Morning All,

As the title says. I thought I understood the rules, but senior management in my place have now made me doubt myself.

We have a staff memeber who has tested COVID +, all teams members they came into contact with were sent out of the business whilst having COVID tests. All have come back negative. Because of the control measures in work, 2m distasncing, masks, sanitising etc.. if they are negative they are ok to come back to work? They have not been contacted by track and trace to isolate nor do they live with this person.

TIA

Interesting how you can read the guidance.

Positive test as an individual self isolate for ten days.

Exposed to someone who tested positive self isolate for fourteen days.

There does not appear to be any comment regarding a negative test result reducing the isolation period.

As with all testing there are caveats e.g. test too soon and the result could be incorrect so those negatives you anticipate being a release to return to work may not be so unless they were fourteen days before return and the people are not showing any symptoms.

Probably where the management think is coming from.

You are correct in that people only have to isolate when contacted by track and trace - however our local health team as asked us to get anyone we identify as close contacts to do it anyway! (cannot even follow their own guidance!)

oOnce isolating i think the guidance is clear - this is copyed from said guidance.

If contacted by NHS Test and Trace, your worker will need to isolate for the full 14 days from when they came into contact with the positive case. They will not be able to leave self-isolation early even if they are not symptomatic as it can take up to 14 days to develop symptoms.

They should not take a test if they are not symptomatic as this could generate a false negative and they may then go on to develop symptoms in the following days.

Sammy K; if you have robust 2m distancing in your workplace, how have the co-workers been identified as being in close contact?  Surely these workers have had occasion to become a close contact so could again.

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

If contacted by NHS Test and Trace, your worker will need to isolate for the full 14 days from when they came into contact with the positive case. They will not be able to leave self-isolation early even if they are not symptomatic as it can take up to 14 days to develop symptoms.

They should not take a test if they are not symptomatic as this could generate a false negative and they may then go on to develop symptoms in the following days.

This scenario happend recently in the Giro d'Italia cycle race.  A rider developed symptoms and tested positive so the whole team (riders & staff) were tested.  All were negative and remained at the race.  A few days later there was routing testing and 4 staff members tested positive, with the assumption that their infection hadn't developed sufficiently on the first test to show up.

Edited by user 20 October 2020 09:34:19(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

We just had a situation wher a person was treated by an osteopath on Saturday. The osteopath had taken a COVID-19 test on the Friday (the day before). They then messaged our employee (on Monday) to say that the test had come back positive.

The employee was immediatly sent for a COVID test, which came back negative. None of the people involved have the Test n Trace app installed. This means, if you follow the guidelines as written, he doesn't have to self isolate. However this seems very counter intuitive to me. Surely this just means nobody should install the app?

From the NHS website...

When to self-isolate

Self-isolate immediately if:

• you have any symptoms of coronavirus (a high temperature, a new, continuous cough or a loss or change to your sense of smell or taste)
• you've tested positive for coronavirus – this means you have coronavirus
• you live with someone who has symptoms or tested positive
• someone in your support bubble has symptoms or tested positive
• you're told to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace or the NHS COVID-19 app
• you arrive in the UK from a country with a high coronavirus risk – see GOV.UK: how to self-isolate when you travel to the UK

None of these apply to this situation.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

They would be treated as being in a bubble - one tests positive the rest isolate. Utter crap to rely on test and trace as it is not in every mobile, people do not sign in, people do not keep Bluetooth switched on and the information is handled in Excel.

Track and trace does not depend only on the app - if you test posative they are sopposed to contact you (yes i know its not always happening)

As for it being UTTER CRAP - while i may agree with you in principle - the GUIDANCE is wait for track and trace!

Well, there is no rule that you can't self-isolate (or support your employees to self-isolate) just because you don't HAVE to self-isolate under the rules.

Originally Posted by: Kate

Well, there is no rule that you can't self-isolate (or support your employees to self-isolate) just because you don't HAVE to self-isolate under the rules.

