrictions than the UK, and considering the time delay between the awareness of a viral outbreak and action from the government, a lot of dithering became apparent. Enforcement of restrictions - the legislation and guidance produced was often confusing and inconsistent, and I think that expecting the police (another service starved of resources) to enforce this by 'persuading' people to comply sent entirely the wrong message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I've been somewhat desperate to talk and write about this report and the issues it more broadly raises but think I've just been muttering into the void. Pleased to see if come up.
If HASWA does indeed apply, and I think legally it could, then what is reasonably practicable has surely been a moving target since day 1? I remain unclear on how an employer is meant to examine risk in a goal setting context when one can't see the goal posts. So whilst it might apply, the issue of practical enforceability goes unanswered in this report. The Government have drafted enough legislation over the last 12 months that these matters could have been addressed effectively in a workplace setting had they chose to do so.
I'm looking forward to applying HASWA to other workplace transmissible diseases such as chicken pox, measles, the flu, diptheria, TB etc. For clarity I'm not equating any of those with Covid per se but the underlying principle is surely no different for a typical workforce? The level of risk is (healthcare aside) entirely predicated on circumstances outside the control of the employer.
|
1 user thanked Xavier123 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The field of health and safety is such a wide one, with few boundaries, which can be viewed as either a challenge or an opportunity. The pandemic has revealed how blurred these boundaries are. Where does health and safety end and public health begin (or vice versa)? They inevitably overlap. The HSE has had limited involvement, probably due to an awareness that their resources are already stretched and cannot extend to tackling the issues effectively. The police have been put in a difficult position from day one. COVID risk assessments have been asked for, but as someone else observed, these are more in the nature of checklists of compliance with guidance, not true risk assessments, as we don't have enough accurate or timely information to truly carry out a risk assessment, and infection rates have been a constantly changing picture. Although not strictly a new situation, as we have had epidemics of disease before, it seems we are still trying to establish processes and responsibilities, and work out the best way of dealing with a global pandemic. Some things have been done fairly well, many things not so well, and we haven't started from a good position in terms of resource and planning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
New infections, which were dropping rapidly, have now started to level-out at around 4K per day.
Deaths are continuing to drop and are not levelling-out at a constant number.
I believe that is called "the vaccine effect".
There have been zero deaths in my town for 3 days, and there are 10 patients receiving high dependency care. Deaths averaged 6 each day from 1/1/21. Peak at 10 per day.
No doubt those who are rapidly planning Turkey/Cyprus holidays will soon boost the infection rate, as will those who insist on holding vigils/demos'/Football-result-celebrations.
In a year we will be blaming all the old people for dying of an inconsequential virus.
|
1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If travel wishes to rely upon vaccination passports then surely widespread vaccination must occur at both countries of departure and destination? Absolute nonsense to offer to hold the "Euro's" across the GB if the EU are lagging behind on their distribution - the mega stars in this sport have proven time and again how they are incapable believing themselves to be above any rules. Professional sport is an area where finance is firmly placed before any science.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If travel wishes to rely upon vaccination passports then surely widespread vaccination must occur at both countries of departure and destination? Absolute nonsense to offer to hold the "Euro's" across the GB if the EU are lagging behind on their distribution - the mega stars in this sport have proven time and again how they are incapable believing themselves to be above any rules. Professional sport is an area where finance is firmly placed before any science.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There are also a few terms and misunderstandings that continue to get my proverbial goat. It all comes from the policy being statedly one of 'flattening the curve' which inherently determined that there would be cases and, ergo, deaths....but then proceeding to produce guidance, soundbites and messaging that didn't accord.
- Use of the word 'safe' without qualification. Schools are 'safe'. Schools aren't 'safe'.
- 'Covid-secure'. Secure meaning 'free from risk or danger'.
Whilst this is a public health issue, I do however think though that h&s practitioners were well placed to look at the risks to their workforce and had a key role to play in reducing risk. Totally in the skillset and probably done a solid favour in bumping the value they add to an organisation, for the short-medium term at least.
Covid-secure was ever a hard sell though since we all know risk is rarely some binary either/or and, once people are allowed to be together as a business is permitted to be open, transmission risk will follow. One end of the hierarchy of controls to the other once we started relying on human behaviours as our principle control measure.
