Track & trace

[Justin Smith]

Is there anyone on here who has had dealings, as an employer, with track and trace ?

Under what circumstances can T&T ask all employees to stop working and self isolate ?

What is the difference between the T&T app that some people have on their phones and the T&T system that requires people to give their details when, for example, having a meal somewhere ? Are they the same system ?

If you work on your own, albeit at a work premises, are you self isolating ?

Is it really true that even if you have a negative Covid test you are still required to self isolate ?

Someone told me that even if you have had Covid you are still required to self isolate "if exposed to an infected person", that sounds so ludicrous I suspect it was made up, but does anyone know if that is in fact true ?

 

[Alison Moore]

Not sure about the T&T questions but...

No, you're not self-isolating if you go to work even though you might work on your own, as you still have to travel to and from work and use the shared facilities.

No, you don't have to self isolate if you have a negative test.

Yes, the rules are the same even if you've already had covid as they don't know for sure how long or even if you would be immune to getting it again.

There's loads of information on the .gov.uk website: NHS Test and Trace: how it works - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

[Newchodge]

Track and trace can require someone to self isolate of they have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive.

T&T can ask all employees at a workplace to self-isolate if the workplace conditions means that all employees have had close contact with someone wh has tested positive. Or when the T&T managers (who are paid £7,000 per day) fail to ensure that their staff are properly trained.

The telephone app measures whether your phone has been close, for a period of time, to someone who has tested positive. The app can advise someone to self-isolate. The data on the app is not available to anyone else, so only the phone holder knows if they have been advised to self isolate.

If you use your phone to record that you have visited a venue, that information SHOULD only be known to the app and to no one else. If you give your details to a venue anyone (including the waiter who fancies getting their leg over, can access your information.

If you have had Covid there is absolutely no certainty that you cannot get it again, so if exposed, you should self isolate.

I believe that the self isolatin rules require that you self isolate at home. If that is your workplace, then fine. If you have to travel to the workplace it is not self isolation as you may break down, have an accident or have some other interaction with another human bean on your journey.

You really could not make this shit up.

 

[Newchodge]

No, you don't have to self isolate if you have a negative test.

That depends. If you have been in contact with an infected person you have to self isolate as you may have met them after your negative test, or you may have had a negative test post-infection but pre-testability.

 

[Newchodge]

There's loads of information on the .gov.uk website: NHS Test and Trace: how it works - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

HOW IT WORKS????? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH!

 

[bodgitt&scarperLTD]

Jesus wept, 7k per day?? Source?

 

[Scalloway]

The workers at test and trace may not be getting £7k per day but that's certainly what the government is paying for them.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...-rate-for-test-and-trace-consultants-12107394

 

[Mr D]

The workers at test and trace may not be getting £7k per day but that's certainly what the government is paying for them.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...-rate-for-test-and-trace-consultants-12107394

Cheap too.

The company providing his services charges a lot. Imagine if a company charged just 100 quid a day for a consultant - they would not get the right business!
Charge high prices and get staff accordingly.

7k for a consultant does not appear to be massive. A project I was on 20 years ago used consultants and paid over 5 grand per day for some of them.

That's not wages, that's like paying for a service.
Bunch of guys come in and sort out a problem that costs you 500k a year and they demand 150k for their services as a one off. Bargain.

 

[simon field]

It’s broken.

 

[Justin Smith]

No, you're not self-isolating if you go to work even though you might work on your own, as you still have to travel to and from work and use the shared facilities.

Yes, the rules are the same even if you've already had covid as they don't know for sure how long or even if you would be immune to getting it again.

There's loads of information on the .gov.uk website: NHS Test and Trace: how it works - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The problem I have with rules like that* is that they lower respect and trust in the whole system. And I really do mean the whole system, the entire government strategy.
When I last checked 25 people out of 40 million had been reinfected (and some of those were disputed tests), so anyone with half a brain can see that is a totally disproportionate requirement. And, since self isolating is very inconvenient for almost everyone, the risk is that many people just won't bother.
Also it seems that one cannot self isolate at work, even if one works on ones own, "in case your car breaks down or is an accident". Again that is statistically so unlikely (I cannot remember when my car broke down to need outside assistance on the way to work) that is just brings the whole thing into disrepute.
Basically the government don't really seem to give a toss just how inconvenient it is for people, even if a particular condition of self isolation is only going to reduce the chances they might infect someone else by a tiny minuscule percentage, so one is tempted to think why should I bother at all ?

