Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[coprolite]

3 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

No its not, if the legislation does not mandate masks they are not in breach of them by not wearing them.  That patently means their workplace is obviously unsafe, but they're still not in breach of legislation.

You completely swerved my question then why a workplace deemed unsafe in March is apparently safe now with infections circulating at a higher level than in March. It doesn't matter though I'm not really interested in your opinion on that.

The workplace is less safe without masks, not obviously unsafe (just because it doesn't have masks). 

It's not a question just of whether it is safe or not but an overview of what the costs and benefits are of it being open. The situation now is different from March as is the level of knowledge about transmission. 

[welshbairn]

The infection rate seems to be stabilising, and the vaccine is on its way. Closing down the entire economy to the extent they did in March when they didn't have a clue what was happening, to stop the hospitals going beyond capacity, would be an overreaction. As would having a blanket rule on 24/7 mask wearing in every work place whether needed or not.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

12 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

14 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I know Gary Neville talks a lot of shite at the best of times, wonder where he is getting the line that people will only be allowed out once a week. Full scale anarchy if that “rule” was introduced 

You do realise people in Spain managed 7 weeks without even being allowed out for exercise without anarchic behaviour ?

This.  And society did not break down. We are the most infected country on earth, we NEED the most draconian legislation on earth, and we're just not getting it.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The workplace is less safe without masks, not obviously unsafe (just because it doesn't have masks). 

It's not a question just of whether it is safe or not but an overview of what the costs and benefits are of it being open. The situation now is different from March as is the level of knowledge about transmission. 

Again, you're just blindly defending something to oppose me. We know its more transmissable now than it was in March. We know it thrives in cold, damp conditions and we know this is January. What's happened is an economic decision has been taken that its okay for some people to die.  So the govt now values my parents lives less than it did in March, and less than yours or most of society.  That isn't fair.

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Pish, they've done it all over the world and its worked fine. Did you not read the post from the guy in the 
Phillipines?  There's a reason we are the most infected country on earth you know.

I believe @hk blues is a school teacher. Not every workplace is the same.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The infection rate seems to be stabilising, and the vaccine is on its way. Closing down the entire economy to the extent they did in March when they didn't have a clue what was happening, to stop the hospitals going beyond capacity, would be an overreaction. As would having a blanket rule on 24/7 mask wearing in every work place whether needed or not.

Couldn't disagree more, given every 75 seconds today somebody in the UK is drowning to death in their own lung fluid alone in a hospital bed after saying bye to their family on an ipad.

We are the most infected country on earth. Nothing would be too much right now. Realistically we should all be locked in our homes for a month.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

I believe @hk blues is a school teacher. Not every workplace is the same.

It doesn't matter, there isn't a single workplace where this couldn't be achieved if the will was there.

[Alert Mongoose]

All we need now is for Supras to be freed and directed to this thread.

[Thereisalight..]

3 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

This.  And society did not break down. We are the most infected country on earth, we NEED the most draconian legislation on earth, and we're just not getting it.

I’m sure the Facebook Maws and those who exist to play video games or watch Netflix will manage fine with only going out their house once a week, that’s their usual life anyway. I’m afraid that for those suffering poor mental health getting outside and going a walk really is a lifesaver. Taking that away would be barbaric 

[ICTChris]

A year ago, a lot of epidemiologists were writing papers about the risks and widespread panic and civil unrest was widely expected.  One paper, I'll need to look up who wrote it, predicted that lockdowns wouldn't work because the rioting that would inevitably result would cause more cases than the lockdown would prevent.

In reality we had a lockdown that few people thought possible in January, for several months, with basically zero serious unrest.  It's fucking shit that they might take away support bubbles for single people, those living alone, etc but it won't induce anarchy.

[Cyclizine]

50 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Again that's juvenile shite that only a fanny would come out with.  All him and me want is a basic level of protection that is offered to all in society.  So your workplace isn't safe for you just now, so you're off, why isn't he?  His workplace was deemed not safe in March because of the amount of infections, now with infections higher apparently its safe?

And its too much to ask our government at least mandates people have to treat his workplace like a fucking supermarket and wear a mask?  You're an arsepiece mate.

This is bread and butter Occupational Health. Has he spoken to his line manager for a referral? His factory's OHS will do a risk assessment and decide what if any adjustments need to be made. Same goes for your mother.