The current guidlines are completely useless. 

If they can't work from home then they isolate at home.

This is one of the reasons HMG made available a payment (£500?) to ensure those who would likely attend work for money reasons have no need to.

It would be incredibly negligent on behalf of any employer to allow someone who may have the virus to enter the workplace, and depending upon the contract wording attending work with a transmittable disease is a probable disciplinary matter.

So any debate by your employees is immaterial - company policy rules.

Edited by user 20 October 2020 15:33:35(UTC)  | Reason: FFS

Must admit I am normally one of those voices however the post from Cheeky Me seemed to infer policy decision making is coming from an employees talking shop (tail wagging the dog) rather than through managerial lead by considered policy.

With a well written contract of employment there would be a legal basis for banning employees from site.

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

So you suggest we send someone home, with no legal basis, on no money (you can only claim the £500 if you have test and trace), when they don't want to go home?

That seems strange, normally people would flag up the "see you in court" argument if this was suggested.

The difficulty seems to stem from the assumptions behind the 'no legal basis' comment.  It hasn't yet been established to what degree the government guidance has legal basis.  Nor has it been established what the correct interpretation of the contradictory parts of guidance is.  

Currently, the government guidance for households https://www.gov.uk/gover...virus-covid-19-infection is that people that live at the same address as someone that has tested positive should isolate.  As I read teh guidance, you don't need to wait to be told you are in the same household.

The guidance for not-households https://www.gov.uk/gover...not-live-with-the-person seems to be predicated on the assumption that Test and Trace is infallible.  Therefore, it says that "a person who has travelled in a small vehicle with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19" is a contact, and it says that contacts should isolate, but under "I think I have had contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19, but I have not been notified and advised to self-isolate. What should I do?" it says "Contacts who need to self-isolate will be notified".  It doesn't have as a FAQ 'I know for a fact I've had contact and should have been notified, but haven't, what should I do?'

So yes, we need to wait for a court case.

ACAS have this:

https://www.acas.org.uk/coronavirus/self-isolation-and-sick-pay

Statutory sick pay of course is not all that much.

So having identified their are gaps in your policies and procedures you:

a) Do nothing, after all this is everyone elses problem

b) Wait for the next revision to government guidance hoping it will address the questions

c) Take a managerial lead to close the gaps

If you have a COVID secure workplace then you will by default have a COVID Risk Assessment - a forseeable risk in a pandemic are employee contacts so what are your documented controls? These add to contractual terms and become your legal basis.

Sorry Roundtuit, I am not sure I am getting my point across well enough.

We do have the controls. Recently we had our first positive test, it appears this person was ill several days before they lost their sense of smell, so only then got the test (no high temp or cough). Nobody else has tested positive since. Therefore, so far there is no evidence that our controls are not working.

My query was about someone having contact outside of work. If they are not traced by the app, they don't have to self isolate. This is not up for debate, it is in black and white on all the relevant sites. It is not presumption by absence, the wording actually states you do NOT have to isolate, unless you are contacted. How would you word a clause in the contract that states that we can, without any warning or evidence, and against all guidance, send you home on no pay, should we suspect that, outside of work hours, you have come into contact with an infected person?

Would you be able to use the same logic to ban a person because of drug taking, without actually giving them a test? Afterall, we all know they went to a party at the weekend and drugs were present.

As I have said before, the guidelines are very clear. They are also very stupid. Unfortunatly, the rules being stupid is not an accepted reason not to follow them.

Captcha QKJK - not a bad poker hand

Are we straying away from the point here?

For me, the Guidance is clear – isolate with symptoms (or living with someone with symptoms) or when told to do so by Track and Trace – if we do that, we are following the Guidance.

Once someone has been told to isolate by track and trace – I believe it becomes a legal requirement, and they can be prosecuted for not doing so – just like returning from another country (I will happily be corrected on that.)

Like every other part of H&S, if we follow the Guidance, we are fulfilling our legal duty – (but perhaps not our moral duty!)

