alta-pete Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 No statistician here, but it has taken 3 or 4 days to produce data from just 2 of 14 Health Boards over the strangely selected very short period of the 1/2 January weekend that supports the fearmongering SG’s position? 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 2 minutes ago, saint in exile said: No chance i'm bald as a coot sunshine! ^^^claims for shampoo. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 6 minutes ago, saint in exile said: No chance i'm bald as a coot sunshine! Is that so the tax man can’t grab you by the hair? You’ve got every trick in the book. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 All of this because someone pointed out it was a complete non-surprise that the group of people claiming to be suffering most from a condition that is self-diagnosed (and near impossible to disprove) were those able to take 6/12 months off work on full pay with no risk to job security. Nothing else. Your reaction is rather odd and suggests that it hit a raw nerve.To access the 6/12 months on full/half pay you would need medical certification you can only self diagnose for 28 days.We have had a stooshie with staff who tested positive while forced to take 3 days leave between Christmas and NY now trying to get their leave back whether they were actually ill or not. HR seem to be backing them as they today announced they could self certify and thus regain the 3 days leave on production of the NHS text advising of their isolation period. Asymptomatic staff on leave from a WFH post being classed basically as too sick to work is a nonsense. Opens the door for anyone who can prove a positive test to take 7/10 days off on the sick safe in the knowledge that their HR dept and Union fully back their stance even if the have little or no symptoms and are WFH so not a risk to colleagues anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 9 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Very odd reaction. It's not odd to highlight the anti-state, anti-sick pay, anti-public sector momentum that was gathering pace on the thread. It's simply not welcome for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherchance Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 40 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said: Middle class. With the greatest of respect, here's a big working class "f**k off" from a public servant. Maybe ask why some jobs don't have proper benefits rather than why some do. I’ve said before improving sick pay is up there with one of the most important policies to implement to help people isolate and so on. It is much easier to pontificate about long Covid and rip the arse out of absences when you’ve got full pay compared to when you don’t - fairly basic stuff. The exaggerated effects of long Covid plays into that narrative beautifully. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resk Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 15 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: To access the 6/12 months on full/half pay you would need medical certification you can only self diagnose for 28 days. We have had a stooshie with staff who tested positive while forced to take 3 days leave between Christmas and NY now trying to get their leave back whether they were actually ill or not. HR seem to be backing them as they today announced they could self certify and thus regain the 3 days leave on production of the NHS text advising of their isolation period. Asymptomatic staff on leave from a WFH post being classed basically as too sick to work is a nonsense. Opens the door for anyone who can prove a positive test to take 7/10 days off on the sick safe in the knowledge that their HR dept and Union fully back their stance even if the have little or no symptoms and are WFH so not a risk to colleagues anyway. Good for them. Play the system I say. That's what it's there for. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 27 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: Perm your selected method of fraud. "creative accounting", shirley? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 4 minutes ago, anotherchance said: I’ve said before improving sick pay is up there with one of the most important policies to implement to help people isolate and so on. It is much easier to pontificate about long Covid and rip the arse out of absences when you’ve got full pay compared to when you don’t - fairly basic stuff. The exaggerated effects of long Covid plays into that narrative beautifully. Presumably you’re talking about increasing SSP? Why should this burden be shifted solely onto the taxpayer? How about legislating to force companies to pay decent sick pay without burdening the taxpayer? The problem with SSP is if you increase it it’s money you can’t spend on other public services. Companies should take more responsibility for their employees health/welfare (and you could argue it’s in their interests to do so) but those days are unfortunately long gone. For most it’s all about the bottom line. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Problemo Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 38 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: To access the 6/12 months on full/half pay you would need medical certification you can only self diagnose for 28 days. We have had a stooshie with staff who tested positive while forced to take 3 days leave between Christmas and NY now trying to get their leave back whether they were actually ill or not. HR seem to be backing them as they today announced they could self certify and thus regain the 3 days leave on production of the NHS text advising of their isolation period. Asymptomatic staff on leave from a WFH post being classed basically as too sick to work is a nonsense. Opens the door for anyone who can prove a positive test to take 7/10 days off on the sick safe in the knowledge that their HR dept and Union fully back their stance even if the have little or no symptoms and are WFH so not a risk to colleagues anyway. If