I have COVID 19 R/A's in place which also cover CEV and pregnant employess but I wondered how other organisations are addressing the issue around unvaccinated staff (who through personal choice/medical exemption) cannot/will not have the vaccine and what control measures are in place to protect the unvaccinated employees. 

We will only be conducting a risk assessment for non vaccinated staff in our care homes going forward but this will be very person specific as they will have a medical or approved exemption. Otherwise I do not believe it is relevant in the rest of our organisation. We have other Covid measures in place to manage risks to assure people.

What about "vaccinated" staff where the innoculation has not taken e.g. the immunosurpressed or is naturally wearing off over time?

And this is why this is not a Health and Safety Issue but a Public Health issue…

As employers we cannot, knock down our buildings and upgrade them to make them covid proof nor can we assess the risk posed by this public healthy issue to each and every employee, and carry out a medically assessment for those people who don’t or can’t get vaccinated.  

I will admit to being more than a little concerned that H&S professionals have been press-ganged into completing RAs for communicable diseases when we would normally run a mile from this sort of thing. Lets be honest - a death from influenza is just as serious for the individual concerned as death from Covid-19 and in a 'bad' year there can be 30,000+ of them - not an insignificant number 

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2021/09/20/first-contractor-fined-after-316000-hse-covid-spot-checks/

First Covid prosecution?

As usual more about what was not being addressed despite prohibition notice so unfortunatley keep filling in the pieces of paper

316 000 investigations and only one prosecution; well, that confirms what some of us think: Covid 19 is not a  H&S issue, it’s a public health matter. Go to any workplace and you will see people not applying the covid “guidelines”. If these “rules” were genuine the courts would be full  of people breaching these laws. This case seems to be that a typical pillock who was prosecuted for a whole set of breaches and the HSE  threw in Covid-19 as well. Obviously, the guy was not going to say” I put my hands up for  everything except the covid” so it now looks like someone was prosecuted for Covid-19. I am waiting for someone to be prosecuted SOLELY  for covid 19 breaches. I don’t see that ever happening.

....now that the guidance on the requirements has been relaxed (so far to be even more wishy washy than before) I think that it would be very difficult for HSE to make a Covid case stick if the defendant had the audacity to go to trial (which is of course their absolute right!).

"We are being accused of not having enough "social distancing" and not enforcing the use of face coverings. Well, our defence is based on what Cabinet of the UK Government were filmed NOT doing."

The Magistrate (sitting without a jury) might conclude that "The UK Government is not on trial here. I find you guilty." Entirely reasonable judgment but parts of the media would have fun.

It might be possible, surely, for the regualtor to bring a case for not haveing he Covid RA, for instance? 

As for being able to decide if the (endemic) disease was caught at and as a result of actions / inactions at work - been there in a temporary role where we reported a couple of covid cases - but in the vast majority, even looking at the medical type work that was done, most of the managers felt they couldn't be sure the infection was related to work. We had been investigated by the HSE following a report under RIDDOR so we did report some cases though.

As others have said this is a minefield the HSE should have stayed out of for all sorts of reasons - catching a diseaxe of someone in work - except in limited cases* - was never a H&S issue .

*limited cases being working with pathogens, clinical settings, exposure to sewage, animals etc - not a building site or office block!

Couldn't agree with you more Chris

Which is why prior to this sorry state of affiars H&S practioners used to tell people not to be so silly when asked about infectious disease risk assessments for most workplaces. Plus of course most people spend maybe 8 -10 hours in work and another 14 - 16 hours outside of work. Once a disease becomes endemic then workplace transmission is possibly related to as much to time in work as anything else? Hopelessly simplisitic reasoning, but I'm sure you are getting my (hopefully) pragmatic drift. Asymptomatic carriers, infectious load and alternative routes of transmission mean that most professionals (including medical, clinical and biologists) cannot even begin to figure out where an infection orginated from.                                               And don't even get me started on how all of a sudden every man and his dog is an expert on diagnostic testing accuracy. precision and false positive / negativity rates.                                                                                        Two years ago and most people still didn't know the differences between bacteria and viruses for heavens sake. Far too many technically illiterate people spouting off about things that even 'experts' struggle to convey concisely. Knowing your limits of expertise used to be a sign of competence, but that seems to have been a long time ago now.