Shileding a family member, 37 month old toddler and returning to work in retail/supermarket.

sweetsand

kingfisherblue said:

My older son has a shielding letter, followed by a text saying that he needs to stay in until at least 30th June. My younger son was working before being furloughed, but just followed strict hygiene measures. He returns to work next week. Both still live at home. I do the shopping, and again, I follow strict hygiene measures when I come in. I don't wear a mask when I'm out, although the ones that we have ordered arrived yesterday. I'm not an ignorant parasite.

It's possible to return to work as others have said.

Regarding the huge mortgage - have they asked for a mortgage holiday? It may not be a suitable solution for them, but could be wrth considering.

Thank you KS. You must remember the child is a baby, 37 months old and at that age parents worry even more so, that is the caring ones. Children of tht age can't express themselves well and parents fear more than they would for older children usally.
The mortgage hols, thanks but they don't want that as they are using savings and you only pay a lot more interest later.
I think if the young lady was working more than 8 hours a week ie 2 x 4 hours she'd go back and if money was a bigger prob - she wants to retain her job as its next door to where they live ie 3 mins walk.

About wearing masks - people will look back and when the evidence comes out the gov did not advise recommend the wearing of maks - it was for political reasons. Look at y  yesterday, must wear on public transport not from yesterday but 15th June. Today's breaking news - WEAR masks f ace coverings ALL hospital staff and ALL visitors, not from today but 15th June -  IMO ignorance amonst the public is rife as wearing masks by all will certainly reduce the risk  - look at Korea etc and their death rate re Covid.

unforeseen

Why 37 months? It's a 3 year old!
If you were 20 you wouldn't say you're 240 months old

kaMelo

The evidence for wearing masks is minimal at best and what the available evidence shows is that only when social distancing is not possible it "may" help prevent an infected person from passing on the virus. That's it, there is no evidence of any other benefit unless it's an FFP3 mask which will protect wearers and those around them, though they are damned uncomfortable when worn properly and in short supply.

Then there are the negative elements to widespread mask wearing.
People removing the mask to talk, drink, smoke, clear steamed up glasses etc, all putting hands near their face when they otherwise wouldn't, increasing the risk of transmitting the virus from their hands.
Safe disposal of soggy worn masks, going by the state of rubbish strewn around I wouldn't hold out much that suddenly people become socially responsible disposing of masks.


The evidence from Korea and other Asian countries is that testing and contact tracing is the most effective method, not masks. Important thing to note though, In Korea all mobile phone data is logged and available to the Government and health authorities. That's why their tracing system is so effective as they know exactly where everyone is at any given time. Even allowing for the pandemic that's a step too far in Government surveillance as far as I'm concerned and I suspect the majority of people will share that view.

sweetsand

kaMelo said:

The evidence for wearing masks is minimal at best and what the available evidence shows is that only when social distancing is not possible it "may" help prevent an infected person from passing on the virus. That's it, there is no evidence of any other benefit unless it's an FFP3 mask which will protect wearers and those around them, though they are damned uncomfortable when worn properly and in short supply.

Then there are the negative elements to widespread mask wearing.
People removing the mask to talk, drink, smoke, clear steamed up glasses etc, all putting hands near their face when they otherwise wouldn't, increasing the risk of transmitting the virus from their hands.
Safe disposal of soggy worn masks, going by the state of rubbish strewn around I wouldn't hold out much that suddenly people become socially responsible disposing of masks.


The evidence from Korea and other Asian countries is that testing and contact tracing is the most effective method, not masks. Important thing to note though, In Korea all mobile phone data is logged and available to the Government and health authorities. That's why their tracing system is so effective as they know exactly where everyone is at any given time. Even allowing for the pandemic that's a step too far in Government surveillance as far as I'm concerned and I suspect the majority of people will share that view.

As we do not have a worth contact/trace mask wearing is best. Have you noted the point re mask wearing yeaterday re prublic transport and today ALL hospital workers and ALL those that visit?  Like I have said several times decisions by most govs are political and the public comes last in their thoughts.

Why is it mandatory to wear face covering masks on public transport and all hospitals for ALL from the 15th June and not today?
Think about it and you will have the answer that govs decisions are more political than the safety of the ordinary person on the road.  By wearing a mask in public places, you are protecting the most vulnerable that is if you care about that

Btw,

sweetsand

unforeseen said:

Why 37 months? It's a 3 year old!
If you were 20 you wouldn't say you're 240 months old

Clearly you nothing about how many people state the age of children under the age of 4.

poppy12345

sweetsand said:

unforeseen said:

Why 37 months? It's a 3 year old!
If you were 20 you wouldn't say you're 240 months old

Clearly you nothing about how many people state the age of children under the age of 4.

Having brought up 3 children myself and have many friends who have also brought up children, we never stated that they were "37 months old." Sorry but that is rather an odd way of stating a childs age when they are 3. At this age they are a child not a baby. When a child reaches 2, usually you drop the "months" way and revert to a yearly age.

sharpe106

A lot of the government advice has very little to do with public safety, if it was things like quarantine would have been implemented immediately,  it is majority political. The government has basically just picked and chosen the bits of advice it gets that it likes, bit like a child at pick and mix. 
Although back to OP I totally understand why you want to but the employer has a business to run, they need the person back or need to replace them. 

sweetsand

poppy12345 said:

sweetsand said:

unforeseen said:

Why 37 months? It's a 3 year old!
If you were 20 you wouldn't say you're 240 months old

Clearly you nothing about how many people state the age of children under the age of 4.

Having brought up 3 children myself and have many friends who have also brought up children, we never stated that they were "37 months old." Sorry but that is rather an odd way of stating a childs age when they are 3. At this age they are a child not a baby. When a child reaches 2, usually you drop the "months" way and revert to a yearly age.

Where we live, we do as do all of the other parents we meet.

poppy12345

Strange but each to their own.

sharpe106

I have a child that is 3 years old would never say it was 36 months but as you say each to there own