Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Why are the most vulnerable people being forced to work and put themselves at risk?

I received this email earlier...

"Hi James,

Imagine being told you are an essential worker when you are blind, forced to travel in taxis and/or on trains, then placed in a building with 100 others. Even though spaced farther apart, you can’t see the hand sanitisers.

My friend who is blind (visually impaired people sometimes have a little sight but she does not) has been told her work is necessary.

This is because she works for a sub-contracted industry for financial services and they are regarded as essential workers. She does not want the specific agency mentioned though it’s not hard to guess what service a blind person can perform so I’m a bit limited in what I can say.

She is concerned that many disabled people work in sub-contracted services for utilities and banking and, though they are providing services for vulnerable people, they are themselves vulnerable. It can’t be right that they have been told they must come in to work.

She thinks this is a loophole in the current situation – forcing disabled people to work. She’s writing to her MSP. I know MSPs will be inundated at this time. Can you help?  People to contact?"

45 comments:

  1. Under the Equality Act, companies have to provide provisions so that people with disabilities are not discriminated against in their workplace. In the case mentioned if the company is providing sanitizer to their employees then they have to make sure that she has access as well (providing her with a personal one, which she could carry with her so knows were it is would probably be the easiest answer I can think of.)

    However, because her disability does not directly increase the risk of catching the virus or contribute to the risk to herself if she did catch it; if they did provide her with all the same measures that her co-workers have (hand sanitizer / spread out desks etc) there is not recourse to her under this act.

    You can argue that people should not have to work in an office (no matter how far spread out they are) but that would apply to all the employees not just her. As long as her risk is the same as other employees the company is fulfilling their obligations, if not (as mentioned if she did not have access to hand sanitizer for example) then they are not. If that was the case they could not force her to work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they expect her to adhere to social distancing, then what provision have they provided to ensure she remains 2m away from everyone else in the workplace, given than she can't see how far away her workmates are?

      Delete
    2. But other people people in the office can see so would be able to keep their distance from her. I'm just talking in general terms, I don't know the exact circumstances. But again know company could guarantee that no person would get within 2m of each other during the work day. It would be impossible to enforce. But they just have to inact provisions that reduce the chance of it happening.

      Its the same as fire prevention. No company can guarantee that if there is a fire people would not get trapped in the fire. Under health and safety law they have to make reasonable provisions to reduce the risk of it happening(fire doors alarms keeping fire exits clear etc etc).

      General message is this scenario is covered under the Equalities Act, if they are making provisions to reduce the increased risk that her disability causes (hand sanitisers, 2m rule etc) then they are following the act, if they don't they are not.

      Delete
  2. Everybody 70 and over must demand a Covid 19 test if they have
    any symptoms however mind. This applies to their spouses even if asymptomatic.

    Prince Charlie (71) got tested in his holiday home at Balmoral. So did Camilla who had nae symptoms. ( The latter would mair likely hae mad coo disease. )
    Catherine Calderwood , chief medical off Scot gov said this was in line with NHS policy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Calderwood is a liar and a sycophant, and clearly not fit to hold such an important office. She needs to resign, or be sacked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prince Charles has an inherited blood condition that others in the Royal family also have that's probably why he qualified for a test and as far as Catherine Calderwood being any of the names you just called her, you're an idiot grow up

      Delete
    2. Really? That's probably why? What a load of sh1te. Having a pre-existing condition isn't one of the published criteria. Neither does it explain why Chic's flunkies were all tested. Consultant surgeons working with critically ill patients aren't being tested. Charles was allowed to queue jump. Calderwood should have called it out for what it was. She chose not to. Stop being so pathetically servile.

      Delete
  4. The lack of wide testing has been one of the criminal acts by government over this crisis. Without a proper idea of where, how fast and how seriously it is spreading the medical services are working with one hand tied behind their backs. This was one of the first things that should have been done and even now nowhere enough is being done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's because of the lunatic herd immunity plan they were pursuing until a couple of weeks ago. The theory was that you don't need tests if you're not trying to suppress the virus. (Nor, incidentally, do you need proper quarantining, and they gave up on that even when we were supposedly still in the "contain" phase.) There does now seem to have been a change in direction, but having squandered so many weeks it'll take a while to build up enough testing capacity.

      Delete
  5. Surrr!
    There's been another Broontervention to Save The Universe! This time he wants to set up a Global Government. Proof that Brit- (and Euro-)Unionism are forms of proto-globalism?

    ReplyDelete
  6. O/t but completed a Panelbase poll yesterday. Questions on voting intentions for Westminster, Holyrood and re-joining the EU. Also voting intention on the next Indy ref and when I think it will happen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is whit Ah caw an influencer:

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/money/woman-shares-recipe-making-greggs-21756940

    Ma man's one fur the Weegie soul food.

    Albie's no goat the strength ti be wi yous the day but he's sittin up in bed spewin bile n filth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. constantine mudgeMarch 26, 2020 at 4:24 PM

      To commemorate the release of the topless photos of Kate Middleton, Royal Doulton will be releasing a Collector's Edition of two small jugs.

