One 'flu over

Every year in the UK between 10,000 and 30,000 people die from seasonal 'flu (more than that if there's a bad year), and we see our hospitals frequently overwhelmed during the 'flu season with ambulances queuing to get into A&E and operations cancelled.

During the 2020/21 'flu season, the number of 'flu cases were very low, as a direct consequence of the restrictions in place to attempt to control the coronavirus pandemic. Whatever your views on the lockdown, it's undeniable that these measures have had a massive impact on not only covid19 but other respiratory diseases including 'flu.

So, we seem to be placed in a position where it's reasonable to ask whether it's acceptable that we let more than 10,000 people a year die of 'flu, is it acceptable that we let this disease overwhelm our health services every year, given that it's clear that there is an alternative. We're being offered an opportunity to build back better from the pandemic, that could include building back to a society that doesn't let so many die from 'flu.

Part of such a better future would be more investment in our health services, so that there's capacity to treat 'flu patients without having to close down much of the other services. Part would be increased numbers of people taking the 'flu vaccine. But, the reduction in 'flu we've seen this year has been stopping people getting 'flu in the first place, not treatment. If we keep wearing masks in public spaces (especially indoors), if we don't go back to pubs with standing room only and retain some social distancing measures such as table service, if we work from home more etc then we're going to reduce 'flu transmission.

Why shouldn't we build back better by building back healthier? We don't need to accept that we'll return to just as it was before the pandemic. The status quo isn't sacrosanct.

«1

Comments

  • Is it possible that there might be unforeseen negative consequences - e.g. reduction in immune system function through not being exposed to so many common cold viruses?
  • Is it possible that there might be unforeseen negative consequences - e.g. reduction in immune system function through not being exposed to so many common cold viruses?

    No. It's equivalent to asking if your immune system is weakened by not drinking water contaminated with sewage.

    Re vaccines for the flu. They should be available to all for free. Which took a long time to get here. It's stupid to only target certain groups.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited July 12
    Every year in the UK between 10,000 and 30,000 people die from seasonal 'flu (more than that if there's a bad year), and we see our hospitals frequently overwhelmed during the 'flu season with ambulances queuing to get into A&E and operations cancelled.

    During the 2020/21 'flu season, the number of 'flu cases were very low, as a direct consequence of the restrictions in place to attempt to control the coronavirus pandemic. Whatever your views on the lockdown, it's undeniable that these measures have had a massive impact on not only covid19 but other respiratory diseases including 'flu.

    So, we seem to be placed in a position where it's reasonable to ask whether it's acceptable that we let more than 10,000 people a year die of 'flu, is it acceptable that we let this disease overwhelm our health services every year, given that it's clear that there is an alternative. We're being offered an opportunity to build back better from the pandemic, that could include building back to a society that doesn't let so many die from 'flu.

    Part of such a better future would be more investment in our health services, so that there's capacity to treat 'flu patients without having to close down much of the other services. Part would be increased numbers of people taking the 'flu vaccine. But, the reduction in 'flu we've seen this year has been stopping people getting 'flu in the first place, not treatment. If we keep wearing masks in public spaces (especially indoors), if we don't go back to pubs with standing room only and retain some social distancing measures such as table service, if we work from home more etc then we're going to reduce 'flu transmission.

    Why shouldn't we build back better by building back healthier? We don't need to accept that we'll return to just as it was before the pandemic. The status quo isn't sacrosanct.

    I think making wearing a mask - when you have a respiratory infection - culturally normative, in the same way as covering your mouth when you cough or not wiping your nose on your sleeve, would be helpful. I think social distancing is not realistic in the long term. Properly resourcing the health service would be useful.

    But expecting people not to die is a problem - if you don’t die of a chest infection, heart attack, stroke, cancer or dementia: how do you die of natural causes ?
  • It would be even better if various bosses / organizations stopped punishing people for staying home from work when they are sick. I expect that has started up again already...
  • Why shouldn't we build back better by building back healthier? We don't need to accept that we'll return to just as it was before the pandemic. The status quo isn't sacrosanct.

    No, but people are in general social animals. Large numbers of people actively like crowded pubs and nightclubs. I might well find them incomprehensible, but I can't deny that they exist. And those people very much view getting a normal 'flu as part of the occupational hazard of being human.

    If you want to look at places where we could "build back better" from Covid, then I'd look first at normalizing taking time off when you're sick. Millions of people used to turn up to work coughing and spluttering - wouldn't it be better if a lot of them could work from home, and keep their germs home with them?

    (and, as @Doublethink suggests, wearing a mask if you're sick but have to go out.)

  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    edited July 12
    I reckon I've lost at least two Advents (inc secular christmas season) and two Christmas (inc family time) to prolonged coughs/flu's.
    On a purely selfish motivation I'd definitely trade a month of masking in supermarkets if it prevented them (it's a bit late now).
    I'm not sure that would actually happen. I suspect there were multiple factors, and I'm not sure the 'safeguards' which would work are the effective ones.

    I do think there is an extent where you have to do a 'years of life/quality of life' tradeoff. We could probably cut flu deaths by keeping great-grandchildren away from pensioners. I think that would be a bad plan (and depression would take away some of the gains).

    But I also think there's a good chance that there's some low lying fruit, that has a lot of benefit (even for me directly and in the short term) for little inconvenience.
    Encouraging working from home when mildly sick, seems a good thing (so long as it doesn't turn into working from your deathbed)
    Having a health service that has emergency services running at 70% capacity in routine time seems good (and if they can use that 30% capacity for life-improving cosmetic surgery, or to do good in the third world, rather than sitting around good on them).

    On the other hand, while I'd rather the pubs had a more balanced loading (rather than oscillating from literally empty to difficult to move in). I'd like at least the potential for something random, I might be sat at my table for one, or not be able to make my way to the bar, but if I had to book it in advance, that would rub it in a bit.

    And probably should investigate possible negative consequences to immunity. But if we know what we're not exposed to, I'd have thought we could expose ourselves in a controlled way (vaccination).
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited July 12
    @Alan Cresswell because we don't give a shit. It will be death of me for sure, even with flu shots. Because they're crap. 30% accurate. Unless we apply Britain's new found world class genomics to flu and to rapid, reactive, accurate flu vaccine. Otherwise no.

    Why are our cancer outcomes the worst in Europe?
  • AragwenAragwen Shipmate Posts: 16
    Every year in the UK between 10,000 and 30,000 people die from seasonal 'flu (more than that if there's a bad year), and we see our hospitals frequently overwhelmed during the 'flu season with ambulances queuing to get into A&E and operations cancelled.

    During the 2020/21 'flu season, the number of 'flu cases were very low, as a direct consequence of the restrictions in place to attempt to control the coronavirus pandemic. Whatever your views on the lockdown, it's undeniable that these measures have had a massive impact on not only covid19 but other respiratory diseases including 'flu.

    So, we seem to be placed in a position where it's reasonable to ask whether it's acceptable that we let more than 10,000 people a year die of 'flu, is it acceptable that we let this disease overwhelm our health services every year, given that it's clear that there is an alternative. We're being offered an opportunity to build back better from the pandemic, that could include building back to a society that doesn't let so many die from 'flu.

    Part of such a better future would be more investment in our health services, so that there's capacity to treat 'flu patients without having to close down much of the other services. Part would be increased numbers of people taking the 'flu vaccine. But, the reduction in 'flu we've seen this year has been stopping people getting 'flu in the first place, not treatment. If we keep wearing masks in public spaces (especially indoors), if we don't go back to pubs with standing room only and retain some social distancing measures such as table service, if we work from home more etc then we're going to reduce 'flu transmission.

    Why shouldn't we build back better by building back healthier? We don't need to accept that we'll return to just as it was before the pandemic. The status quo isn't sacrosanct.

    One reason so many people die of flu is because many don't bother or decide not to have the flu vaccine. In Swansea where I live around 17, 000 people, elderly and those in clinical risk groups did not receive their flu vaccination. If it is the similar throughout the UK (rubbish at maths) it is a massive number of people who choose not to get vaccinated many of whom probably die.
  • It would be even better if various bosses / organizations stopped punishing people for staying home from work when they are sick. I expect that has started up again already...
    Absolutely. I should have included that in my OP (but, that would deprive people of the chance to make that additional point).

    Everyone should have access to sick leave, without any loss of income, if they're unwell. In the UK at least, that's something that has been a consistent failure over the last 18 months with people forced between the options of going into work despite having symptoms of covid (and, avoiding the test because if they get a positive it takes away the option) and staying home without pay and probably without a job when they recover. Many of us have jobs which can be done from home (at least to an extent) and employers who provide paid sick leave. That's not true of all - many jobs can't be done from home (retail, hospitality, manufacturing etc) and that can't be changed, and a lot of contracts don't provide for any paid sick leave or security of employment for those who do call in sick - that can be changed, and should be changed (it's a matter of employment justice that all deserve a secure, properly paid job with at least adequate access to paid sick leave and annual leave - the public health benefits are a bonus on top of what should be).
  • I wonder how much impact there would be just from keeping some hygiene measures in care homes and for home-visiting care staff. As I recall flu outbreaks in care homes are relatively common.
  • But expecting people not to die is a problem - if you don’t die of a chest infection, heart attack, stroke, cancer or dementia: how do you die of natural causes ?
    I don't see any option that would stop people from dying. But, we could reduce the number of people who die of something that could be much less common with the introduction of some of the public health measures we've seen over the last 18 months. Yes, that would mean an increase in the rates of other causes of death if people live a few years more because we reduce the number of people who die of 'flu.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    I get jabbed for the flu every year, but I often get chesty colds in winter. Last (southern) winter I didn't have any sign of my usual cold, nor have I this winter (so far).

    On the other hand there are more babies and pre-schoolers here in hospital and at emergency clinics this year with a viral chest infection (RSV? or RVS?).
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    Is it possible that there might be unforeseen negative consequences - e.g. reduction in immune system function through not being exposed to so many common cold viruses?

    Some doctors in New Zealand seem to think so:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/new-zealand-children-falling-ill-in-high-numbers-due-to-covid-immunity-debt
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    There is a company I won't use, in the delivery of groceries business, since I was told by the parent of an ex-pupil that they had "American principles" which entailed that if an employee were off three times with sickness in a year, they would be fired. The ex-pupil had been off twice, and was terrified of getting ill again. The parent was also concerned.

    I suspect our government has as much concern for the well being of the citizens, or even less, as every death is a financial saving.
  • Penny S wrote: »
    There is a company I won't use, in the delivery of groceries business, since I was told by the parent of an ex-pupil that they had "American principles" which entailed that if an employee were off three times with sickness in a year, they would be fired. The ex-pupil had been off twice, and was terrified of getting ill again. The parent was also concerned.

    I suspect our government has as much concern for the well being of the citizens, or even less, as every death is a financial saving.

    Not quite as draconic, but in the latter days of my time with the Ambulance Service, people were allowed a certain number of *sick leave* days, before receiving a Very Stern Letter threatening disciplinary action if they took sick leave again within a certain period (can't recall how long).

    Obvious result - ambulance staff with coughs and colds (and feeling pretty rotten, too, especially if the weather was cold and inclement) in close face-to-face contact with Very Ill People. I dread to think how many lives were inadvertently shortened, but the government of today wouldn't care - Very Ill People are nothing but a burden on the state, and should be dispensed with...

    (for the avoidance of doubt, that last sentence is irony).

  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    I think I'm getting past irony.
  • Is it possible that there might be unforeseen negative consequences - e.g. reduction in immune system function through not being exposed to so many common cold viruses?

