Which bit of your quote above says the household contact can leave with a positive day 7 test? — Jane

Because once the household case tests positive they stop being a household case and are now considered a positive case - and then you need to assess the positive case's isolation period, this being the earlier of either; the positive RAT, or becoming symptomatic. It could be reasonable to considered that the positive RAT result is due to being infected at the same time as his partner but a lag in the build up of sufficient virial load (or inaccuracy with previous RATs) resulted in negative results until this time, i.e. the onset of the symptoms relating to the positive RAT were 7 days prior to the test.

As I said - this is outside of the typical scenarios that the general self-isolation/testing rules cover but since there is no other advice given (or more correctly no scope of when / when not to apply the general rules) we are left in the uneasy situation of technically a person that has just returned a positive RAT also been considered suitable to leave isolation.

That goes against every public health measure we have in place, and I would love to know if it was a hcw who said that leaving the house straight after getting a pos rat was ok. — Jane

(On a technicality) that is essentially the advice that the MoH / Covid-19.govt.nz website is giving:

Friday is your Day 0
What you need to do:
You need to self-isolate until Friday next week (Day 7).
You can leave self-isolation on Saturday next week.
What your household needs to do
The people you live with are Household Contacts. They must isolate with you until you leave self-isolation.
They must get a test this Monday (Day 3) and Friday next week (Day 7).
If their Day 7 test is negative and they have no new or worsening symptoms, your Household Contacts can leave self-isolation on Saturday next week.
If their Day 3 or Day 7 tests are positive, they need to begin 7 days of isolation as someone with COVID-19, and follow the guidance for people who are positive. — covid19.govt.nz

And given my understanding the the reporting of being a positive case is essentially automated now there would be no other advice given apart from this.

And WorkSafe also having a focus on COVID. — Suzanne Broadbent

This is an interesting question for me - should WorkSafe NZ really be so involved in Covid... or to be more specific, is Covid actually an Occupational Health and Safety risk? Because if it is why have other highly infectious disease not been given the same level of occupation H&S risk scrutiny in all/general workplaces that Covid is been given, example being measles (or even seasonal influenza).

Coming back to an organisation's duty to manage the risks created by, or inherent in, their operations so far as reasonably practicable, and given we only have finite resources available to manage all the various risks - over-managing Covid risks will inevitably lead to other risks being under-managed.

The next Saturday morning (after symptoms had subsided) I did another RAT test as it should have been the end of my isolation, and this one finally came back positive, but since I was asymptomatic, I was able to leave isolation? — Aaron Marshall

↪Aaron Marshall If I am reading your post correctly, you are a household contact of a positive case, so needed to test on day 3 and day 7 while isolating. Your viral load was high enough to be detected by RAT on your day 7 test. That would mean you need to stay in isolation, regardless of symptoms.
Your wife, however has done her 7 days isolation since testing pos, and can leave isolation so long as she has no further symptoms. — Jane

Unless since Aaron was originally symptomatic his timeframe could be consider from when he was first symptomatic... and therefore day 7 is the day he took the test...

And this goes back to what you were saying as the test are not measuring if you have Covid but if the nasal (or oral) viral load is above a threshold level (and then correlating/interpreting that as being infectious) - it is about managing the risk of spreading the infection rather than counting who has Covid or not.

If it were me I would test again before leaving my home (only leaving once I had a negative test) - but keep monitoring for reoccurring symptoms and taken extra precautions for the next week such as face masks when in close contact with anyone else and religious hand washing / sanitising.

I feel like our current "rules" fit the typical "90%" of situations, but there is no plan for how we deal with the "10%" of curveballs that need a bit more effort to assess and manage the risk - i.e. it is like a blanket PPE policy on a construction site, it makes instructing and enforcing the policy easy but causes (sometimes large) issues in circumstances when the policy doesn't practically fit the work.

The original Self-Isolation order had an exemption for 1 month of anyone recovered from Covid as being considered as a household contact or another case if tested positive again. Press conference on Wednesday indicated this will be extended to 3 months midnight tonight.
This is claimed to be on the basis of scientific and international observations and evidence.

An interesting concept - with the involvement of WorkSafe this may be a way to provide the "education" part of WorkSafe's role without the conflict of the educator also being the enforcer, and enable workers and companies to be more open in discussing risk management with an external person (without the fear of tying their own rope). Having WorkSafe and the relevant industry body on board with this approach is likely a good balance between what we have now (the conflict between WorkSafe's role) and industry self-regulation - Industries groups providing the education with members and worker with WorkSafe to define current industry good practice to assess against, and WorkSafe in a clear role to resource the enforcement of those agreed practices where required.

