The whole thing is going to be a thorough mess-

It seems that all the laws requiring social distancing and the wearing of masks will be repealed but the government is hinting that they would like business to keep those measures that they regard as effective as a matter of policy. There have been threats that under health and safety legislation business might be forced to continue with these controls, but the law is not clear. As I have posted before the ACop for COSHH makes it clear that infections in the workplace do not constitute a health and safety matter unless the workplace is actually handling pathogens, such as a microbiology lab or a hospital.  Most people have accepted that the management of Covid 19 is public health issue not a health and safety matter. There have been a few cases of prosecutions but one of them was Crown Censure involving  the Dept of Health (no less) and during a Crown Censure, the department in question just rolls over and takes it; there is no legal hearing as such.

For the past year, the government  has failed miserably to distinguish between , legal requirements and  simple guidance and between thought through guidance which supports legislation and cheap sound bites.   

So basically I have no idea what is going to happen!

We have a meeting scheduled for Tuesday 20th to decide what to do. With little to zero guidance from the government we have decided we will approach this from a more democratic angle. We will ask the workers what they feel comfortable with and take it from there.

I foresee that we will continue with the alcohol gel indefinately and workstation placements of 2m+, beyond that i suspect it will be back to normal.

It seems very strange that the government is all for "personal responsibility" when it appears that they can't even manage this within their own cabinet.

Whatever happens on 19th July one thing is certain - it will not involve PPE for the vast majority of the population in their workplace.

The two mayoral dictators have proposed retention of face coverings on their respective public transport systems - we will see how that pans out in the press for the opinionated busy-body.

The suggestion is also that they should be retained in shops, but with unions advising members to avoid confrontation and the police having no regulation to enforce.....

Having travelled the motorways during the pandemic I note the service stations did not feel the need to "tape-off" adjacent toilet facilities as happened in many an office/factory/school - whose RA was right?

Employees are only under your control for @ 40 hours of the 168 hours in a week.

128 hours of interaction without mask, sanitiser and distancing leading to the biggest issue going forward for most workplaces the test & trace app putting huge holes in the workforce - just like it has been for school "bubbles" and the hospitality sector.

Is this a case of the longer its left the harder it will be to remove it. Everyone has been told for the last 18 months to; social distance, wear a mask, protect others and now we are at the a point where it will be something we live with like the flu. There will be a lot of anxiety.

What you do at work is down to you. Its your place of work and if you decide that masks and social distancing must remain in place then thats your choice. At what point would you remove them though? 1 month, 6 months, a year? When everyone has had the vacine?

At some point the measures had to go, we all know that and some people will contiue to distance and wear face masks, especially on public transport for a long time and for some, well they never bothered anyway.

So if they aren't taken away now, then when? when the science says so? some of the science wants us to social distance and wear masks forever.

As safety bods we think of this in terms of a control measures for a hazard, but the hazard is still there and we are taking away the controls, which is alien to us. The hazard will always be there with COVID, so what do we do?

“As safety bods we think of this in terms of a control measures for a hazard, but the hazard is still there and we are taking away the controls, which is alien to us. The hazard will always be there with COVID, so what do we do?”

Actually, I think we are more interested in managing risks rather than hazards and the risk posed by Covid to individuals has never been that high. By that I mean the odds that anyone will be infected and develop  a disease and suffer serious  consequences is low and if we did individual risk assessments for our business most people would  judge that the risk is not worth worrying about. The main risk the virus posed was to the health care system: there was a serious worry that the system would simply breakdown completely.  As most people are now vaccinated that risk seems to have receded. There are people who are vulnerable to the virus and they need protection. What has happened is that there has been an element of “mission creep” where so people have said that simply containing the virus is not good enough and that we should aim for the complete elimination of the virus. The only viral disease that has ever been completely eradicated is smallpox. We have been able to control other diseases, TB or rabies for example but none those require the level of  control that  we need for covid but covid is a less serious disease and so, it begs the question what is the right balance between limiting the disease  and living our normal lives.

Unfortunately those behind this misson creep merely expect eradication in the natural population.

They still want their experimental vials for study in laboratories.......er hang-on....... isn't this where the conspiracy theorists believe the pandemic started in the first place?

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

Well, the Secretary for Housing and Communities explained on the Andrew Marr show yesterday that HM Government expects people to make their own sensible decisions.

Some people are incapable of making their own sensible

Actually, if they clearly state that they expect individuals to make the decision about wearing masks or distancing, that resolves quite a lot of workplace concerns, I'd have thought.  My main concern is if they say something that implies that employers still need to provide 'covid secure' measures for the workforce, without indicating what measures are adequate or reasonable.

Could not agree more. I have unfortunatly had to visit 3 citys in the UK in the last 2 weeks and you would think face coverings were already optional (i refuse to belive so many people are exempt). But i two worry about the guidance going but we are still expeceted to make workplaces "covid secure".

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

but we are still expeceted to make workplaces "covid secure"

Did we? http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t131162-Can-we-create-a-Covid-19-secure-workplace

Or did we merely complete a rubber stamped tick-box giving a false sense of security?