    Some doctors in New Zealand seem to think so:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/new-zealand-children-falling-ill-in-high-numbers-due-to-covid-immunity-debt

    I haven't had a time to look at this properly yet but we were talking about it at work yesterday.

    RSV is a virus that causes bronchiolitis which is a nasty lung condition in babies. It is self-limiting but can be fatal in bad cases. Treatment is supportative and effective such that in developed countries death is really rare.

    We get a season of RSV every winter sometime between September and March and for a month or so, the hospital fills with babies on oxygen and there are no beds. This hasn't happened at all in the 2020/21 winter. We are seeing all the seasonal infections now.

    But yes, apparently there are these reports of very severe RSV. So it's an open question; we may be seeing big epidemiological shifts because of such a big change in human behaviour.

    I'll have a look...

    AFZ
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    So, we seem to be placed in a position where it's reasonable to ask whether it's acceptable that we let more than 10,000 people a year die of 'flu, is it acceptable that we let this disease overwhelm our health services every year, given that it's clear that there is an alternative.

    There's always an alternative, the question is whether it's an alternative that's better than the status quo.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Personally, I reckon overall living standards are pretty good in the WEIRD world. Its the non-WEIRD that are in strife. Plenty of people devote their lives to understanding why, and seeking to address it. Anyway, that's what I think about when questions like this are raised.
  • Is it possible that there might be unforeseen negative consequences - e.g. reduction in immune system function through not being exposed to so many common cold viruses?

    Some doctors in New Zealand seem to think so:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/new-zealand-children-falling-ill-in-high-numbers-due-to-covid-immunity-debt

    I haven't had a time to look at this properly yet but we were talking about it at work yesterday.

    RSV is a virus that causes bronchiolitis which is a nasty lung condition in babies. It is self-limiting but can be fatal in bad cases. Treatment is supportative and effective such that in developed countries death is really rare.

    We get a season of RSV every winter sometime between September and March and for a month or so, the hospital fills with babies on oxygen and there are no beds. This hasn't happened at all in the 2020/21 winter. We are seeing all the seasonal infections now.

    But yes, apparently there are these reports of very severe RSV. So it's an open question; we may be seeing big epidemiological shifts because of such a big change in human behaviour.

    I'll have a look...

    AFZ

    My husband just got an invitation to be part of an RSV vaccine trial. Sadly, after clicking through it appears he's not eligible. But something is apparently in the works, which might turn out well.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    The main effect of this pandemic has been to confirm for me how much better we've become at dealing with issues that have straightforwardly scientific/medical/technological solutions than with broader societal issues. (Pre-pandemic, I often used to walk through Toronto's main research hospital district on my way home from work, and it sometimes seemed as though a new floor was being added to those buildings every day...). I suppose the big picture is that we should be looking a high-impact public health measures that can be implemented at relatively low societal cost, with the note that these may not be in obvious places. There may also be broader equity issues involved - in Ontario, Peel Region consistently had high Covid levels despite severe measures, whereas in some other parts of the province we maintained manageable levels for a long time with much less severe restrictions. The issue is that Peel Region is pretty much the logistics capital for a large part of Canada, with our largest airport and warehouses and factories here there and everywhere.

    Re. Alan's specific suggestions, I think the devil is the details. Working from home is not practicable in the medium term for a lot of people, including many people who are doing so right now. My employer is generous with sick days, but there are circumstances where my actually taking a sick day could have serious repercussions down the road beyond my (or my employer's) control.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    No vaccine currently exists for bronchiolitis, but it is possible to protect children with antibody injections. As an immunocompromised former micro-preemie, Captain Pyjamas had them for his first winter. They are very expensive, however, and in this country at least, can only be administered in hospital, which is why only the most vulnerable children get them.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited July 13
    I would certainly want to know, when looking at figures of death rates from flu, to also know about vaccination rates.

    Annual shots are offered at my work as standard practice. I don’t actually know how much it would cost me to get one otherwise. I do know it’s free for people over a certain age (65 I think but not certain).