* and the requirement to quarantine even if the country you've been to has a lower infection rate than the UK.

 

[Alison Moore]

There's lots of info about T&T on this link too.
[QUOTE="Justin Smith, post: 3044952, member: 144021".[/QUOTE]

The government wanted to use herd immunity and accept that some people would die, but they weren't allowed to. Trouble is, in this country, we want the government to keep us 100% safe, whilst not putting any restrictions on us. I never really agreed with the first lockdown, but I'm not a virologist, and i don't know what it best in this situation. No one really does, as we've never had a worldwide pandemic at this level in the modern world. The government are being over-cautious, because if they're not, and more people die, the media outlets will eat them for breakfast.

 

[Mr D]

* and the requirement to quarantine even if the country you've been to has a lower infection rate than the UK.

I think you mean requirement to quarantine if the country you have been to has a higher infection rate than government target figure for foreign countries and quarantine.
What was it? 20?
What is Manchester now? 500?

Perhaps if we had done more quarantine back in January and February then we'd have had as few infections as NZ or Thailand.
Instead we didn't have much quarantine..... and boy are we paying for it.

Island group, only a certain number of ways in - and we couldn't cope with people bringing it into the country.

 

[Justin Smith]

I think you mean requirement to quarantine if the country you have been to has a higher infection rate than government target figure for foreign countries and quarantine.
What was it? 20?
What is Manchester now? 500?

Perhaps if we had done more quarantine back in January and February then we'd have had as few infections as NZ or Thailand.
Instead we didn't have much quarantine..... and boy are we paying for it.

Island group, only a certain number of ways in - and we couldn't cope with people bringing it into the country.

The case for quarantine from abroad has long since ceased to have any relevance whatsoever, unless the country has a hugely higher Covid level than the UK. People talk like it's a different foreign virus travellers would potentially bring back with them it isn't "foreign", it's already here, never to be suppressed.

 

[Mr D]

The case for quarantine from abroad has long since ceased to have any relevance whatsoever, unless the country has a hugely higher Covid level than the UK. People talk like it's a different foreign virus travellers would potentially bring back with them it isn't "foreign", it's already here, never to be suppressed.

Government happens to disagree with you.
Somewhere happening to have lower number of infections than us but still high? Then more chance that you bring it with you into the country.

They are trying to protect the rest of us against you well meaning as you are spreading the virus to dozens of others!

 

[Justin Smith]

Government happens to disagree with you.
Somewhere happening to have lower number of infections than us but still high? Then more chance that you bring it with you into the country.

They are trying to protect the rest of us against you well meaning as you are spreading the virus to dozens of others!

You are making an illogiocal argument. I do not need to go into quarantine if I go to Nottingham, an area with an infection rate many times that of, say, Lanzarote, so why should I have to self isolate for two weeks coming back from the latter ? It is completely nonsensical, and only designed to appeal to those who are not looking at things rationally. The kind of people who think doing anything is at least doing something, regardless of its cost.

 

[gpietersz]

The government are being over-cautious, because if they're not, and more people die, the media outlets will eat them for breakfast.

That is true. The poltiical consequences of people dying from covid are greater than that of people dying from other causes (e.g. deaths caused by lockdown).

On top of that, even though we know that some aspects of lockdown (e.g. closing schools) increase covid deaths, doing it shows the government is "doing its best".

I think the biggest problem is that the west has been too safe and secure for too long to be able to face up to any real danger so people are burying their heads in the sand rather than accept that there is no way to keep everyone safe. We can either gamble on herd immunity through a vaccine, or gamble on herd immunity through infections.

I also think most politicians are so ignorant of science and stats that they do not even know the right questions to ask the experts. There was a survey a few years ago that MPs do not understand basic economics either. No idea what they do know.

 

[Mr D]

You are making an illogiocal argument. I do not need to go into quarantine if I go to Nottingham, an area with an infection rate many times that of, say, Lanzarote, so why should I have to self isolate for two weeks coming back from the latter ? It is completely nonsensical, and only designed to appeal to those who are not looking at things rationally. The kind of people who think doing anything is at least doing something, regardless of its cost.

Probably because government hasn't imposed quarantine on travel within UK.
Yet.
Whereas they have for arrival from foreign places.

Perhaps they should impose quarantine for travel between counties. Have army checkpoints at the borders and turn people back who don't have a good reason to leave.

 

[Mr D]

That is true. The poltiical consequences of people dying from covid are greater than that of people dying from other causes (e.g. deaths caused by lockdown).

On top of that, even though we know that some aspects of lockdown (e.g. closing schools) increase covid deaths, doing it shows the government is "doing its best".

I think the biggest problem is that the west has been too safe and secure for too long to be able to face up to any real danger so people are burying their heads in the sand rather than accept that there is no way to keep everyone safe. We can either gamble on herd immunity through a vaccine, or gamble on herd immunity through infections.

I also think most politicians are so ignorant of science and stats that they do not even know the right questions to ask the experts. There was a survey a few years ago that MPs do not understand basic economics either. No idea what they do know.

The ethical choice there is to depend on herd immunity through vaccine.
Though may be dozens of doses of vaccine over a lifetime as the virus develops.


MPs should know how to give a speech and work a room. Helps if they are charming too. Skills that can be learnt, like waitress skills whereby they ask you a question immediately after you have put food in your mouth....

Everything else they can learn or be briefed on.

There are some MPs who will have experience doing certain things. Doesn't mean they are an expert in those things, just means they know how that job used to be in a particular company or facility.
A few may indeed be expert in a certain field. Will be uncommon though.

 

[Newchodge]

I just listened to PM Questions. Starmer nearly got to the right question, but shied away. If several places have been in 'local lockdown' for some considerable time (Leicester springs to mind) why have the infection rates there not come down? If local lockdown does not reduce infection rates or, more importantly, hospitalisation and death rates, what is the point of it?

 

[Mr D]

I just listened to PM Questions. Starmer nearly got to the right question, but shied away. If several places have been in 'local lockdown' for some considerable time (Leicester springs to mind) why have the infection rates there not come down? If local lockdown does not reduce infection rates or, more importantly, hospitalisation and death rates, what is the point of it?

Is the lockdown the issue? Or those ignoring measures?

We won't see until towards the end of November much change in hospitalisation from the current lockdown changes. May well be the end of the year before see much change in the deaths.
And thats presuming people are not stupid.

Based on the evidence so far then expect a long national lockdown imposed within 3 months.

 

[gpietersz]

The ethical choice there is to depend on herd immunity through vaccine.

How is more ethical to take one risk rather than another risk?

 

[alan1302]

How is more ethical to take one risk rather than another risk?

It's the one that we know is more likley to work based on how other vacines work.

 

[Mr D]

How is more ethical to take one risk rather than another risk?

Killing off part of the population when you cannot figure out in advance who will die, who will have organ damage as a result, who will get long covid and who will not get any negative aspects at all.
Thats kinda unethical.

Least with a working vaccine you can reduce the numbers that have negative aspects.
Plus maybe we don't swamp the NHS and they can carry on doing other work. Like cancer treatment, pacemaker replacement, bypass surgery etc.

 

[Lucky8]

I heard yesterday that someone tested positive for covid, they then telephoned the T&T people, gave them a long list of people that they thought they had come into contact with, and then somehow T&T has demanded that some people on that list of people given now have to isolate.

The problem here is:
1. the list she gave wasn't correct. She included names of people who she hadn't had ANY contact with - NONE whatsoever - but who work vaguely in the same building.
2. everyone she listed (who she had come near) was wearing PPE during every interaction (it's a health facility).
3. why are some random people on the list not asked to isolate, but some are?
4. over 30 people now have to stay at home
5. the facility where she worked is now virtually empty, needs to continue functioning, they are scrambling around trying to keep the facility open, they are not getting any more funding, and they're in crisis mode

WTH?!

 

[Mr D]

I heard yesterday that someone tested positive for covid, they then telephoned the T&T people, gave them a long list of people that they thought they had come into contact with, and then somehow T&T has demanded that some people on that list of people given now have to isolate.

The problem here is:
1. the list she gave wasn't correct. She included names of people who she hadn't had ANY contact with - NONE whatsoever - but who work vaguely in the same building.
2. everyone she listed (who she had come near) was wearing PPE during every interaction (it's a health facility).
3. why are some random people on the list not asked to isolate, but some are?
4. over 30 people now have to stay at home
5. the facility where she worked is now virtually empty, needs to continue functioning, they are scrambling around trying to keep the facility open, they are not getting any more funding, and they're in crisis mode

WTH?!

1 Strange - then why give them those names?

2 - they can still catch it. May not have noticed, a number of medical staff have died from the virus and were presumably wearing correct PPE etc.

3 Perhaps not everyone has been contacted yet?

4 Great, potentially those 30 are not spreading the virus beyond their own homes. Presumably all the people in the facility wear PPE so risks are kept down?

5 The employer would be doing the same if staff suddenly went off sick or had to isolate anyway. Not as if employer is unaware such things can happen 8 months into a pandemic.

 

[Lucky8]

1 Strange - then why give them those names?

She apparently panicked at the questions and got completely muddled up. The people she had no contact with the other side of the building informed T&T that they hadn't seen her, and T&T operators ignored them, and have proceeded on false information.

2 - they can still catch it. May not have noticed, a number of medical staff have died from the virus and were presumably wearing correct PPE etc.

Yes I have noticed thanks. People the other side of the building cannot catch Covid unless they touch shared infected surfaces. Every single person in the country has the same risk of doing this with others, from every time we go to a supermarket, every desk. This risk is not one that T&T is supposed to including in their isolation criteria.

Perhaps not everyone has been contacted yet?

No, they say they have completed it.

Great, potentially those 30 are not spreading the virus beyond their own homes.

The risk of "potentially spreading the virus" of these 30 people is exactly the same as if they were still at work. Their risk was never increased in the first place.

The employer would be doing the same if staff suddenly went off sick or had to isolate anyway.

No they wouldn't. No employer randomly selects some people at the far end of their building and says you have to stay at home now, but you - standing right next to them - can stay. Just because some foolish person panicked and randomly named the guy standing next to you.

 

[Interestedobserver]

Is the lockdown the issue? Or those ignoring measures?

We won't see until towards the end of November much change in hospitalisation from the current lockdown changes. May well be the end of the year before see much change in the deaths.
And thats presuming people are not stupid.

Based on the evidence so far then expect a long national lockdown imposed within 3 months.

I just listened to PM Questions. Starmer nearly got to the right question, but shied away. If several places have been in 'local lockdown' for some considerable time (Leicester springs to mind) why have the infection rates there not come down? If local lockdown does not reduce infection rates or, more importantly, hospitalisation and death rates, what is the point of it?

The local lockdowns even at Tier 3 level arent as severe as full lockdowns we had in the past though are they?

I guess they are halfway houses and we will need to move to the more severe lockdowns in due course

The argument is to get the full more severe lockdowns in sooner (the so called circuit breakers)

I've no doubt we will have them coming to England sooner rather than later

 

[Alison Moore]

Reply to Lucky8: You can't really blame T&T for going by what she told them though? They asked who she had come into contact with, she gave them a list. They acted on it. They probably have regulations in place to stop people saying that they had no contact with the person who tested positive, otherwise everyone would say they hadn't had contact with her as no one wants to self isolate.

 

[ecommerce84]

How are track and trace getting in touch with people to let them know they have to self isolate?

I never answer calls from any number not in my address book or any withheld numbers and I can’t imagine I’m alone.

 

[Lucky8]

You can't really blame T&T for going by what she told them though? They asked who she had come into contact with, she gave them a list. They acted on it

I absolutely blame them. I blame any initiative that is not based on evidence, or any attempt to even find it.

 

[Jeff FV]

She apparently panicked at the questions and got completely muddled up. The people she had no contact with the other side of the building informed T&T that they hadn't seen her, and T&T operators ignored them, and have proceeded on false information.

.

I am no fan of the T&T system we have - it is certainly not yet fit for purpose, and is failing the nation despite eye watering sums of money being spent on it - but this doesn’t ring true.

If/when you are contacted by T&T you are not told who it was that you came into contact with that necessitates you to go into isolation. So these people could only be surmising that the “person on the other side of the building” was the reason they were called, but they can’t know that.

Not saying this didn’t happen, but don’t think we can accept it on face value.

 

[Lucky8]

So these people could only be surmising that the “person on the other side of the building” was the reason they were called, but they can’t know that.

Not saying this didn’t happen, but don’t think we can accept it on face value.

But they're not surmising. She has declared to everyone exactly what she did (an internal investigation is now under way), and they were all contacted on the same day. They know exactly why they were all suddenly told to isolate.

 

[Mr D]

But they're not surmising. She has declared to everyone exactly what she did (an internal investigation is now under way), and they were all contacted on the same day. They know exactly why they were all suddenly told to isolate.

And her panic reaction has long term consequences for others.

 

[Mr D]

I absolutely blame them. I blame any initiative that is not based on evidence, or any attempt to even find it.

What evidence could she be asked to provide?

They asked her questions she answered. And you blame t & t for acting on the information she gave them?
What other information should be used? Quick tell government.

Information from those other people?
You may be able to say with absolute certainty who has been near you in a particular day. Not everyone can.
And some who do not want to isolate could lie about being near someone. Now how should a worker on a phone line with a script to follow decide who is telling the truth?

 

[Mr D]

How are track and trace getting in touch with people to let them know they have to self isolate?

I never answer calls from any number not in my address book or any withheld numbers and I can’t imagine I’m alone.

People leave mobile numbers all over the place. I hear some of them even leave their own mobile number. Perhaps wanting people to ring them?

 

[Lucky8]

What evidence could she be asked to provide?

She can't. She is to blame for providing false information, T&T is to blame by being alerted to the false reports (by healthcare professionals of all people!) and ignoring them. The entire premise of T&T is a nonsense.

And some who do not want to isolate could lie about being near someone. Now how should a worker on a phone line with a script to follow decide who is telling the truth?

I agree. They could lie. People like this woman could lie. Everyone could lie. It's all built on a fallacy.

 

[Mr D]

She can't. She is to blame for providing false information, T&T is to blame by being alerted to the false reports (by healthcare professionals of all people!) and ignoring them. The entire premise of T&T is a nonsense.



I agree. They could lie. People like this woman could lie. Everyone could lie. It's all built on a fallacy.

I daresay T&T are used to people claiming they have not been in contact with the person who says they have.
Who do they believe? The one telling them information or the one telling them information?
Two different stories, must believe one. Which would you believe based simply on phone call?

 

[Lucky8]

Two different stories, must believe one. Which would you believe based simply on phone call?

Step 1: 1 person says she was with 30 people.
Step 2: 30 people say they weren't near her.
Step 3: 1 person admits she was muddled and tells T&T she got it all wrong.
Step 4: 30 people tell T&T they weren't near her.
Step 5: T&T ignore Steps 2-4, rigidly stays at Step 1 and tells 30 people who were nowhere near a Covid case to isolate at home for 14 days immediately.

Bonkers.

 

[simon field]

Step 1: 1 person says she was with 30 people.
Step 2: 30 people say they weren't near her.
Step 3: 1 person admits she was muddled and tells T&T she got it all wrong.
Step 4: 30 people tell T&T they weren't near her.
Step 5: T&T ignore Steps 2-4, rigidly stays at Step 1 and tells 30 people who were nowhere near a Covid case to isolate at home for 14 days immediately.

Bonkers.

You watch how they’ll then blame people for not self isolating!

 

[Lucky8]

You watch how they’ll then blame people for not self isolating!

Now 30 healthcare workers are having to isolate at home, the NHS is going to have to find the money to fund 30 extra workers to take their place, until they do this facility is overstretched and all hell has broken loose.

And 30 people are having to stay confined to their homes for 14 days, with all the detrimental impact that will have on them, their families and their lives.

Bonkers.