Bit of a mixed picture about the restrictions causing harm, as achrn states. On the one hand, GPs have largely shut themselves away behind closed doors through most of the pandemic, and others like dentists have severely restricted the treatment they give. On the other hand, abandoning all restrictions risks an increase in cases and the effects this can have on the NHS, including the inability to cover other services.

On a personal level, I don't think we should abandon precautions like masks, distancing and hand sanitising too soon. These are all sound infection control methods, and although we are not likely to see the virus disappearing any time soon, I would rather see more convincing evidence that we have got it back under control after the emergence of the delta variant.

As usual, the government are fudging the issue, something they have done right through this crisis. And as usual, hordes of people have ignored guidance on distancing, something that has happened right through the crisis.

Quite so Chris. Closing borders has been one of many things this government has been poor and slow in doing, which is the reason for the delta variant taking hold here. It has been a mystery to me why people can't just accept that we don't go abroad for the time being until we have a global reduction in cases; why are people so desperate to burn themselves on beaches in Spain and elsewhere? Even India closed their borders in the early day and saw some control over transmission, until of course it hit the densely populated areas, which provided ideal conditions for transmission. As for things like wearing masks, I struggle to see what the big problem is. Surgeons and their nursing staff wear them nearly all day. People have only been asked to wear them for short periods in indoor areas. Boris has told us that it is about the data not the dates, but has given a lie to this with his fixation on removing all restrictions on the 19th, despite the scientists advising against it. I have this horrible feeling that once restrictions have all been lifted, we will see a rocketing of cases, and he will have to do a U-turn (or there again, he would rather see the bodies piled up in the streets, apparently)

biker1 - the problem is that until we have virtually eliminated the virus (and look how successful we have been with the influenza one) we would have to keep our borders hermetically sealed. Someone from a country where a new variant has occurred might travel via another country from where access to the U.K. was possible. Then what? And if we close our borders (which even with the English Channel we have failed to do) how will we trade internationally? It took many years to eliminate the smallpox virus. There is no 'quick fix' for a pandemic. Believing that we can go it on our own is sadly a delusion that many appear to be suffering from.

A risky strategy and something that cause issues if they attempt to try another lockdown (SAGE minutes allegedly stating Autumn) - the lockdown and vaccination has been a success in terms of reducing hospitalisations and in general most workplaces have adapted (with the exception of the events and hospitality).  Do we now 'tear up' the COVID secure posters, risk assessments and mitigation measures as it is no longer a legal requirement?

Well, the guidance could be worse, but I note they are trying to make public health an occupational health and safety concern:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-summer-2021-roadmap/coronavirus-how-to-stay-safe-and-help-prevent-the-spread says "Employers will still have a legal duty to manage risks to those affected by their business. The way to do this is to carry out a health and safety risk assessment, including the risk of COVID-19, and to take reasonable steps to mitigate the risks you identify.”

So not only are diseases circulating in the population are something that employers need to manage, it's apparently still something they need to manage!

The working safely guidance hasn't been published yet. That's the document that will really drive what employers feel obliged to do, I think.

I also note the research report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/999413/Social-Distancing-Review-Report.pdf  This is the outcome of the promised “review of social distancing measures, and other long-term measures that have been put in place to limit transmission, specifically face coverings and guidance on working from home.”  This report contains the justification for why all social distancing and mask requirements need to be lifted at once (which is, roughly, that the public will get terribly confused by mixed messages if they aren't).  Some of it is plausible, but it's probably written by the same researchers that said at the start of the pandemic that the British public would never tolerate face masks or lockdown for more than a couple of weeks.

Edited by user 06 July 2021 15:06:38(UTC)  | Reason: spalling

Going to have to stop thanking you for your post A or people will talk.

I agree we have a duty to manage health risk. But that duty is "so far as is reasonably practicable" - so far we have had the workplace guidance to help us decide on what this looks like.

The government has addmitted that there will be more cases and deaths from covid as we go forward - some saying this will be the case for years. However they also now appear to be saying that of the "cost" to the econamy and the "cost" to mental health etc from maintaining the restrictions out weigh the benefit from maintaining them. That is the text book definition of "reasonably practicable". So if its not reasonably praticable for the country to do it - is it reasonably practicable for individual compamies to continue with thise measures?

Brian -  part of the problem is that deciding what is and is not "reasonably practicable" is very rarely tested in earnest.

For starters, you would have to decide on whether to follow the judgment in Edwards v NCB which is what HSE refers to or the judgment in Marshall v Gotham which is less helpful from the perspective of an enforcing authority. 

The health and safety textbook says that it's about a balance between the cost (time, money and effort) v the benefit (less loss from injurites and ill health) + and then apply some measure of "disproportion" [that varies markedly depending on your preference as to case law] but even the "costs" [and "benefits"] are not defined particularly clearly.

So, as an example if doing something to make the world safer, should we count environmental or heritage impacts in the equation?

