Who’s advice should we take ?

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.

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.

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/

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.

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/

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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".

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.

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.