I’m forced to sit in the house for the entirety of my leave, I would want it back as well tbh. You don’t exactly get a huge amount of it! Ordinarily though, the leave could just be cancelled and the person could WFH as normal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 7, 2022 Author Share Posted January 7, 2022 There's been a study on Long Covid in French patients. Quote People who thought they’d been infected with SARS-CoV-2 had more persistent symptoms than those whose infections were confirmed by antibody testing in a recent study. Researchers analyzed survey data and serology results from 26 823 adults in France. They found no relationship between the participants’ belief about whether they’d had COVID-19 and their antibody test results from blood samples collected between May and November 2020. In fact, about half of participants who believed that they’d had COVID-19 tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. False-negative results were unlikely to have influenced the associations substantially, according to the authors. The survey also asked participants about more than 20 symptoms associated with long COVID, including soreness, fatigue, poor concentration, trouble breathing, and chest pain. For most of the categories, a belief in having had COVID-19 was associated with currently having a symptom that had lasted for more than 8 weeks, after adjusting for age, sex, income, educational level, self-rated health, and depressive symptoms. However, loss of smell was the only long-term symptom associated with a positive serology test after adjustments. The results “suggest that physical symptoms persisting 10 to 12 months after the COVID-19 pandemic first wave may be associated more with the belief in having experienced COVID-19 infection than with actually being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” the authors wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine. Because another disease may underlie the symptoms that some patients attribute to COVID-19, the authors advised physicians to conduct a medical examination to determine the symptoms’ cause. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2785832#note-IOI210066-1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 6 hours ago, Donathan said: I hate to be that guy but there’s a decent chance that you have covid. LFT’s are sensitive, but they only pick up around 80% of symptomatic infections so there’s a decent chance you’re in the 20%. Might be worth booking a PCR if you care about finding out properly. People with no symptoms of anything and a negative LFT should absolutely not be wasting everyone's time and money, by getting a PCR 'to find out properly'. This fucking insane mentality needs to stop, if it takes truncheons to the face to do so. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 40 minutes ago, Left Back said: Presumably you’re talking about increasing SSP? Why should this burden be shifted solely onto the taxpayer? How about legislating to force companies to pay decent sick pay without burdening the taxpayer? The problem with SSP is if you increase it it’s money you can’t spend on other public services. Companies should take more responsibility for their employees health/welfare (and you could argue it’s in their interests to do so) but those days are unfortunately long gone. For most it’s all about the bottom line. The taxpayer doesn't pay SSP - The employer does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 People with no symptoms of anything and a negative LFT should absolutely not be wasting everyone's time and money, by getting a PCR 'to find out properly'. This fucking insane mentality needs to stop, if it takes truncheons to the face to do so. I’m doing a daily LFT just now after getting the news on Monday, I’m sitting 5 days on, not a chance 5 in a row are negative by accident. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: The taxpayer doesn't pay SSP - The employer does. They claim it back off the government. ETA maybe I should clarify. In the context of covid. Edited January 7, 2022 by Left Back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 7 minutes ago, Left Back said: They claim it back off the government. ETA maybe I should clarify. In the context of covid. Sorry, I thought you were talking about increasing SSP in general. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buchan30 Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 When did the Scottish ambulance service start serving London? [emoji6]I have said this with our healthboard as well. It’s all fine and well, getting the army in to get people to hospital quicker, but that is no use to anyone when they arrive there and there isn’t enough beds for folk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: Not really the same though Bairnardo, is it? Dons1988 had asked me what I thought and I'd told him, which prompted a response from him. For him to then parrot some drivel about me never saying where I stood, was therefore a bit daft. I was hardly asking him to comb through my back catalogue, was I? If TiG has made noises in the past calling for improved sick pay, then fair play. It would be better, though, if he didn't later seem to counter them. I mean its not EXACTLY the same, it's just similar enough to leave me wondering if it something I haven't noticed to which we owe your tone of condescension........ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 4 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Have to congratulate @Monkey Tennison completely missing a fairly benign and uncontroversial point about who is most likely to be taking covid sickness leave I'm not at all surprised that you see the point and its pretty glaring subtext as benign. However, it's actually anything but. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 31 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Sorry, I thought you were talking about increasing SSP in general. I think the whole sick pay system needs legislation but that’s not a topic for here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.