      Delete
    2. hey GWC ? Dae ye like the size of ma tits?

      Delete
    3. aye hen its jist the length thit worries me!

      Delete
    4. Roddy Collarless-ShirtMarch 26, 2020 at 7:09 PM

      Sir,
      I am severely disappointed that you should have posted such a comment regarding the flower of the Windsor family. Especially as a St Andrews man.
      As someone who has always considered himself to be your protege I very much hope that you will return to the style of your more edifying and enlightening missives. I am sure you will agree that your followers should expect carefully crafted epigrams divested of the tiniest hint of vulgarity.

      (And who is that rather common person who just posted above me?)

      Delete
  8. Big Eater... Fae Strichen?March 26, 2020 at 11:21 AM

    I am not terrified of Covid-19! Why would I be? I have taken the issue seriously. I have informed myself about it. I have taken sensible precautions. With only the exceptions too obvious to mention without succumbing to pedantry, anybody can take these precautions. Most of those who can’t do any or all for themselves have someone who can help. There is no reason for anyone to be terrified!
    Not only am I not terrified, I’m not even worried. I am barely concerned.
    There are other things I could be doing. Like puncturing lying bladders. But that might put too great a strain on the Scottish NHS at this time. But be assured that I have passed the judgement of my peers (by which I mean Pericles, Moses, Alexander and Frederick The Great.). So you've not seen the last of my bhuna and me.

    The grudge shall never die.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wings Forward UnitMarch 26, 2020 at 11:51 AM

      Much obliged for your post, sir. We all hope that you will keep safe in your Aberdeenshire castle and return as our Head of State one day.

      But were you aware of Kelly's Sturgeonite loyalist tendencies?

      Delete
    2. so much has changed since ma burd telt me we are having a baby...........for instance my name , address and phone number!

      Delete
  9. Now we have confirmation as to why yesterday's covid 19 death rate was half of the prev day. The UK gov has changed it's calculation method.
    Relatives need to give consent to have deceased in calculation!! Downing St PR office in full swing to manipulate the figures. We should not be surprised .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously you did not actually listen to the piece about this. Clearly said that the permission has to be granted (and always has) but family permission has to granted first, so sometimes the death may of actually happened a couple of days before. Said nothing about this actually making much of a difference to the accumulated figure. Unless you are saying hundred of people are refusing permission....

      Delete
    2. Sorry for misleading info. Didn't read article fully. Thanks

      Delete
    3. This thread clears things up a bit:
      https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1243198819283730439

      "NHS has been providing figures to PHE on covid deaths by 9am every day and PHE then publishing stats at 2pm. That was the intention. But as deaths rise it has become difficult to collate and verify the numbers in time"

      That has led to figures being published after the 2pm deadline. To get on top of this, PHE and NHS have decided to change the time these numbers are reported to allow more time to check they're all correct.

      From now on the 2pm figures cover the period 5pm-5pm the previous day. Yesterday was the cross over day so yesterdays figures lower than normal todays higher (2 day ave is 78).

      Other key bit is this:

      One addition to the thread I just posted on covid-19 death stats. Public Health England does NOT need the consent of families to publish national death statistics.

      Delete
  10. I get through a lot of milk for one person, and a single 4-pint jug is barely enough for one day for me. I normally get 2 or 3 at a time. For a family of 4, say, who enjoy cornflakes and cups of tea, it's going to be wildly inadequate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt there's enough milk manufactured for a whining jealous pussy like you

      Delete
    2. Rev Stu is in his 50s and he admits to liking big jugs. It's disgusting. Why isn't he on trial?

      Delete
    3. Av jist been to asda govan wae the wife.

      ...and right oot the blue she said " you really are one lazy barsteward!"

      Well!

      ....i nearly fell oot the trolley!

      Delete
    4. When I was 13, I hoped that one day I would have a girlfriend with big tits.
      When I was 16, I got a girlfriend with big tits, but there was no passion, so I decided I needed a passionate girl with zest for life.
      In college I dated a passionate girl, but she was too emotional. Everything was an emergency; she was a drama queen, cried all the time and threatened suicide. So I decided I needed a girl with stability.
      When I was 25, I found a very stable girl but she was boring. She was totally predictable and never got excited about anything. Life became so dull that I decided I needed a girl with some excitement.
      When I was 28, I found an exciting girl, but I couldn't keep up with her. She rushed from one thing to another, never settling on anything. She did mad impetuous things and made me miserable as often as happy. She was great fun initially and very energetic, but directionless. So I decided to find a girl with some real ambition.
      When I turned 30, I found a smart ambitious girl with her feet planted firmly on the ground, so I married her. She was so ambitious that she divorced me and took everything I owned.
      I am older and wiser now, and I am looking for a girl with big tits.

