Who’s advice should we take ?

I'm with the medics and scientists and with sensible personal responsibility.

Right now there is a party / bbq going on next door. I won’t be chatting at the gate with them. They are in their 30yrs and don’t think the rules apply to them , I know my neighbours are back at work so who knows who they have come into contact with. But never mind eh. !!!

I am OK with the easing of the lockdown but with still lots of rules. I have been to shops that are opening much longer, still with screens, floor markers, people moving well round each other, waiting ages while you’re in their aisle and lessening the number of shoppers as ones like me who like to go in late can now do so. There is hand sanitiser at doorways. I noticed that the Chelsea Pensioners home, having a military ethos and an extremely tight ‘drill’ for safety still got the virus in, they said. Yes, the economy was already troubled as everyone abandoned the high street shops, but it is seriously in trouble from all these weeks of lost trade and vast amounts of money. Two weeks in the world of business is a very long time and does make a huge difference. You have to balance the two problems all the time. Did someone call me a nutjob ? No, just facing facts. Easing of lockdown is not forcing people to change their personal feelings and lockdown rules.

On the 24 April I received this text from the NHS:

"If you are 70+ or 16+ and offered a flu jab due to a health condition, you are more at risk from coronavirus. Please follow Government advice. Ask family, friends or local community groups to deliver the food and support you need. If you lack such support please register at xxxx"

I expect many others received the same text. The message wasn't entirely clear about going out for exercise, etc but I hadn't left the house since before lockdown (still haven't), so I didn't take that much notice of it. I have had all food and medicines delivered to the door.

No problem for me, but I am under 66, so still of working age. If I had a job working outside the home, I might very well be expected to return to working with other people, including colleagues and the public and travel to work by public transport.

The number of people showing symptoms in my area hasn't decreased that significantly since 24 April, so my risk of being infected hasn't reduced that much.

Despite what Grandad claims, I have health conditions which are covered by the Equality Act. Any employer is obliged to make reasonable adjustments. In normal times that isn't a problem because I don't really need adjustments. However, in the current situation, my risk of being badly affected by Covid-19 is approximately 10 times higher than average. A decent employer would need to take that into account and make reasonable adjustments, in the same way that pregnant women shouldn't be working if there is anybody in the workplace with rubella.

I would hope that the government is aware of the above (well, I do hope), so presumably the argument is that a few bad cases, possibly leading to deaths, is worth it "to get the economy going".

I'm relieved that, personally, I don't have to work outside the home, but there will be many people in a similar situation who do. What are they to do? They can risk their health, risk being sacked, risk not having any income.

What about the Equality Act? The bit which includes the Disability Discrimination Act?

I'm afraid you really don't know what you're talking about so "Bye".

growstuff Quote [ What about the Equality Act grandad? I think you're missing my point. I already knew what you've told me umpteen times.] End Quote.

growstuff, in regard to "what you've told me umpteen times" can I respectfully suggest that you then begin to take it in, as much of what you are posting on this thread makes no sense or does not comply with the existing legislation or procedures.

In regard to the Equality Act 2010, that act encompasses sections of the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974 (HSAWA), but the foregoing is still the premier legislation governing workplace safety throughout the United Kindom.

The Equality Act would only legislate for where safety procedures may not be the same by way of gender, race or religion when the task being carried out is equal to all. Therefore growstuff, I fail to see where your reference to the Equality Act falls in regard to the topic under discussion.

In regard to my "dealing with real people" which you mention in your post @8:53 today, I have been dealing with real people by way of workplace safety for the last thirty five years.

Those persons are often of people that have been injured in industrial accidents or are involved in disciplinary or grievance procedures with their employers due to safety concerns. I also carry out training, tuition, investigation and auditing in regard to industrial safety with and for others.

The above I am about to resume once again now. So, see you later. ?

BTW Do you ever deal with real people and situations rather than repeat generic advice?

What about the Equality Act grandad? I think you're missing my point. I already knew what you've told me umpteen times.

Everyone on here may read all the stats and make up their own common sense rules, but we know the majority of great British public do not, if the pictures from parks, beaches, and police reports are to be believed.

growstuff, in regard to your posts @22:47 and 22:50 yesterday, as I have stated previously in this thread, any employer only has to demonstrate to the courts that they have carried out "everything reasonably practical" to ensure that the health & safety of employees in a workplace is maintained to the highest standards possible, and that will always guarantee against any litigation brought against them in regard to safety.

Again as previously stated, what's makes up "everything reasonably practical" has been since the introduction of The Health & Safety At Work Act 1974 (HSAWA) the subject of untold numbers of court hearings over the years which has brought forward the standards of safety expected in many industries.

No employer can provide, or is expected to provide, one hundred percent safety in any workplace or within any individual task in that workplace. What an employer is expected to achieve is an environment where the risks and hazards of any operation are assessed and those risks brought within acceptable limits through training, safe working procedures and the provision of personal protective equipment where deemed necessary.

In regard to the training of staff as replacement of existing employees, then no single person should be allowed to become non-replaceable in any organisation. In these days when staff can on reasonably short notice take up maternity or paternity leave, others in that organization should always be previously trained to as possess the skills of those who may go absent.

The continuous ongoing training of employees to upgrade their skill levels is a good profitable practise in any business and one that is always requested by employees so as to enhance their employment purpose to any company.

I will be following the very sensible slow relaxation of lockdown advice and laws coming from the Scottish Government but won't as yet be meeting with other households -our family and friends are working in high risk areas so would be a risk to us

I couldn't agree with you more Daisymae. We have an incompetent, dithering, talentless government with mixed messages. People have lost any confidence in what they're being told. The pro-Tory bots are doing their best to pump out the propaganda, but even they seem to be giving up. This government is a disgraceful shambles.

People are confused about the government advice. The messages are muddled and a lot of people have lost faith anyway. Coupled with a distinct lack of leadership, I think that we're in trouble. The main agenda is to complete Brexit without a deal and the rest can go hang. Maybe we need some sort of personal liability law for disastrous policy making?

You are absolutely wrong about the training costs for training replacement staff. It depends on skill level, but in many cases, it can take years before a replacement can perform at the same level as somebody who has been dismissed.

Grandad Any employee dismissed because the employer can no longer provide safe working conditions would be entitled to take the case to an employment tribunal. In most cases, there would be an out of court settlement.

As I said before, my daughter is an HR specialist and I have had many conversations with her about redundancy on health grounds.

However, it's not just about legalities, but the good of the organisation. Hire and fire suits some cowboy operators, but not those who truly value the expertise of their staff.

It was obvious right from the start that BAME groups were disproportionately affected so why did it take so long for Hancock et al to realise it. And now that he/they have they still don't seem to be doing anything about it. Unfortunately we have a pandemic that affects BAME groups and the elderly more than the rest of the population. Difficult not to draw conclusions from that. Bit scary to say the least.

growstuff, in regard to your above posts, any employment compatibility review that an employee is requested to attend would look at whether that worker is likely to require regular or single long periods of absenteeism as part of that review.

Should it be deemed that the employee may well require such absenteeism due to being a vulnerable person or having any other underlying health issues, then an employer is entitled to dismiss a worker from their employment on the grounds that the employee is no longer compatible with the employment role that he/she is contracted to undertake.

In the above, there would be no entitlement to redundancy payment by a worker as the job is still in existence but the existing employee is no longer able to fulfil that role.

Dependent on length service there may be an obligation on the employer to assess whether other suitable employment is available within the organisation that would be compatible with the health situation of the employee. Should that not be the case then the above dismissal circumstance comes into effect.

With chronic health situations, training costs for replacement employees is not a major consideration, as such training of a permanent replacement for an existing employee is a much more effective resolution to an ongoing absentee problem than the hiring of agency staff on a regular basis in terms of cost and efficiency.

Apologies growstuff if the above sounds soulless and harsh, but that is how these often complex issues are viewed by very many employers.

Today Hancock said that people from ethnic minority groups and those in higher risk groups should stringently follow social distancing rules.