[vikingTON]

38 minutes ago, 101 said:

 

We currently exist in a structure that employers look at the legislation and decide the appropriate level or response I don't see once the structure has been updated why we revert to spoon feed business. The public aren't used to this level of restriction therefore prescriptive measures are better for them

Business know their setting better than anyone else and at the end of the day they will carry the can for out breaks in their work place. The public of course will be expected to push the boundaries to the limit but for a business to do the same and risk closure seems reckless in the extreme.

This is complete nonsense. A business is not going to 'carry the can' at all for a pandemic disease outbreak affecting its workers. How much do you think that Tesco are going to be fined for the employees who have died of Covid up and down the country? Zero, because sufficient liability will never be determined.

This is not a standard unsafe work environment then in which fault will clearly come back to the employer if things aren't set out correctly. This is a situation in which an employer's interpretation of Covid-secure will be bent towards what is most convenient/cheapest for them to implement while being within the vague area of compliance. Not necessarily because the company is malevolent but because the incentives are not lined up in the same way as before. 

24 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

The HASAWA has placed the responsibility on both employer and employee to manage significantly more dangerous working conditions than covid for decades though. Having been used to working under that act, why cant employers be reasonably expected to do what is neccessary, employees expected to follow said guidance, and the HSE to be contacted in the event of a failure to do so? 

Like 101 said, it's a bit different for employers. For me that can reasonably be expected to be told what constitutes "covid secure" and act to make that happen. 

For the reasons outlined above, the HASAWA is completely redundant in the case of an airborne disease being transmitted in the community and potentially in a workplace environment as well. It wasn't designed to deal with this scenario and employers know that liability will never fall on them (and rightly so). What you need instead is a set of additional prescriptive measures that companies are obliged to enforce until the public health emergency is over. 'Leaving it to employers who know their workplace and tell the union rep about breaches' is nowhere near sufficient.

Edited January 11, 2021 by vikingTON

[welshbairn]

I demand to know what Joanna Cherry's position is on this issue.

[philpy]

Too much dithering by the SG. None of this "we might have to do that, we might have to do this" pish. FFS if they feel tighter restrictions are better, then just get fucking on with it so people know what the f**k is happening.

[Bairnardo]

10 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Again that's nonsense mate, not one of us alive has ever seen significantly more dangerous working conditions than Covid. Never before could a colleague walking five feet away from you kill you. That's just drivel.

Nope. Working at height or in a confined space, or with a radioactive source are all examples of more dangerous situations. 

[Guest bernardblack]

A year ago, a lot of epidemiologists were writing papers about the risks and widespread panic and civil unrest was widely expected.  One paper, I'll need to look up who wrote it, predicted that lockdowns wouldn't work because the rioting that would inevitably result would cause more cases than the lockdown would prevent.
In reality we had a lockdown that few people thought possible in January, for several months, with basically zero serious unrest.  It's fucking shit that they might take away support bubbles for single people, those living alone, etc but it won't induce anarchy.

I read a similar paper that predicted this entire scenario that is playing out.

Lockdown....ease of restriction...spike in cases...lockdown with nobody caring/fed up of the rules...huge spike etc

[ICTChris]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

Nope. Working at height or in a confined space, or with a radioactive source are all examples of more dangerous situations. 

What if I work at height, in a confined space with radioactive material?  Should I wear a mask or first report it to the HSE?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

4 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

This is bread and butter Occupational Health. Has he spoken to his line manager for a referral? His factory's OHS will do a risk assessment and decide what if any adjustments need to be made. Same goes for your mother.

They have done these things, and are complying with guidelines, but it still isn't safe, or even as safe as they can make it.  

My mum works in respite care, its just to give the parents some respite. Its not life saving. There is no reason that should be happening at all just now as its impossible to make it safe. You can't do that job and social distance. Government recognised this in March and shut it down, now its open with infections higher than March.

[Rob1885]

Tbh mate I don't care. I have had mental health problems too so I sympathise, but compared to people dying alone in a hospital bed someone's mental health is of zero importance.

Cant agree with that, sorry.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Nope. Working at height or in a confined space, or with a radioactive source are all examples of more dangerous situations. 

Really, can you point out for us which year saw 80 thousand people fall to their deaths at work?