|
1 user thanked Xavier123 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yesterday I was not compos mentis; I had had my jab on Sunday, and it did not agree with me on Monday but now I am better. Returning to the original posting; like most people I do not believe that the Health and Safety at Work Act and the HSE are intended to deal with the covid pandemic. Managing infection in the workplace. If you look at the ACoP for COSHH it specifically says that infections in the workplace are not to be treated as “Hazardous Substances “ under the regs unless exposure arises directly out of workplace activities. Similarly RIDDOR guidance makes it clear that only infections arising out of workplace activities such as a microbiology lab or handling infectious materials should be reported under RIDDOR. The intention of the Health and Safety at Work Act was to makes sure that employers managed all workplace risks, but only those arising out of work activities, not just because they happen in the workplace. I have been involved in cases where a member of staff has had a heart attack in the office and have had to tell mangers that unless there is evidence that the heart attack was caused by work there is need to report it as a RIDDOR. Originally workplace risk was narrowly defined but over the years what is seen as a workplace risk has somewhat expanded. For example, stress and other metal health issues are now recognised as workplace hazards. Some aspects of driving for work are now also being investigated under H&S laws rather than just the RTA. Possibly, the biggest extension of H&S law was the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian national who was shot by the Police in London in 2005, who mistook him for a terrorist suspect. The Police were prosecuted under section 3 of Health and Safety at Work Act as they had failed to manage their work activities so as not ensure the health and safety of people other than their employees. Nevertheless in all of these areas it is generally expected that the employer has control over these risks and can do something to control them. When it comes to Covid the employer has no control over who gets infected and where; it’s a public health issue. The only certain way to prevent this disease spreading in a workplace is to make everybody work from home or just shut down. But the government has specifically told employers not to do this and have encouraged those business that need people on site, to “have business as usual “. I reality very few businesses have been “done” by the HSE for not applying Covid 19 controls. There have been Crown Censures of government departments, but these are not the same of prosecutions: you don’t get your day in court and you cannot challenge the charges. Small businesses have also been hit but I suspect if a larger business was targeted then they would fight back and argue that Health and Safety at Work Act should not be applied in these circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Whilst it looks like there is a lot of agreement that this should never have been a HSE issue, i think we all also understood that we had a role to play in keeping our workforce safe within our businesses. I think Xavier brings up some interesting points about the phrasing of the campaign. "COVID secure" implies that a premises is safe, and you cannot catch COVID-19 within the building. This is absolute nonsense, and all H&S professionals knew it. Therefore the "COVID Risk assessments" were jarring at best and misleading at worse. There is no other risk assessment that I know of that is basically just ticking off boxes and hey presto you are safe! Given that it has now become clear that the most dangerous areas outside of care homes/hospitals etc was in the supposedly "COVID Secure" offices, it highlights how ridiculous the whole thing was. We were told to just open the windows and doors, throughout the winter, and everything will be fine. Thankfully my workplace was already set out in a way that reduced the risk significantly, and despite have 52% of our workforce over the age of 50, we have had not had a single case of a severe reaction to COVID-19, and less that 10% of our workforce have tested positive over the course of the pandemic, so far. This has been a lot more due to luck than judgement, especially considering we have consistently been in the top 5 worse affected areas since the end of Autumn (and still are above 150 cases per 100,000). Given that this should always have been a public health issue, we should have been able to access the required saftey items for free throughout the pandemic, such as face coverings, alcohol gel etc. I find it strange that the very companies that have risked peoples lives to keep the economy going have been given very little in return. I hear that schools are not safe for teachers to return, but nobody seems to care about the people being paid minimum wage to work in factories and warehouses to keep the country stocked up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
There has been note in this discussion of the Risk assessment (tick list) we all had to do. For your interest we have had 3 separate inspections at 3 of our premises, with no issues. However not one of them was asked to show the risk assessment. They did look at the covid secure A4 poster in the window and the canteen and an office, then went away. What a waste of time! Theirs not ours it only took 10 minutes max. In one instance we asked our neighbours in the industrial estate had they had a visit and they said no. We checked with the HSE, and no we were not targeted (ie from a complaint) and that they would be going back on a different day to look at other businesses. Really ! we were the last and they finished with us at 3:45 – nice work if you get it I suppose. Even some measures that are being put into place are a waste of time and are just for show. When you go to a supermarket you get your trolley, go into the store and there is some disinfectant spray for the trolley and paper towel. Ok, but every disinfectant I have seen that will “kill” covid (not that it is alive) needs to stay on the surface for at least 5 minutes! How many people wait 5 minutes or even a sign telling you such. However, most people dutifully do it. We know this is going to happen again, will we do better next time? Will we sort out if this is going to be considered a workplace issue in future? I think some companies will plan ahead regardless as people off ill is a business risk, business interruption. I’m not convinced we know much more than we did a year ago. I think we were heading for this for some time, in the last few years how many threads on here have we seen effectively asking how many people we are allowed to jam in an office legally. We agree the past is a disaster in planning and control, so what for the future. Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I work at a University and (touch wood) we have had no cases of person to person transmission on campus. We do not operate the halls of residence: they owned and managed by an independent company. We have achieved this because we have moved most teaching online and only allow students on campus if they absolutely have to come on campus for example, they have to use the library or carry out practical work .On campus the students and staff are not allowed to socialise or hang out together. Even group based teaching activities are banned. Social Distancing is applied everywhere, as is the wearing of face coverings. Business is definitely not “as normal”. There have been complaints from staff and students that this not how a university is supposed to work but so far, we have stuck to our guns. What happens when the restrictions are lifted is anybody’s guess. We could contrast this with the DVLA https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55403316 where they had a major outbreak at the end of the year. What exactly dd they do wrong and why do they think they could get away with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with most of what has been said, but the latest HSE advice on RIDDOR reporting does throw up some grey areas with respect to COVID reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.