Who’s advice should we take ?

It’s much more difficult to act independently if you have a job of course.

I think you make your own decisions. I listen to the advice of the scientists, the government, and I follow the infection rate in my area. I live in an area of low infections, particularly now as all the infections drop. I went to Waitrose today. I haven’t been inside a shop since March 16th. I buy by Click and Collect, but I couldn’t get a couple of things I wanted, so today, after a garden, socially distanced visit to my elderly mother in the garden of her sheltered apartment, I popped into the nearby Waitrose and picked up the things I wanted. I didn’t feel it was a big risk. I think everyone has to assess their own circumstances and made their own decisions based on that. I certainly won’t be visiting any beaches any time soon.

That’s all very well but if we wait until it’s nearer 100% safe for workers to go back, a lot of them won’t have jobs to go to.

That’s what I meant about the extremely difficult balancing act.

growstuff, in regard to your two above posts, the core legislation for employee safety is the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974.

In regard to employers duty of care, that act states that "it is the duty of every employer to carry out "ALL THAT IS REASONABLY PRACTICAL to ensure the health & safety of all their employees while at their place of work.

What constitutes "all that is reasonably practical" has been the subject of very many court hearings since 1974. However, It is already the case that employees with underlying health issues etc are stating to their employers that they feel it would be unsafe for them to return to work in the present crisis.

In normal circumstances, an employer would request such an employee to attend what is known as an "employment role compatibility review" which would determine whether the worker would, into the future, have the capacity to carry out the job role that he/she is contracted to undertake.

Should it be that review finds that the employee will not be able to carry out that role, then sadly the employer is entitled to dismiss the employee from their employment?

That stated, in the present unprecedented circumstances it is expected that the industrial courts will be making the first landmark rulings on the above issues in the next few weeks. However, that may be followed by the issues being taken to the appeal courts or even the Supreme Court I feel.

There is much to be determined in regard to employment health and safety at present, as we are all in exceptional circumstances in regard to this Covid-19 situation.

My daughter works in HR (at home lol), but she's been working flat out on the implications of getting vulnerable people back to work and how much it would cost the company, if people get sick and decide to sue because suitable precautions have not been put in place.

… or at least (if not 100% safe) that they are better protected than others, so they are not disadvantaged.

Forcing people back to work in an unsafe environment will be self-defeating because people will become sick and will take time off anyway.

The priority should have been to get the infection rate right down and then nearly everybody could have returned sooner and more safely.

Presumably you know more about this than I do, Grandad. I would imagine normal equality laws still apply. For example, if somebody has a condition which makes them more vulnerable (eg diabetes, a heart condition, asthma - or even ethnicity) the employer has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments to make sure they're safe.

JenniferEccles, in regard to your post-@17:00 today, sadly much employment involves employees have to actually attend their places of work to carry out their jobs. Along with that, many employers have found that having employees working from home reduces productive output especially when workers have to collaborate with each other in the course of working.

Therefore very many individual assessments will have to be made by employees as to whether they feel it is safe in their own respect to return to that workplace.

The Same assessment will have to be made by us all of us in regard to whether we wish to go to theatres, cinemas, pubs and restaurants as they reopen. Each will have to carry out their own risk assessment in what they feel is right for them.

It’s an incredibly difficult balancing act between keeping the death rate down yet protecting the economy from a catastrophic downturn by lessening some restrictions.

It’s a fact that the Government would NEVER please everyone whatever they did.

My view is that now the economy is a priority and I would like to see more younger people back at work.

Older people who feel vulnerable can continue to isolate themselves if they feel that is best.

Same here! I've had hay fever quite badly for the last few weeks. I don't know how many boxes of tissues I've used. I know if I were actually out and about that I wouldn't be able to use a tissue every time I sneezed. If I did have covid-19, my sleeves would be saturated with it by now.

As lockdown is eased many in the population will have to make their own individual judgment on what is right for them and their families.

By example, all through Britain at this time employers are attempting their utmost to make places of work as safe as possible from Covid-19 infection so as to allow for the gradual return of employees.

However, there are many different factors involved which makes the many risk assessments carried out bring forward inconsistent levels of hazard appraisal for various employees. Age is one factor which differentiates all in terms of risk, while underlying health issues greatly increases the hazard of very serious health implications should such persons become infected with Coronavirus.

Since around 9:00 am a team of from within my own company have been working on a safety audit for an employer in front of plans for all their employees to return to work over the next two weeks.

However, we have had to inform that employer that not all the risk assessments we have carried out can be brought within normal laid down parameters due to the above variables.

In the end, it will be for each of those employees to individually assess whether they feel the risk of a return to that workplace is a situation they feel they can accept.

The above is a situation that is happening all over the United Kindom at present. What will be the outcome for those that feel they cannot accept the risk of a return to their workplces is a matter still to be determined as this unprecedented global crisis moves on.

Every country that is coping well with this pandemic advocates the wearing of masks. I don't understand what is so special about the UK that it isn't going to work for us. Given that it's hayfever season and people are going to be sneezing a lot and sneezing can spread the virus by many metre surely that's more of a reason to wear masks. Not sure about everyone else but when I sneeze the sneeze happens faster than my reaction to it and just sneezing into your arm isn't going to contain many viral particles.

I have a box of masks. I was given them by the parents of a Chinese student, who was absolutely horrified I didn't have any. That was before lockdown and I haven't gone out anyway, but they just couldn't believe that I would go out into a crowded city without a mask, even in normal times. I think it's possibly the same in Japan.

