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

Missus_Hyde

yksi said:

Talk about melodrama. It's a three year old, not a 37 month old, time to stop arguing this point as you now just sound ridiculous! This isn't a "baby" as you said, it's a child. And while I'm sure there were medical reasons for the shielding letter, the current situation is that the mother has no reason not to return to work, as she is not the one with the medical situation. She's not unique or so special that the world should make a song and dance for her and treat her like royalty, millions of us have the same situation. Those who can return to work are supposed to be working now and the major supermarkets have put measures into place to protect people as best they can. The mother is not helpless and useless, if she's capable of being a mother then she is capable of washing her hands and changing her clothes and showering as soon as she gets home. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about, I have a child with a heart condition and I work in a supermarket. I know all too well that customers can be selfish and ignorant ****s, all you can do is act like a grownup and use your big girl words - even supermarket workers can use words, like "please don't stand so close to me" or "please give me space", if you're not capable of politely standing up for your own health then best to put in your resignation and don't leave your house. The whole world can't shut down over this virus and we can't all just sit on the sofa. If she wants her job, she needs to work, because there are hundreds of people willing to do that job if she won't.

What a refreshing post and also showing a bit of common sense (sadly lacking these days.🙄)

I'm in the "clinically extremely vulnerable shielding" gang, but I do not intend to live my life in a condition of pitiable fear and behave like a frightened rabbit every time I put my nose outside the door.

I'm perfectly capable of social distancing and having a strict hygiene regime ( coupled with some common sense and not expecting the government to hold my hand the entire time.)

neilmcl

sweetsand said:

sharpe106 said:

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. 

I agree but even the "quarantine" is not tonight but some time away EG people coming back from hols did not happen for a while.  Re my OP. its not about me as stated but I can see their point both sides but if you had a child and worked in a supermarket and was a shelf filler and shoppers and even staff leaned over you, etc and you had a vulnerable 37 month old at home, would you not be concerned?  I don't trust this gov or any politician for that matter and I blame all of the other political parties as well as even they are not demanding SAGE papers and we could all see how, why decisions were reached and delayed as in most cases as now, EG wearing of masks in public, why not from today?

For the simple reason it has given some notice to those establishments that will have to try ane get things in place to enforce these new rules.

sweetsand

neilmcl said:

sweetsand said:

sharpe106 said:

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. 

I agree but even the "quarantine" is not tonight but some time away EG people coming back from hols did not happen for a while.  Re my OP. its not about me as stated but I can see their point both sides but if you had a child and worked in a supermarket and was a shelf filler and shoppers and even staff leaned over you, etc and you had a vulnerable 37 month old at home, would you not be concerned?  I don't trust this gov or any politician for that matter and I blame all of the other political parties as well as even they are not demanding SAGE papers and we could all see how, why decisions were reached and delayed as in most cases as now, EG wearing of masks in public, why not from today?

For the simple reason it has given some notice to those establishments that will have to try ane get things in place to enforce these new rules.

Really, the same they give us? Why not do the sensible thing and say it starts today as we now confess that it has been clear all along that the wearing of masks DOES mitigate the spread of this virus so wear today everyone but you have a week's grace! Just like the seat belt law, etc.

LilElvis

sweetsand said:

neilmcl said:

sweetsand said:

sharpe106 said:

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. 

I agree but even the "quarantine" is not tonight but some time away EG people coming back from hols did not happen for a while.  Re my OP. its not about me as stated but I can see their point both sides but if you had a child and worked in a supermarket and was a shelf filler and shoppers and even staff leaned over you, etc and you had a vulnerable 37 month old at home, would you not be concerned?  I don't trust this gov or any politician for that matter and I blame all of the other political parties as well as even they are not demanding SAGE papers and we could all see how, why decisions were reached and delayed as in most cases as now, EG wearing of masks in public, why not from today?

For the simple reason it has given some notice to those establishments that will have to try ane get things in place to enforce these new rules.

Really, the same they give us? Why not do the sensible thing and say it starts today as we now confess that it has been clear all along that the wearing of masks DOES mitigate the spread of this virus so wear today everyone but you have a week's grace! Just like the seat belt law, etc.

Because members of the public need to have time to source masks which typically involves online ordering and delivery. 

sweetsand

Update. The supermarket agreed early Sunday not to ask the young lady back to work. IE until the end of notice for shielded people 30th June atm.