    EDIT: found the full list of people who get vaccinated for free.

    children aged 6 months to less than 5 years

    all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 6 months and over

    people aged 6 months and over with certain medical conditions that increase their chance of severe influenza and its complications

    pregnant women (at any stage during pregnancy)

    people aged 65 years and over.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I almost died from flu twenty years ago. Even though the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine is admittedly low, I have gotten the yearly jab ever since and have had no episodes. Of course, this is only antidotal, but my life seems to depend on it.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    I would certainly want to know, when looking at figures of death rates from flu, to also know about vaccination rates.

    Annual shots are offered at my work as standard practice. I don’t actually know how much it would cost me to get one otherwise. I do know it’s free for people over a certain age (65 I think but not certain).

    EDIT: found the full list of people who get vaccinated for free.

    children aged 6 months to less than 5 years

    all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 6 months and over

    people aged 6 months and over with certain medical conditions that increase their chance of severe influenza and its complications

    pregnant women (at any stage during pregnancy)

    people aged 65 years and over.

    Free for everyone here. But only taken by 30 to 40%.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I almost died from flu twenty years ago. Even though the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine is admittedly low, I have gotten the yearly jab ever since and have had no episodes. Of course, this is only antidotal, but my life seems to depend on it.

    I didn't get quite as sick as you but was ill for about 4½ months. Would get better only to get worse.

    re effectiveness. We've been told that the vaccine may not prevent you from getting the flu but it will reduce the severity.

    ----

    I have floated and threatened that if you get the flu and haven't been vaccinated I won't pay your sick leave.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited July 14
    You couldn't do that in Australia, not pay sick leave, but there's a pretty good argument that you could sack someone who refuses to get vaccinated if it amounts to a reasonable requirement of the position. So workers looking after vulnerable people could (I reckon) get sacked for not getting the Covid vaccine.

    What is a reasonable requirement is a moveable feast. Right now, our Govt. is saying that aged care workers must get vaccinated or lose their jobs, but disability workers don't have to. That might change though.

    I don't think you could argue that "not infecting others at the workplace" was a reasonable requirement at the moment. If attitudes change across the country though, such an argument might get up in front of an unfair dismissal tribunal.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate

    I have floated and threatened that if you get the flu and haven't been vaccinated I won't pay your sick leave.

    Probably helped that we were next door to a chemist, but at a former workplace of 35 people, the MD basically decided to pay for everyone to have the flu vaccination there (at £50 a head or whatever it was) as a legitimate business expense, with dark hints about levels of sympathy to be expected if calling in sick with flu in the future not having had it.

    Oddly enough, take up every year even from those straight out of university was high...

  • I've said this before: although I qualify for the flu vaccine as an asthmatic, I react badly to the jab, an allergic reaction which is a lump in the arm injected (nothing to do with flu symptoms). I had three steadily worsening reactions to jabs over successive years and stopped accepting it, because past and bitter experience tells me that I tend to get worse reactions with more or further exposure to an allergen: e.g. when we had a wasp nest over the front door, the third sting had me in hospital.

    This year I would have been tempted to try again as it has been a while, so my system will have, hopefully, desensitised, but, in consultation with the asthma specialist at my GP, we prioritised the Covid19 vaccine, because if I'd reacted badly to a flu jab it was likely I would have disqualified myself from the Covid jab.

    What happens to those of us who don't react well to the flu jab if you make this compulsory?
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate

    What happens to those of us who don't react well to the flu jab if you make this compulsory?

    I'd hope, as with masks, that there would be exemptions - which you'd clearly fall under.

    Not that I'm arguing for compulsory flu vaccinations.
  • Originally posted by Orfeo: I don’t actually know how much it would cost me to get one otherwise.

    I started getting flu shots when my father was diagnosed with cancer - they cost £15, and that included a voucher for a free hot drink in the adjoining café (possibly a win-win for the café as I always bought a cake to accompany my free hot drink). Had I been my father's carer, rather than a regular visitor, I think I would have been eligible for a free flu shot.

  • To @orfeo, I aged into the Australian free flu injection club this year, but in the years between leaving the Public Service and this year the vaccine cost $21 and was administered by the nurse at my GP practice without further charge. I think it may be slightly more if you get it done at a pharmacy. This is reasonable for most employed people, but may be difficult for those on benefits and other low fixed incomes.
    To @Alan Cresswell Australia also had a very low flu case-load in winter 2020. It is probably difficult to know if some of the less onerous of the Covid-19 restrictions/procedures i.e. increased hand hygiene, minimal overcrowding standards (eg 1 person per sq metre) and encouragement of masks in any relatively crowded indoor situation, would assist in lowering the flu caseload, perhaps to about halfway between the old normal and the 2020 caseload.
  • At my last school prior to retirement we factored the cost of vaccinating all staff into the health and safety budget. It cost much less than having to pay for casual supply staff in case of illness.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I am able to access a free flu shot at my place of employment.
  • Medical exemptions of course. Those whose health is troubled by injection are depending on everyone else to be community-minded and get inoculated.

    There is no paid sick leave here, only unpaid. There's also no short or long term disability required of employers. Thus, can easily decide to pay or not pay someone who's off sick. Noting that we've bought insurance for illness beyond 30 days for staff, and have always paid full salary for that first month. Even if I mutter about it: long story about person who didn't properly manage preventable health crises and we basically supported after insurance cut them off. (I'm full of angry impulses sometimes, don't express nor act on them.)
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    What do you mean, you don’t express them? What have you just been doing?
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    It enrages me that anyone has such power over others, however humanely they wield it.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Or however they publicly fantasize about wielding it.
  • meh. Come fix my state, please?
  • Medical exemptions of course. Those whose health is troubled by injection are depending on everyone else to be community-minded and get inoculated.
    No vaccine is 100% effective - there will always be people who have had the jag who don't gain the protection others have, or who initially have protection but the level of protection declines with time, and there will always be people who are unable to take the jag (which could be medical exemptions, it could simply be that administering vaccines takes time and some people have simply not been reached). Some vaccines (measles, for example) are very effective at preventing transmission such that it's possible to rely on vaccination to control disease, providing almost all those able to take the vaccine do so any outbreak will hit a big enough wall of vaccinated people that any gaps in that wall are too few to allow onward transmission. But, for most vaccines (including the covid and 'flu vaccines) the effectiveness against transmission and illness is low enough that it's impossible to control the spread of the virus just with vaccination. If we want to stop people ending up in hospitals and graves from these diseases we need to do more than just put jags in arms.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    A baby has died of RSV in hospital here. We are in the first week of the school holidays and it is hoped that numbers of infected children will decline with children not being a schools and preschools. Hospitals have banned children from visiting as part of the effort to contain the illness.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    What do you mean, you don’t express them? What have you just been doing?

    I think our shipmate is drawing a distinction between making comments in front of the employee and/or their colleagues, and complaining in "private" about it. Rather in the manner that someone might work well with a colleague at work, and then come home and blow of steam about what that fool did today to a spouse.
  • But, for most vaccines (including the covid and 'flu vaccines) the effectiveness against transmission and illness is low enough that it's impossible to control the spread of the virus just with vaccination.

    Israeli data apparently shows >90% effectiveness against asymptomatic transmission for the Pfizer vaccine against the original variants (it's probably worse vs Delta, but I haven't seen good numbers).

    90% is good enough to control the spread with just vaccination, if you get good uptake.

    Some other studies have been suggesting numbers nearer 50% (different vaccines, different variants, ...) which isn't enough by itself to control the spread even if everyone gets the jab.

    'Flu vaccines seem to have real-world efficacy of about 50% in the best year, and much worse in a bad year (depending on how accurate the "guess what strains are coming our way" game has been). Staying home when you're sick is a more effective weapon against 'flu spread than vaccination. Vaccination is somewhat effective against dying.

    Covid rates across the US are climbing again. Data from Contra Costa County, CA found at https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/overview shows that the rise is entirely in the unvaccinated population. You have to be a little careful with that, because without a surveillance screening program, you'll miss asymptomatic cases in vaccinated people. I'd like to see everyone's data separated out by vaccination status: it's a very clear indication that vaccines are worthwhile.

    Note also that unvaccinated people are mostly not randomly scattered throughout the population. People with medical reasons to not vaccinate are probably random, but they're a small number of people. Most unvaccinated are either people who don't trust vaccines (for whatever reason) or are poor and have difficulty accessing vaccination. These are basically social groups - poor people spend time with other poor people, "Faith not fear" nutjobs have similarly nutty friends, and so on.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    What do you mean, you don’t express them? What have you just been doing?

    I think our shipmate is drawing a distinction between making comments in front of the employee and/or their colleagues, and complaining in "private" about it. Rather in the manner that someone might work well with a colleague at work, and then come home and blow of steam about what that fool did today to a spouse.
    Griping about the employees he despises might be a topic better suited for Hell.
  • My son was telling me about a new company he will be working for. " They have no set sick leave," he said. I was about to say that is terrible before he added they just expect you to take off with pay if you are sick. Hard to believe this is an American company. Lucky him. The idea that you would have x amount of sick days per year always seemed strange to me. Like they expect you to plan when you are sick.
  • Yes: not only is it unfair if you are ill for an extended period and need extra sick leave, it's also unfair if you are not sick and don't want to take sick leave!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Annual shots are offered at my work as standard practice. I don’t actually know how much it would cost me to get one otherwise. I do know it’s free for people over a certain age (65 I think but not certain).

    We are used to having the ordinary flu injection from the GP. That costs us an ordinary consultation and did so this year. The covid was also at the GP's, and was free. We're both over 70, so I don't know if the age is 65 or 70.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    What do you mean, you don’t express them? What have you just been doing?

    I think our shipmate is drawing a distinction between making comments in front of the employee and/or their colleagues, and complaining in "private" about it. Rather in the manner that someone might work well with a colleague at work, and then come home and blow of steam about what that fool did today to a spouse.

    Yes this is correct. One of my main principles of living is to try not to boss people, reactionary I suppose to my upbringing. Which has meant as a boss I get a bit swindled sometimes. Preferring non-hierarchical consensus based decision making.

    As a parent it means I've been following children's instructions for a very long time. We didn't do "discipline". I don't do it as an employer either. It's all coaching
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Yes: not only is it unfair if you are ill for an extended period and need extra sick leave, it's also unfair if you are not sick and don't want to take sick leave!
    Not necessarily. Where I worked, we earned one day of sick leave a month. Anything not used was banked. It could be used when one was actually sick, when family members were sick, doctor or dentist appointments, and the like. We also earned vacation leave every month; the amount earned increased after every so many years of service. At the end of the year, any accumulated vacation leave over 30 days rolled over into sick leave.

    When I retired, I had almost a year of unused sick leave. That unused sick leave counted toward years of service for calculating my retirement benefit (defined benefit plan), meaning a higher annual payment, so I definitely did well from not being sick more than I was and not using the sick leave.

    We also had a system where if one employee didn’t have enough sick leave to deal with an illness, other employees could donate some of their sick leave. That happened with some regularity.

    As for flu shots, here the cost is generally completely covered by health insurance. Of course, that raises the ongoing problem of people who don’t have/can’t get/can’t afford health insurance.

  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Over 65 and flu shots are free in NZ, as they are for people under 65 who have various medical conditions.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Sorry, meant to add that the reasoning is that it's cheaper to keep people out of hospital. Even with that policy our hospitals often have to add temporary wards over winter. Traditionally NZ homes have not been built to suit the climate, especially in the South Island and its only in the last 15 to 20 years that insulation and double glazing have been retro fitted. Because I used to get asthma and I owned my house I got a rebate of $2,000 when I had it insulated - again mainly so I didn't clog up the hospital system.
Sign In or Register to comment.