Absolutely fine, unless you are being forced back to work (either through financial reasons or because the nutjob sector of the public thinks it's critical to the economy) and your job means that social distancing isn't possible.

Other options must be considered for such people. In the worst case scenario, they must be provided with appropriate PPE. Unfortunately, some employers and their adoring public think that the "economy" is the first priority. Surveys have shown that a high percentage of people have been ignoring self-isolation guidelines because they needed the money. That's the result of an out-of-touch government which has shown repeatedly that it doesn't really know what it's doing (apart from handing out contracts to mates).

I really do hope that a responsible and respected journalist/historian/writer researches all this in forensic detail and brings out a book/film/documentary before the next election. Maybe people will see how they've been treated as mugs.

Pay attention to the scientists and ignore the politicians. Ask what the risks are for you and whether anything you might want is worth the risk.

It is much more difficult for working age people but surely, if you are retired, the answer should be obvious - don't take the risk.

Grandad I agree with you. There is no such thing as "no risk" - ever. Responsible employers are doing what they can and, of course, their business is a priority, but reducing any risk to as close to zero as possible must also be a priority, for ethical reasons and, in the end, for business reasons too.

The problem is that some of the public are baying for a return to normality. Some of them really don't seem to understand the issues and they've been brainwashed into thinking that the economy is going to collapse if we have to wait another couple of weeks. The most foolish thing would be "take it on the chin" and jump into something before we're ready. We have a government which really doesn't seem to have a grip on reality.

The UK economy was on the brink of recession before this pandemic anyway and Brexit is something else. I suspect the spin doctors already have their narrative planned. When the economy tanks next year, which it almost certainly will, it will be blamed on those dastardly workers who didn't want to return to unsafe working conditions.

PS. Did you read about the agency cleaners in NHS hospitals, who are being forced to sign a five year contract on pittance wages? So much for clapping for NHS workers!

Anybody who follows online advice without engaging their critical facilities is, in my opinion, a fool.

We know how the infection is transmitted and we know who is at high risk. Anybody who follows online advice, which could involve being in contact with somebody who is infected and ignores a person's individual risk, is not doing themselves any favours.

The infection rate in most areas is still quite high and not coming down very quickly. Another couple of weeks of strict lockdown would have brought it down for more people to be much safer.

Scientists and others are, at last, beginning to speak up and we know that the government hasn't "followed the science", whatever the mantra was. Unfortunately, by withdrawing support, the government is now forcing people to take unacceptable risks for financial reasons.

JenniferEccles Waiting a couple of weeks would not have done much harm and would have given an opportunity for much safer working environments to be provided. Nobody can ever provide a 100% safe environment, but we don't send little boys up chimneys for a reason.

This is a cynical, political ploy to fool people who seem to have little experience of working.

Grandad All the above is why my daughter is so busy with reviewing dozens of cases. She's an HR manager in a large company.

As you are aware, it really is not quite so simple as getting the economy going and forcing people back to work, using "normal" protocols, although no doubt some cowboy employers will try it.

If the company gets this wrong and doesn't provide adequate protection, particularly for those at risk, it could cost millions. There is also the issue of people who can't return to work full-time because they have childcare or caring responsibilities. Yes, people could be made redundant - in which case, redundancy pay outs would become part of the equation plus training up new staff, which in itself is expensive and disruptive to the organisation.

They also need to factor in the number of staff who could need to self-isolate in future. Any responsible employer would insist that people do feel confident about taking time off and not spreading infection through "presenteeism".

The first thing anyone attending an industrial safety course are to learn is that everything we do in life carries some risk.

In the workplace the ambition is always to reduce those risks to as low as is possible by assessment and then hazard reduction measures. Employers all over the country have been bringing forward every measure they can to make their workplaces as secure as possible in regard to workers being exposed to the hazard of being infected by Covid-19.

However, when all that is reasonably practical has been carried out, it is then for each individual worker to decide if the remaining risk is compatible to his or her individual situation and then make a judgment on whether they should return to that place of work.

For many already that is proving to be one of the most difficult decisions of their life, we are finding

Well said Tooting. We are not children, we should use our own common sense and follow the advice that is available on line.