If we choose to do more than the Guidance, then fantastic – but how many times have we had discussions about the limitations on what we can legally ask from our colleagues – especially when it comes to Health Records, etc.

If we follow the Guidance and make someone isolate for 14 days after track and trace have said so, I believe we could potentially put them on SSP . But if we take that decision ourselves and then pay just SSP I'm not sure how that would stand up in a tribunal – but then I'm not an HR expert.

For me, we need to be careful that we distinguish between what we Could, Should, and Must do. I would never criticise someone for going that extra mile (if legal) but neither would I criticise someone for following the guidance to the letter.

With the expressed degree of uncertainity around guidance and/or legislation for Covid anyone care to speculate just how "on gods green earth" any company has managed to derive and implement a Drugs and Alcohol Policy?

There is nothing in UK statute requring an employee to be sober for work EXCEPTING where such employment falls foul of specific rules e.g. driving on the public highway. Even the chancellor may legally drink when presenting their budget to Westminister.

There is nothing in UK statute requiring an employee NOT to be under the influence of drugs at work EXCEPTING where such employment falls foul of specific rules e.g. driving on the public highway.

So to have enacted such a "policy" the business has documented and communicated a position employees must adhere to - so where is the problem? Other than having omitted to document and communicate.

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Interesting point Cpt Beaky!

If someone comes early into work and spots a security guard in their hut smoking a joint do they a) take immediate disciplinary action b) taken note  of the situation but not act until they have a positive drugs test c) ask for a drag and hope if they think enough positive thoughts all this Covid stuff will disappear in a puff of smoke?

Discuss with examples

I think the correct analogy is that you smell cannabis in the vicinity of the transport office. You then see a flt driver nearby. He has no drugs on him, he doesn't seem to be stoned in anyway (no slow speech, no dilated pupils etc.). You don't have a test kit available. Do you send him home on no pay just in case he is a danger or do you accept that your power's are limited in this situation and just monitor the situation?

I would want to send him home, but could I? Remember this is on zero pay, so in effect suspension.

Regardless of where we get to with this, I feel beholden to highlight that 'Track and Trace' is the domain of the Royal Mail.

https://www3.royalmail.com/track-your-item#/

The original plan involved 'tracking' but look how well that worked out. It's become a ubiquitous but inaccurate way of describing the arrangements. We're stuck with quite a few legacy decisions of this Government.

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

(you can only claim the £500 if you have test and trace)

and the drama rumbles on...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54660237

"People who are told to go into isolation in an alert from the NHS Covid-19 app in England and Wales will not be eligible for government support."

Originally Posted by: Kate

No one ever thought of putting in an employment contract the prospect that an employee might have to confine themselves to their home for two weeks for reasons of public health.

Would we have a public health act if Covid is the first occurrence where quarantine was required?

It is still within living memory that sanitoria were used for TB treatment.

One major difference from TB is that it was only people who were sick with it and needed treatment anyway that would be isolated.  If you were coughing up blood then you were presumably too ill to go to work.  Nowadays people with no Covid symptoms at all who feel themselves to be in perfect health are expected to isolate on the basis that they may be infected without knowing it. This isn't what our sick pay system or our employment contracts were designed for.

On the other hand, in Hilary Mantel's historical novel Wolf Hall,there is a resonant story for today.  Thomas Cromwell's wife has died of the "sweat" (an infectious disease in which you get a fever and quickly die).  As Mantel tells it:

"The rule is for the household to hang a bunch of straw outside the door as a sign of infection, and then restrict entry for forty days, and go abroad as little as possible.

Mercy [a relative] comes in and says, a fever, it could be any fever, we don't have to admit to the sweat ... If we all stayed at home, London would come to a standstill.

'No,' he says. 'We must do it.  My lord cardinal made these rules and it would not be proper for me to scant them.'"

Do nothing, after all this is everyone elses problem, support your employees to self-isolate

Reported