Originally Posted by: biker1

As for most things, the law is there for the bad guys

...to ignore! Therein lies the problem with the way we write law, something bad happens or is enacted by someone bad and parliament flexes its knee and restricts the majority of society to placate the latest petition circulating on social media, meanwhile the perpetrators carry on regardless.

I can see your point Roundtuit, although I don't necessarily agree. The law serves two purposes (or should do) - to protect society and its members, and to try and get the bad guys to do the right thing as the good guys are doing. If the law is broken, then penalties follow. In practice, of course, the offender needs to be caught to suffer the penalties, and that can be a problem. The shrinking of the police force, the cuts in the HSE budget, and the mind-numbingly slow judicial process make catching and punishing offenders difficult and agonisingly slow.

One end result of all of this is that quite often the law is not enforced, and I see little point in enacting legislation if it is not to be enforced. Sometimes there is no-one to enforce it, for instance legislation against disability discrimination, where no body is tasked with enforcing it and the onus is on the individual to bring legal action, something that rarely happens for practical reasons. We have a law against using hand-held mobile phones whilst driving, but the scarcity of police patrols and the need to have a witness if reporting someone means the chances of getting caught are quite slim.

I'm struck by the following in the new guidance:

"Covid-19 is a workplace hazard.  You must manage it in the same way as other workplace hazards."

Well, to me that means it will continue to be a workplace hazard for the foreseeable future, and it's rare that a specific hazard gets a risk assessment all to itself.  I am thinking about incorporating it in general risk assessments instead of having a separate one.

I'm also struck by the complete dropping of "distancing" although there are references to congested areas, consistent work teams and limiting contact of visitors with others.

Ventilation is clearly the in thing now, and I think I may have to learn about CO2 monitoring quite fast ...

Originally Posted by: Kate

Ventilation is clearly the in thing now, and I think I may have to learn about CO2 monitoring quite fast ...

I've seen several things recently saying that people under-estimate the effectiveness of improved ventilation. 

For example the review report up the thread ( https://assets.publishin...ancing-Review-Report.pdf ).

Also the snappily titled blog post 'People have a good sense of which settings are riskier than others in terms of coronavirus transmission – but underestimate the benefits of ventilation' from the so-called 'nudge unit': https://www.bi.team/blog...oronavirus-transmission/

My interpretation of the guidance is that as SARS-CoV-2 is a known hazard:

1) If you work in an environment where your work involves close contact with persons known to be affected with Covid-19 or where you have persons working directly with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, then you must assess the risk that these persons may become affected by virtue of the work exposure. This would apply to certain departments within an NHS establishment but almosst certainly not an engineering workshop.

2) If you do not have SARS-Cov-2 in your workplace as a direct part of your operation then you do not have to carry out a risk assessment as there is no direct connection between your working environment and the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, if you become aware that someone in your workplace is positive then you need have arrangements in place to ensure that they cannot pass the virus on to others.

If it is a workplace hazard which workplaces are funding test & trace? Based on one of our locations has just had all its employees told to isolate for a single positive test obviously our competition.

If Covid is a workplace hazard do we also have to risk assess and control ALL infectious disease transmission?

Don't worry folks; the HSE is as confused as the rest of us. Just spoke to an inspector to enquire which piece of Health & Safety law woould be breached if the controls in the guidance (which in reality are all 'reasonably practicable' to implement) are not in place.

Sadly they were unable to answer this most basic and fundamental of questions.

The following is in all the workplace guidance docs

As an employer, you must by law protect workers and others from risks to their health and safety. This includes risks from COVID-19.

COVID-19 is a workplace hazard. You must manage it in the same way as other workplace hazards. This includes:

• completing a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks of COVID-19 in the workplace
• identifying control measures to manage that risk

Failure to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and put in place sufficient control measures to manage the risk may be considered a breach of health and safety law.

So Covid is now a recognised workplace hazard and if I catch the disease at work and as a result have to cancel my holidays does that mean that I can sue my employer because as a result of their obvious negligence I have lost out?

Remember negligence is common law and the courts have to apply the law according to precedent, irrespective of what Boris and co think. Or do they declare this is load of bunk and as employer we have no general duty of care to the community unless it is written into statute law?

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

if I catch the disease at work

Going right back to the start of this circus remind me how any individual is going to prove where they caught a disease in general circulation within the population.

You don't have to prove you caught it at work, you just need to show that on the balance of probabilities you caught it at work. Given that, for most people, the most time you spend around others outside of your family is at work, I would suggest that is not too high a bar to get past, especially if your work has nothing in place to prevent transmission.

I am just playing devil's advocate here.

Knowing what my study of the evidence has indicated to me I would challenge the assumption that it is most probable that the infection occurred in the workplace. It is somewhat too involved to explain in detail on the forum, but the indirect route, via fomites, can spread the virus far wider, potentially affecting far more people, than is commonly appreciated. I encounter a similar situation when called upon to investigate what has been assumed to be an occupational skin problem. Frequently the investigation reveals that the cause is largely, if not entirely, caused by non-occupational exposures. (note the pural) Surely, it has to be clearly shown that the infection was caused by exposure to a known source of the virus in the workplace for one to be able to claim that it is an occupational infection. If the person who was the 'spreader' was asymptomatic how would you know? Merely assuming this would, I think, be easily challenged in a legal case. Conventional risk assessment and management strategies do not work with SARS-CoV-2, which is why there can be no 'Covid secure' workplace.

Originally Posted by: chris.packham

Conventional risk assessment and management strategies do not work with SARS-CoV-2

Unfortunately Chris the Government and HSE guidance does not agree with you, even if most of the rest of us do.

"An elephant is a mouse designed to government specifications"

Now we have the new workplace guidance that specifically states Covid-19 is now a defined workplace hazard, I was asked last night if this now brings RIDDOR back into scenarios outside of specific healthcare, treatment & testing directly involving the virus or infected persons.

The HSE Covid RIDDOR guidance used to be clear in this regard but now appears blurred again with this new definition.  Opinions please?

Tuesdays RIDDOR REPORTING OF COVID-19 update here https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/riddor/index.htm

In my view, still refers to those actively working with the virus (labs, hospitals, etc.), and I have advised my directors accordingly.

I agree it is muddled, but then RIDDOR has never been crystal has it?

Originally Posted by: RVThompson

Tuesdays RIDDOR REPORTING OF COVID-19 update here https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/riddor/index.htm

In my view, still refers to those actively working with the virus (labs, hospitals, etc.), and I have advised my directors accordingly.

I agree it is muddled, but then RIDDOR has never been crystal has it?

I agree with you, for the record.  However the RIDDOR Covid page now states the below and if Covid is now designated as a workplace hazard then that must lead to occupational exposure in all settings, by the descriptors in the guidance.  Patently bonkers but there you have it.

• a person at work (a worker) has been diagnosed as having COVID-19 attributed to an occupational exposure to coronavirus. This must be reported as a case of disease

Further RIDDOR reporting of covid-19 guidance here https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/riddor/riddor-reporting-further-guidance.htm#disease-law