      Delete
  11. Covid Symptom Tracker ( https://covid.joinzoe.com/ ) would seem a bit subjective and is no substitute for testing. Still, if it points to >6 million in the UK having the virus then it puts a different perspective on things.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Testing's really useful because when they tested Prince Charles two weeks ago he was clear so he went straight out shook hands with everybody he met, caught it then brought the bloody thing to Scotland

    That's how useful testing is, you're telling people they're fine so human nature

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you the person who was earlier trying to portray testing as somehow harmful? Look at how the situation has been brought under control in South Korea, and then explain to me how that could have been done without testing.

      In your own time.

      Delete
    2. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

      UPDATE 26TH MARCH Iceland:

      Iceland is presenting many interesting pointers for estimating the CFR. Iceland has tested a higher proportion of people than any other country (9,768 individuals), equivalent to 26,762 per million inhabitants the highest in the world (as a comparison, South Korea has treated 6,343 individuals).

      The results of screenings have suggested 0.5% are infected; the true figure is likely higher due to asymptomatic and as a result of many not seeking testing: estimates suggest the real number infected is 1%. Iceland is currently reporting two deaths in 737 patients, CFR. 0.27%; if 1% of the population (364,000) is infected then the corresponding IFR would be 0.05%. However, they have limited infections in the elderly as their test and quarantine measures have seemingly shielded this group, and the deaths will lag by about two weeks after the infections. Iceland’s higher rates of testing, the smaller population. and their ability to ascertain all those with Sars-CoV-2 means they will likely provide an accurate estimate of the CFR and the IFR.

      Current data from Iceland suggests the IFR is somewhere between 0.05% and 0.14%.

      Delete
    3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to suggest that in Scotland (pop. 5.4 million) and with 70% infected and an IFR of 0.14 we'd be looking at a total of around 5300 deaths, presumably highly concentrated in the “vulnerable” categories.

      Delete
    4. I'm not sure about the credibility of the page you linked to - some of the statistics are either wrong or out of date. An IFR of 0.15% or lower is extremely difficult to reconcile with the facts as we know them in Italy.

      Delete
    5. I'm surprised that you don't feel that the University of Oxford site has much credibility. Are there one or two significant errors that you could point to?

      As for Italy, this analysis might suggest around 60,000 deaths. We're much less than halfway there at the moment. Of course, it could be argued that the analysis assumes an infinitely flexible health service where resources can be magicked up as necessary. In the real world the death rate could be aggravated by a sharp burst of severe illness. (Whether or not the casualties all had “Covid-19” on the death certificate.)

      Delete
    6. "I'm surprised that you don't feel that the University of Oxford site has much credibility. Are there one or two significant errors that you could point to?"

      Absolutely - there have been significantly more than six deaths from the Diamond Princess. The words "Oxford University" are no guarantee of accuracy, as we've already seen over the last few days.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the reply. Although you could argue that the Diamond Princess is a self-selecting community. I believe the average age of passengers is / was 62.

      Delete
  13. In the kitchen knocking up a big batch of Granny Stu’s Legendary Omnijam.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I see Calderwood noted today the lower death rate in Scotland, although it's unclear why that's the case.

    It could be that Scotland is just a bit behind the curve as she pondered.

    The data is complicated by Scotland testing at 30-40% more than the UK. If that's simply accounted for in a proportional manner, then the UK and Scottish case rates are identical up to the 16th, at which point both case and death rates begin to deviate, with Scotland faring a little bit better.

    The 16th was of course when lockdown began, with a ban on large gatherings.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's still hard to come across any well-regarded studies that claim confidently that the mortality rate is below 2%.

    There are plenty of high-quality studies that claim this but with emphatic qualifications that these are only guesses. And there are lots of low-quality online comments that claim this with extreme confidence. But few if any studies that combine the two.

    If anybody has seen such, it would be appreciated if you could link to them here. Madrid’s case fatality rate is among the highest anywhere and any good news would be appreciated.

    To illustrate how seriously they’re taking this here: my friend’s twelve-year-old son threw a hissy fit and ran a few hundred metres to his mother’s house, but she was away so he couldn’t get in. The cops took him back to my friend’s and the parents have to pay a six thousand euro fine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that's a fascist state. And some people want that here. Well done sheeple!

      Delete
  16. Will JK please explain his thinking.
    South Korea is wonderful and did the right thing in testing and contact tracing this saving lives. Death rate of 10%.
    Germany is testing millions and has a death rate of less then 1%.
    Scotland isn't doing any of that and has a death rate less than Germany's if CC is to be believed.

    Why are you so convinced we are going to suffer as badly as Italy due to not testing people? What difference would it make given the proportion already infected and now immune? Herd immunity works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry but that's utter gibberish. South Korea does not have a death rate of 10%. Not even close. Try again.

      The broader point is of course that the objective should not be to keep the percentage death rate down but to *stop infections*.

      Delete
    2. South Korea has had 2.7 covid-19 deaths per million inhabitants.

      Scotland is now 4.6 per million and the UK 8.7, so the death rate in S. Korea is much lower.

      Among confirmed infections, the death rate for closed cases in S. Korea is 3%.

      https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/

      Delete
  17. Gavin Barrie eats raw garlic. He won't be afraid to come on here and provide the most pungent statistical analysis.

    You have been warned.

    ReplyDelete