Then there is the consideration of where the costs and benefits fall. A company could e.g. choose to mechanise an operation and put X people out of a job. From the company's perspective this is likely to be "reasonably practicable" as there is less risk to their employees at work. But if you look at it from the ex-employees' perspective their day to day risk might increase, whilst at the same time the employer is very unlikely to pick up the tab for their former workers being out of work - almost all of those costs fall to society.

All the Government is doing is taking such considerations to a macro level. 

"We'll not provide guidance on what are 'sensible precautions' - to either individuals or e.g. the employer - as we will leave you to work out where the costs and benefits fall for those individuals, employers etc".

Edited by user 07 July 2021 09:11:23(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

Originally Posted by: FlashingBlade

when it comes to running a business we cant cope with high volumes of serious illness and self isolation

Which because this is a public health issue you never had, nor ever will have, control of.

At your site @ 40 hours per week - elsewhere mixing & mingling 128 hours

Fortunately for me I'm a work from home self employed so I don't have the same issues as most of you but for my two penneth I suggest it comes down to Risk Assessment.

The Government has introduced safety measures to protect against the Pandemic and as far as risk assessment is concerned if you reduce those measures you must carry out risk assessments to prove the 'new' measures are safe.

As the employer the buck stops with you.

The responsibility of the employer is to reduce the risk of transmission within the workplace. Unlike hazards which are created by the work or workplace COVID is prevalant in society as a whole.

The early guidance I am reading COVID-19 Response: Summer 2021 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

There is quite a deal of information but I beleive this snippet to be most pertinent to this forum:

• For individual settings where the risks of rapid spread are particularly acute, Directors of Public Health, in consultation with setting operators and relevant departments, will be able to advise that social distancing is put in place if necessary to control outbreaks. This should be targeted, time limited, and apply to settings characterised by enclosed and vulnerable communities such as prisons, immigration removal centres and homeless shelters.
• It is no longer necessary for Government to instruct people to work from home. Employers can start to plan a return to workplaces.
• Regulations that place COVID-secure requirements on businesses, including table service, and distancing between tables, will be lifted. ‘Working Safely’ guidance will be updated to provide examples of sensible precautions that employers can take to reduce risk in their workplaces. Employers should take account of this guidance in preparing the risk assessments they are already required to make under pre-pandemic health and safety rules.
• Businesses must not require a self-isolating worker to come to work, and should make sure that workers and customers who feel unwell do not attend the setting.
• Businesses will be encouraged to ask staff and customers to clean their hands regularly and clean surfaces that people touch regularly. The Government will provide guidance on how businesses can reduce unnecessary contact in the workplace, where it is practical. Operators will still be encouraged to use outside space where practical, and to consider the supply of fresh air to indoor spaces. Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitors could be used to help identify where a space is poorly ventilated with businesses encouraged to take steps to improve ventilation if CO2 readings are consistently high.
• Businesses will be encouraged to display QR codes for customers to check in using the NHS COVID-19 app, to support NHS Test and Trace, although it will no longer be a legal requirement.

Where have you seen that?  The main .gov.uk page (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19) just says "It will be updated shortly to reflect the move to Step 4, which is expected to start on 19 July." without a definition of what 'shortly' means.

Common sense has nothing to with this!

If last year the government had simply told everybody to apply ‘common-sense’ and use what already existed at the time ie COSHH and the ACoP associated people would have read in para 18 of the guidance: “The general duties of COSHH apply to incidental exposure to, and deliberate

work with, biological agents. However, COSHH does not cover a situation where, for example, one employee catches a respiratory infection from another. This is because regulation 2(2) specifies that COSHH only applies in those circumstances where risks of exposure are work related, and not those where they have no direct connection with the work being done.”

Having read this most business would have simply ignored the issue as they would have realised it is nothing to do with specifically protecting their work force but to do with protecting the community at large. Some business might have decided to take measures out of a community spirit. They would have gone bust by the autumn. That is why the government made it compulsory for everybody to apply measures, so nobody would (in theory at least) lose out. The laws requiring, those measures disappear next week but the government is still appealing to some sort of community spirit but there is no way to enforce this so what will happen then.      

Pandemics are not democratic; by that I mean that you don’t need a majority of people not to follow rules for something to spread (the R number be greater than 1). If something like 10-20% of people don’t follow the measure it will spread. I think the government has accepted that but they are hoping that the NHS will be able to cope with the rise in infections and that less people will be seriously ill or die, because of vaccination.   Whether one business decides to make employees wear masks or not is not that relevant; it’s what is happening in the community in the pubs , clubs or shops that matters.

As for most things, the law is there for the bad guys; the good guys will be doing the right thing anyway. The problem is that all through the pandemic, there has been a sizeable minority of bad guys who didn't comply with precautions and restrictions. The majority of people complied, but it doesn't take many people to spread a virus. Without the legislation, how are these bad guys going to be controlled?

Some people have kicked up a fuss about the requirement to wear masks, but I honestly don't understand their problem. Did their parents not raise them to have respect for others?