I expect it will all be researched, but I think that it's interesting that Japan and Germany both acted quickly and acted at local level to identify clusters and deal with them. Even now, each "Bezirk" in Germany (roughly equivalent to local authority) tracks infection levels and has powers to shut down schools and shops, etc, if levels rise above a certain percentage. I think New Zealand did the same. The UK waited until rates were rising exponentially before it did anything.

Interesting as well Growstuff that the wearing of masks is the norm there (hay fever season?). Here in Wales (alone in UK) we’re told it’s not recommended!

Testing works best if it's done for a purpose and the results lead to manageable outcomes. If the rate is low and there are localised outbreaks, they can be controlled by fast and efficient testing and compulsory isolation. In the UK it was allowed to get out of control and I fear that we're heading that way again. It appears that the whole testing and tracking system in the UK is nowhere near ready and there are doubts about whether the call centre approach will work anyway.

Japan acted very quickly. It's method was to focus on clusters of infections and deal with them. People have worn masks and have been vigilant about social distancing. No dithering and bumbling! Covid-19 never became endemic, as it did in the UK because it was stamped on from the start.

The rate is beginning to creep up in Japan, so it might not all be rosy in the future.

You can read about here:

thediplomat.com/2020/04/covid-19-strategy-the-japan-model/

The testing argument falls on its backside if you look at Japan who have tested less than 17000 with a death total of less than a thousand which given their population/density/non-lockdown is incredible.

I’m looking for an explanation rather than an argument as there are so many anomalies in all of this.

Interesting article about the sequence of events and what we know about the thinking behind them. It's not trying to assign blame, just saying what happened and why:

bylinetimes.com/2020/06/01/the-lost-march-how-the-uk-governments-covid-19-strategy-fell-apart/

If MP's get enough Emails about Cummings they will revolt and force him out. - I wish! My MP's response:

Though I do not agree with his (Cummings) reading of the lockdown rules, I can understand how someone could take a different view, especially given all the stress of the moment. I would feel the same way about a constituent who found themselves in a similar position. It has never been my practice to pass judgement on others in politics, whatever their party or views, and I do not propose to start now

In other words, he is watching his back and protecting his career and cannot give a flyer if DC's actions provoke a casual attitude to the rules, with all the dangers inherent in that. His bum must be so sore from sitting on the fence.

There has never been any need to be in lockdown for six months. Strict enforcement of lockdown, apart from a tiny handful of genuine exceptions would have brought the transmission rate right down. What the UK had was a lot of dithering and people thinking it would be OK if they broke the rules, compounded by poor messaging from a government wanting to pander to agendas other those concerned with health. That's why the transmission rate is taking so long to come down.

Listen to the scientists and doctors every time.

It's known how the virus is spread. It's also known who is at highest risk of being badly affected and there are some very convincing arguments why.

There is no such thing as "zero risk". You cannot ever guarantee that you will get through every day and wake up the next morning. However, you can take steps to minimise risk.

If leaving home would put you in a position where you would need to be close to other people, don't do it. You can check how many people in your area are symptomatic and how many likely to be infected. If 0.5% of people in your area are symptomatic, that means there's a 1 in 200 chance that somebody in a supermarket, high street, train, etc. is infected. To me, that's quite a high risk. Sometimes it's possible to keep away from other people; at other times, it's not.

Your relative risk of being badly affected is likely to affect your decision. If you're in one of the high risk groups, you'll be less inclined to take risks. If you're young and don't have one of the named underlying conditions, you might be infected, but not have any serious symptoms. Maybe that risk is worth it.

Personally, I wouldn't trust any of the politicians or "official" guidelines to tell me what day it is tomorrow. They've lied through their teeth about too much and I don't see them changing.

We can only do what we feel is best to keep ourselves, friends and family safe.

Unfortunately there’s are complete idiots out there who think because they are young they are invincible and don’t give a damn about others older or more vulnerable. So don’t go where they go.

I totally agree with your post Tooting.

A big failing was allowing unlimited travel. More opportunities to exercise, yes, but driving all over the place was a big mistake. I quite agree about travelling for hours to sit on a crowded beach. Why? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. We live half an hour’s drive from the beach, but happy to leave it to the hording masses.
Boris also should have kept quiet about barbeques, and just left it that up to six could meet in a garden.
People have interpreted that as a free for all party.

At the risk of being unpopular, where is personal responsibility in this pandemic. There is plenty of advice on line and it does not take too much intelligence to follow it and exercise common sense. Up your hygiene habits which is proved to be effective. Restrict movements and who you meet. Social distance. Isolate if you have the virus. It just common sense. Unfortunately many of the population do not seem to understand this, if the scenes at the beaches last weekend are anything to go by. Why anyone wants to drive for 3 hours to sit on a crowded beach is beyond me. Not to mention the strain it puts on local councils. If there is a second peak it will be the fault of the thousands of people who think its OK to flout the guidance. My principal gripe with the government is allowing unlimited travel, in England. I prefer the Welsh approach of stay local, as it allows police some enforcement. The impact on health organisations in rural areas could be significant. My other massive gripe is that the media muddle the message, bringing in experts to question everything that adds confusion to the public. The online advice is very clear, just read it and ignore the rubbish and opinion on line.

Tooting; is that the same government advice that, in February told us that the government and NHS were well prepared to deal with the virus. And told us to carry tissues, catch your coughs and sneezes, bin the tissue and wash your hands. Told people returning from China to follow the specific advice. And then called the virus a 'germ'. Wasn't that around the time that they were reserving beds in care homes so they could send sick patients to care homes to free up hospital beds.