Although I am also a little skeptical (but I'm always a pessimist) of just how much an external person can actually influence the real occupational H&S risk control - from the few articles / posts I have read a lot of the focus is on personal wellbeing, rather than lifting the standards of how the industry operates as a whole. However this may just be a case that this is a good in with crews to build a relationship with the Toroawhi to allow better conversations regarding occupational risks as well. But maybe it isn't a role to specifically improve any particular worksite, but one to raise the collective standards across the industry by being that balance between WorkSafe and Businesses (while also keeping the workers at the centre of the conversation).

I will definitely be watching this space!

So just to note is the original order that detailed the CCES (the Requirement for Close Contacts) was revoked on Friday and replaced with the Self-Isolation Requirements and Permitted Work Order. The few sections in the new order I have had to read for work look comparable to the revoked one (in isolation) but I just don't know what kind of curveball is hidden in there... What is going on though, literally an entire order being rewritten less than a week after it's released!

Thank-you very much for your explanation which makes sense — Benjamin Basevi

No problems Benjamin - I hope that the "hypothetical situation" is in fact hypothetical as it does sound like a bit of a tough position.
Remember that just because you technically can do something, doesn't mean it is the best thing to do... and nothing causes people to get defensive and shut down the conversation quicker than pulling out the law books! ;)

Please can you define an HSR investigation? as I have never heard of it before.. — Don Ramsay

I am assuming it is in reference to HSWA Sch 2 Cl. 1 further detailing of the HSR functions, which includes "to investigate complaints from workers in the work group regarding health and safety".

the Act does not (appear to) state which sections cannot be used for the purposes of a PIN, and therefore can these sections be a reason for a PIN if the HSR considers that this section of the Act is being contravened by a PCBU? — Benjamin Basevi

S69 states a PIN can be issued for any contravention of the Act, but shorthand any section which either has a duty to do something or has a offence attached to it.
Therefore S88 and S89 cannot be a reason for issuing a PIN as these are sections which just provide definition/clarification of terms - but maybe under S90, S91 or S92... but there needs to be actual adverse conduct as define in S88 or coercion, so simply requesting HSR(A) to stop investigating the matter or representing the other workgroup would not be enough to issue a PIN.

The PCBU has a duty to engage with the workers on matters relating to H&S, and if the workers are represented by a HSR that HSR must involve them.

However it may also depend on any other agreed worker engagement procedures that company has - e.g. if there is a delegation of HSR process that a different HSR should actually be involved, or short duration absences are agreed as not consider as unavailable.

Has the PCBU given any indication that they will not review the hazards and/or engage with the workers when they do this? To be honest the talk of issuing a PIN to the Officers is essentially a red herring - if a PIN is to be issued it should be to the PCBU for either not reviewing the control measures or not engaging with the workers and/or their representative, but is this the case?

Again just provide the clarity why HSR(A) is involved - they are acting on behalf of HSR(B) who is unavailable on request of the work group / HSR(B). And that as soon as HSR(B) is available again they will represent the work group regarding the matter.

Please explain what part of this you do not understand. — KeithH

HSR-B may accompany and assist HSR-A, or act in the capacity of HSR-A, in the circumstances:
a worker in work group B asks for HSR-A’s assistance, and HSR-B is found, after reasonable inquiry, to be unavailable; or
HSR-B requests that HSR-A perform his or her functions and exercise his or her powers during a period of absence or in other circumstances that will render HSR-B unavailable to the workers of work group B.
(note A & B references have been reversed to match the hypothetical situation above) — HSWA Sch 2 Cl. 6

On the basis that HSR(B) is not available to represent the work group then may HSR(A) act in their capacity.

Trained HSR (A) is conducting an investigation into a serious health and safety matter — Benjamin Basevi

Are you meaning investigation of a recent incident, or the workers have raised their concern regarding a serious health and safety matter with HSR(A) as HSR(B) is unavailable?

if it were me I would be advising HSR(A) to:

• stop "investigating" the matter,
• raise the workgroup's views regarding any "work health or safety issues in relation to the matter" with the management of the company,
• Include that they will represent the workgroup due to HSR(B) being unavailable to represent them
• Request that the control measures relating to the matter are reviewed, with engagement of workgroup

This will then give the Officer of the company clearer understanding of what is the actual issues, and why and how HSR(A) will be involved - hopefully de-escalating the situation.

b) there is little snot to carry the spike protein to the swab to the buffer to the well in the testkit — Jane

Also add to this is that it can depend on if the RAT is being swabbed effectively - e.g. are they sticking the swab far enough up their nostril and wiping enough? Can be more likelihood for poor technique when the test is self-administered.

Legally I don't see why you cannot issue a provisional improvement notice to a worker - the sections states it can be issued requiring the person to take action if the HSR reasonably believes the person is contravening a provision of the act... but regarding a worker this would be just S45 only. And in fact S79 essentially clears up that the person the PIN is issued to can be a worker.

Practically it is probably not a very effective way in dealing with the situation as,

• you have to give them at least 8 days to comply
• they can request a WorkSafe Inspector reviews the notice up to 7 days after it's issued
• If they make the request above the notice is delayed until the inspector makes a decision (no time frame on this, just ASAP so could be a while as most of them will be under pressure to deal with "more important things")
• If the inspector agrees with the notice they have to treat it as if they issued the improvement notice (probably a touchy subject for WorkSafe to issue a worker an improvement notice)

How do the rest of the workers feel about issuing this particular worker a provisional improvement notice? Remembering that the HSR is there to represent the work group not the PCBU

Lastly I get the feeling that this worker is protecting someone (either themselves or a workmate) - if this is the case then ensuring that your incident investigation process is focused on safety improvements rather than fault finding or blame will likely be much more beneficial than forcing the worker to comply.

Step 3 says the email that we receive after we registered is not an approval. — Yonny Yeung

My take was (and this is just my interpretation) that businesses would not get any confirmation of acceptance/approval to use the scheme.
The only time you would hear from them is if you get spot-checked and subsequently removed.
Although this isn't the experience some have had, but that may have also been teething issues to begin with.

A lot of our staff do not have a car or do not drive to work themselves — Jade

will they be able to comply with the requirement of the order to "travel by a private means of transport, either alone or with a fellow resident only" (doesn't look like the Director-General has specified any other means they can travel...yet - but that's what you get when legislation is hastily written by those that don't live the reality of a lot of NZ, such as not having their own vehicle).
And the order is also specific that any close contact needs to have "access to a defined space in which no other persons are present for the purpose of any breaks during which the critical worker is not wearing a face covering." So that wouldn't allow a group of close contacts to take a break in the same space together (unless they stay masked-up) even if are close contacts of the same person

↪MattD2 Yes close contact scheme is correct. We were initially declined first attempt to register as a critical service. So, we have had to go back and do it again. Seemingly the process was different this time and we were given acceptance. It is a little mind boggling we were ever declined as without us, 8 DHB's cannot operate safely. — Jade

Good to know, I'm working with a couple of companies that will likely be registering in the next few days so will watch out. If you got pinged for not meeting the criteria I hope it was just a case of only a few registrations to start with so whoever was spot-checking them got bored and created work for them (and you) to do! :roll:

The RAT results can be recorded via the My Covid Record — TracyRichardson

So the relevant Order has been published - comes into force 11:59pm tomorrow night
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2022/0019/latest/whole.html#LMS644667

Unhelpfully though the requirement to notify the MoH of the result of a test is vague with:

notify the result of any rapid antigen test taken by the critical worker—
- to their employer before leaving their place of self-isolation to undertake permitted work or permitted work travel; and
- to the Ministry of Health in a manner required by a Director-General notice

This is "clarified" further in the even vaguer requirement in a relevant notice issued by the Director-General of Health
https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/direction_under_section_70_of_the_health_act_1956_relating_to_close_contacts.docx

the person undergoes daily symptom checks by following the instructions as set out on the Ministry of Health website

And then the MoH website adds the final confusion with different specific requirements in various places that the worker either:

• "will be able to", or
• "will need to", or
• "must"

...record their result in My Covid Record (with only that last one including the alternative option to call 0800 222 478 to notify MoH)

Although the good news is that apart from the requirement to be notified of the result of the test (that is taken before leaving their home) there doesn't appear to be a requirement for the business to keep any record of the results.

So for those that struggle with technology the best process will likely be:

• Do your RAT
• Call your boss and tell them the result
• Call MoH on 0800 222 478 and tell them the result
• If negative - go straight to work, do not pass go, do not collect $200

We have finally been accepted as 'critical' under the critical worker scheme — Jade

Are we talking about the close contact exemption scheme Jade - just because I am curious on the above statement - My understanding is that it is a self-declaration system, if you (genuinely) think your business is a critical service then you sign-up to the MBIE register and then the automated system spits out an email as a record of registration and a unique identifier - there is no official acceptance or approval (except if you are unlucky to have your application spot-checked by MBIE or another agency).

But it sounds like your experience of signing up is different from the information of what to expect?