COVID-19 (Coronavirus)

Being in a slightly odd political position of being libertarian and also left wing, once in a while I find myself in alignment with the Tory back bench and it always makes my skin crawl slightly.

3 Likes
6 Likes

Only in events of self isolation, which is fair enough I think.

I presume they won’t be including those who are medically exempt though, which is my concern with something like this, because how do you assess that without prying into deeply personal aspects of an employee’s life. Which could have knock on consequences, like workplace discrimination, redundancy, etc. I’ve seen both happen as a result of someone choosing to be forthright with their hidden disability.

That’s my issue with things like this. I firmly believe it’s the wrong approach to the issue, and I’m worried that more folk aren’t speaking out against that, because it’s dangerously close to treading over the line into Orwellian territory.

Why or whether someone is or isn’t vaccinated is no one else’s business, unless they make both known to you, in which case you can then feel free to treat them accordingly.

But punishing those who don’t get vaccinated is the wrong approach, in my opinion. It’s not dissimilar to trying to bully people into compliance, and that’s not right to me. It’s the sort of behaviour that adds weight to the dangerous misinformation that led to the antivax movements in the first place. They’re going to start posing questions like if the conspiracy theory I believe isn’t true then why are they trying to force me to comply?. Instead, I think we should be challenging the antivax perception and incentivising uptake.

Systemic coercion makes that task of challenging perceptions all the much harder, and acceptance creates precedent for more totalitarian measures in more parts of our lives. People are not all unreachable, so long as you empathise rather than vilify.

If we’re at that point, where we need Orwellian precedent, then we’ve already lost. Both at defending against the virus and protecting our progressive society.

2 Likes

Then again this is a private relationship between employer and employee. Why should Morrison’s have to pay out sick pay to people who made a choice not to get vaccinated? It shouldn’t be on private businesses to bear that cost.

This seems fair to me.

5 Likes

But aren’t the vaccinated now exempt from having to isolate if they get pinged?

Being pinged was never a legal requirement to isolate.
Vaccinated people don’t have to isolate if they are in close contact with a positive person - either via pinging or Test & Tracd.

1 Like

Update to the news article posted by @BenLeo

As well as vaccine passports being axed, Health Secretary wants rid of PCR testing requirement for travel too.

Is he the health secretary or the herd immunity secretary?

One thing they could bloody get rid of, or update the requirements for, is the pre-departure negative test when coming back. It clearly doesn’t work given that we were one of the first countries to get the Delta variant really bad, and it’s just there to mess up people’s plans. It’s currently preventing me from going to see family abroad – they have almost no cases but I fear I’ll catch it in the UK and won’t be able to return to work on time

Wouldn’t be surprised if it was a move to boost domestic tourism at this point

1 Like

True. But if you have COVID you need to self isolate for at least 10 days and the jab theoretically reduces the chance of you getting COVID. The Delta variant is more easily contacted though as we know.

I’ve worked in NHS trusts which won’t pay sick pay if you’ve chosen not have the flu jab (that’s chosen, not can’t) and you’re off with the flu, so this is an obvious step for some employers to take.

The hospitals I’ve worked in recently have also insisted we take annual leave or unpaid leave if needing to quarantine after returning from abroad, as again, it’s a personal choice to go abroad and they’re refusing to pay / take the risk financially for our choices.

4 Likes

Providing you’re vaccinated, and aren’t travelling against government or medical advice, good insurance will have you covered if this happens.

This is something that needs fixing and a consistent policy needs to be made. It’s not always a personal choice, or not a choice that’s not as simple to make as “do I go to Penzance or Mallorca”. Instead, current rules are preventing (sensible) people from visiting sick or elderly relatives because compassionate leave doesn’t cover having to visit someone then having to quarantine

Interesting. I don’t think I’ve seen a policy yet that covers loss of income due to inability to return to work but will have to look into it

I don’t think there are any that cover loss of income, though I could be wrong. They’ll cover just about everything else though.

A positive test there, would be no different than here in my view, in that you have to self isolate. So in theory, your insurance will be the equaliser by making your circumstances as if you tested positive at home.

We’ve got ABTA’s TravelSure insurance in the event we do actually go abroad in October, which mitigates just about every Covid threat that concerns us, outside my fear of actually catching it and becoming ill.

They have a good section here on what is or isn’t covered, and I’m sure others will have similar too.

1 Like

Well, our Gov have managed to make the travel rules even more complicated :rofl:

1 Like

Don’t think any of it is more complicated. If anything, simpler and arguably less secure

To be frank I’m just happy that pre-departure testing is going away (although BBC are saying PCR when I thought lat flow was just as good for coming back)

1 Like

It’s a mess! Caused a debate between myself and two siblings back in England.

if we do go on holiday in 17 days, I’m still erring on the side of cancelling, we leave from and return to Edinburgh.

But they’re in England, not Scotland, and thought the English rules would apply to them, in that they wouldn’t need a pre departure test to return to the UK. For all I know they may be right. There isn’t much clarity. And the disparity between the countries within our country doesn’t help.

In any case, we’ll all still be taking the pre-departure test regardless. I presume given these rules don’t apply to Scotland, you’d need it to board the flight home anyway. Or maybe since they’re technically from and will be returning to England after landing Scotland they won’t need to.

Better safe than sorry I think, and just proceed as if these new rules don’t exist.

As far as I’m aware it’s PCR until the actual date for change has been announced (yes, more confusion)

And you are right, although your siblings are English, if they are arriving back into Scotland then they will still need the pre-departure PCR as although Scotland has changed their traffic light system, they are keeping the PCR requirements

1 Like

Is it? It’s doing pretty much what the media have been moaning about - removing the amber list, and reducing tests required.

From October 4 the lists will be reduced to YES or NO basically. From a date to be announced there will be no PCR test. Just wait for the date, and until that time you need a PCR test.

I can’t fathom how people want things done and when the government actually do it it’s still confusing for them? It’s really not.

As for Scotland/England etc, this is what devolution is about, and is a consequence of it. Don’t blame the UK government for that, this was voted on and wanted by the devolved nations.

1 Like

This won’t help

Make’s you wonder just how much money is being made out of this whole thing, and who is making it. :thinking: