Rail staff working during the pandemic: was the risk massive?

[Richard Scott]

In what way do you feel the risks have been overplayed for front line rail workers during a pandemic where catching virus may be fatal or passing it to family without even showing any symptoms may prove fatal for them?

*in response to previous post by yorkie*

The chance of catching it in that line if work is low due to contact time with other people being so short. It was quickly shown that it was very unlikely to be fatal to anyone who was of working age or younger with no underlying health conditions. Also if you have no symptoms then it's difficult to pass on anyway.

 

[maradona10]

The virus is airborne, trains are often poorly ventilated. Whether you sit in someone’s company for 15 minutes within 2m or not is irrelevant if they sneeze or cough, especially without a mask on. There have been unfortunate examples of young, fit and healthy mortality, but also long covid. The fear of catching covid at work throughout the pandemic was, and still is now even with vaccines, utterly horrendous. It’s even worse thinking that you could unknowingly pass it to your loved ones. I personally don’t think anyone has the right to tell someone they’re overplaying the risks. Try telling that to anyone suffering from long covid or who have had loved ones who’ve sadly passed away. It shouldn’t be some strange competition about trying to gauge what scale the risk was. The risk was, and still is, there and that’s it

 

[bramling]

The chance of catching it in that line if work is low due to contact time with other people being so short. It was quickly shown that it was very unlikely to be fatal to anyone who was of working age or younger with no underlying health conditions. Also if you have no symptoms then it's difficult to pass on anyway.

There’s two ways of looking at “risk” here.

One is the risk posed by a known and well understood virus. The second is the risk posed by a novel and barely understood virus.

So it does seem reasonable to say that anyone working through the early stages of this, at least, was taking a risk of sorts - especially when at the time it was being suggested that one could be exposed to Covid simply through touching a door handle, and considering by this time stuff like hand gel was in short supply.

How much of a risk this *actually* was is open to scrutiny now more is known, but at the time I think it’s hard to say there wasn’t an element of risk to it. Certainly at my place there were essentially no mitigation measures until *after* the first lockdown was called, which was quite unsettling especially for older staff who weren’t covered by shielding (for example over 60 with no known underlying issues). I can think of more than a few in this bracket who were sufficiently unsettled by this that they chose to bring forward their retirements.

 

[Richard Scott]

The virus is airborne, trains are often poorly ventilated. Whether you sit in someone’s company for 15 minutes within 2m or not is irrelevant if they sneeze or cough, especially without a mask on. There have been unfortunate examples of young, fit and healthy mortality, but also long covid. The fear of catching covid at work throughout the pandemic was, and still is now even with vaccines, utterly horrendous. It’s even worse thinking that you could unknowingly pass it to your loved ones. I personally don’t think anyone has the right to tell someone they’re overplaying the risks. Try telling that to anyone suffering from long covid or who have had loved ones who’ve sadly passed away. It shouldn’t be some strange competition about trying to gauge what scale the risk was. The risk was, and still is, there and that’s it

I don't think you understand much about virus transmission and the real risks. Suggest you go and do some research and find out the exact risks when on a train (you'll find it's extremely low) and the chances of a fit, young, healthy person dying from it, which are so low they are almost nil.

 

[yorkie]

In what way do you feel the risks have been overplayed for front line rail workers during a pandemic where catching virus may be fatal or passing it to family without even showing any symptoms may prove fatal for them?

*in response to previous post by yorkie*

It is impossible to eliminate all risks; frontline rail staff were not at more risk than most other front line staff. Indeed in many cases, depending on what comparisons are being made, the risks would have been significantly less, due to generally fewer contacts with other people. It is highly dependent on individual circumstances but the suggestion that rail staff were at particular risk is clearly false.

Let's not forget that the risks for this virus were always thought to be disproportionately affecting people by increase in age and people who were in the shielding categories who were not working for the duration that virus levels were relatively high and vaccinations were not yet available. The average age of a Covid death is around 83 and any rail worker anywhere close to that age would have been shielding at the appropriate time.

It's wrong for anyone to suggest there is a group of people trying to belittle the risk to rail staff, but when some individuals try to claim that rail staff were at particular risk, it is only to expected for people to refute such claims.

The virus is airborne,

I agree there is strong evidence that Sars-CoV-2 is transmitted through tiny aerosols which can be as small as around 0.09μm (which can be filtered by well fitted FFP3 masks, but not by loose fitting masks) which can linger in the air for a long time if ventilation is poor.

trains are often poorly ventilated.

Is this the view your employer has? The rail industry takes a different view to you.

Whether you sit in someone’s company for 15 minutes within 2m or not is irrelevant if they sneeze or cough, especially without a mask on.

As you say it is the tiny particles that can linger in poorly ventilated air which cause virus transmission; a standard mask won't cut it and you would need an FFP3 mask (or similar) to avoid being exposed to such particles.

The duration would make a difference though, as exposure to particles for a very short time may not be enough exposure to trigger an infection.

There have been unfortunate examples of young, fit and healthy mortality,

These were incredibly rare cases; generally it was later discovered that there was a comorbidity that was unknown at the initial time of reporting.

but also long covid. The fear of catching covid at work throughout the pandemic was, and still is now even with vaccines, utterly horrendous.

The fear should not be horrendous now with vaccines; the vaccines are highly effective at preventing serious illness. A natural infection in a vaccinated individual nearly always results in a mild or asymptomatic infection. Yes there will be some exceptions but they are very much the exception and not the rule. The vaccines are truly excellent but in many people a natural infection is also needed to obtain the broadest possible immune response going forward, due to the immune system only recognising the spike protein until the live virus is encountered.

It’s even worse thinking that you could unknowingly pass it to your loved ones.

That really ought not to be the case any more; if anyone knows a vulnerable person who is unvaccinated, they would be wise to gently inform them of the benefits of the vaccine and encourage them to make the choice to get it. Exposure to the virus going forward is unavoidable, in the same way that exposure to the pre-existing HCoVs is unavoidable as they are endemic.

I personally don’t think anyone has the right to tell someone they’re overplaying the risks.

Stating the risks are "massive" is overplaying it in my opinion, and I am entitled to that view.

Try telling that to anyone suffering from long covid or who have had loved ones who’ve sadly passed away.

My view is that the risks are not "massive" and I will tell that to anyone.

It shouldn’t be some strange competition about trying to gauge what scale the risk was.

I agree it shouldn't, but once someone comes up with a hyperbolic claim, it's only to be expected if people call that out.

The risk was, and still is, there and that’s it

The virus is endemic; my opinion is that people should seriously consider getting themselves vaccinated (I have to be careful how I word that; I do not want to sound like I am coercing anyone) and, then, quite frankly, live their life as normal.

If anyone is immunocompromised they may wish to make additional precautions, such as wearing an effective FFP3 mask, which would filter the tiny aerosol particles through which the virus is transmitted, but for anyone else, it is time to get on with our lives in my opinion. If others wish to act differently that is their choice but it cannot be forced upon others.

 

[maradona10]

It is impossible to eliminate all risks; frontline rail staff were not at more risk than most other front line staff. Indeed in many cases, depending on what comparisons are being made, the risks would have been significantly less, due to generally fewer contacts with other people. It is highly dependent on individual circumstances but the suggestion that rail staff were at particular risk is clearly false.

Let's not forget that the risks for this virus were always thought to be disproportionately affecting people by increase in age and people who were in the shielding categories who were not working for the duration that virus levels were relatively high and vaccinations were not yet available. The average age of a Covid death is around 83 and any rail worker anywhere close to that age would have been shielding at the appropriate time.

It's wrong for anyone to suggest there is a group of people trying to belittle the risk to rail staff, but when some individuals try to claim that rail staff were at particular risk, it is only to expected for people to refute such claims.

But there are people trying to belittle the risk to rail workers, it happened in the previous thread to this one and it’s still happening now. I also don’t feel as though the original poster was trying to claim we were more or less at risk than anyone, they were retaliating to suggestions by others that we weren’t at risk. I don’t know why people feel the need to turn it into a scale of risk, we were and still are at risk. Whether it’s more or less than a shop worker or a nurse surely doesn’t matter?

 

[bramling]

It is impossible to eliminate all risks; frontline rail staff were not at more risk than most other front line staff. Indeed in many cases, depending on what comparisons are being made, the risks would have been significantly less, due to generally fewer contacts with other people. It is highly dependent on individual circumstances but the suggestion that rail staff were at particular risk is clearly false.

Let's not forget that the risks for this virus were always thought to be disproportionately affecting people by increase in age and people who were in the shielding categories who were not working for the duration that virus levels were relatively high and vaccinations were not yet available. The average age of a Covid death is around 83 and any rail worker anywhere close to that age would have been shielding at the appropriate time.

It's wrong for anyone to suggest there is a group of people trying to belittle the risk to rail staff, but when some individuals try to claim that rail staff were at particular risk, it is only to expected for people to refute such claims.

The originally quoted post doesn’t say that rail workers were more or less at risk than other professions, but does hint that they were at *some* level of risk. So I’m not sure why this has turned into a benchmarking exercise.

One could quite reasonably apply the same arguments to, for example, supermarket staff, especially after the panic buying started (fancy being the person pushing the trolley taking the toilet rolls from the stock room to the shelves around that time?!).

Likewise one probably wouldn’t have wanted to be, again for example, the conductor of a train heading to the beach around that time. It would certainly have been possible to have found one’s self in the centre of a crowded situation at times during the first three weeks of March 20, at a time when there were essentially zero measures in place. Hard to say this wasn’t a risk when so little was known.

For sure others had same or worse, but that’s essentially irrelevant.

 

[maradona10]

I don't think you understand much about virus transmission and the real risks. Suggest you go and do some research and find out the exact risks when on a train (you'll find it's extremely low) and the chances of a fit, young, healthy person dying from it, which are so low they are almost nil.

Are you a virologist? Are you saying the virus isn't airborne and that if someone coughs or sneezes in a poorly ventilated area without a mask it isn't risky to be in that area at the time or just afterwards?

So low they are almost nil yet people have died from it, any many others who haven't have had debilitating long covid. And the constant worry about passing it to family or friends.

So because the risk of death is low that's fine, is it?

 

[farleigh]

Well perhaps we should all clap for the brave rail workers who risked their lives to transport ....er nobody ...around.

Come on!

 

[maradona10]

Well perhaps we should all clap for the brave rail workers who risked their lives to transport ....er nobody ...around.

Come on!

Nobody is asking you to clap for them. Sadly, this is the attitude I'm talking about and confirms there are still people on this forum who will go to any level to belittle rail workers. It's bizarre.

 

[yorkie]

Are you a virologist?

Are you?

Are you saying the virus isn't airborne and that if someone coughs or sneezes in a poorly ventilated area without a mask it isn't risky to be in that area at the time or just afterwards?

The virus is transmitted through tiny aerosols that are as small as 0.09μm; for such particles to be avoided you would not simply need to wear "a mask" but an FFP3 (aka N99) mask.

So low they are almost nil yet people have died from it, any many others who haven't have had debilitating long covid. And the constant worry about passing it to family or friends.

But now we have vaccines, it really is time to move on.

So because the risk of death is low that's fine, is it?

If we took the view that all risk must be eliminated, we would not be able to go anywhere.

 

[Darandio]

But there are people trying to belittle the risk to rail workers, it happened in the previous thread to this one and it’s still happening now. I also don’t feel as though the original poster was trying to claim we were more or less at risk than anyone, they were retaliating to suggestions by others that we weren’t at risk. I don’t know why people feel the need to turn it into a scale of risk, we were and still are at risk. Whether it’s more or less than a shop worker or a nurse surely doesn’t matter?

The discussion actually stemmed from a post suggesting the strike was a big issue for members because they had put their lives at risk. Slightly hyperbolic but that's where we're at.

 

[yorkie]

Nobody is asking you to clap for them. Sadly, this is the attitude I'm talking about and confirms there are still people on this forum who will go to any level to belittle rail workers. It's bizarre.

What's bizarre is this claim from a small minority of rail workers that you are at "massive" risk; it is that hyperbole which is attracting a reaction. My advice would be for both of you to drop the hyperbole.

What is the purpose of posting such hyperbole, if the intention is not to generate a negative reaction? (this is a rhetorical question by the way)

The discussion actually stemmed from a post suggesting the strike was a big issue for members because they had put their lives at risk. Slightly hyperbolic but that's where we're at.

Exactly!

 

[farleigh]

Nobody is asking you to clap for them. Sadly, this is the attitude I'm talking about and confirms there are still people on this forum who will go to any level to belittle rail workers. It's bizarre.

Who belittled them?

My thoughts are that they are not heroic

Do you think rail workers are heroic?

 

[maradona10]

Is this the view your employer has? The rail industry takes a different view to you

Its my view, i work on them daily

The fear should not be horrendous now with vaccines; the vaccines are highly effective at preventing serious illness. A natural infection in a vaccinated individual nearly always results in a mild or asymptomatic infection. Yes there will be some exceptions but they are very much the exception and not the rule. The vaccines are truly excellent but in many people a natural infection is also needed to obtain the broadest possible immune response going forward, due to the immune system only recognising the spike protein until the live virus is encountered.

It's not for you to tell someone what the fear is for them, and if there are exceptions then that's reason enough to worry about catching the virus. Most of my colleagues are middle aged or approaching middle aged, they aren't all 18-21. I have a family member who is under 40 and considered fit and healthy and he was very fortunate to make it through covid and he will forever live with the life changing consequences of the illness. Workers have families that they are enitled to worry about. Even with two vaccinations I worry immensely about family who are vulnerable

Stating the risks are "massive" is overplaying it in my opinion, and I am entitled to that view.

The post was about a risk to workers and how they were expected to go to work, not to suggest rail workers being more at risk than other front line workers. The risk did seem massive to some, particularly at the time. The worry was immense.

I agree it shouldn't, but once someone comes up with a hyperbolic claim, it's only to be expected if people call that out.

It's very easy to misconstrue this thread as the poster suggesting rail workers were at massive risk compared to other key workers, in my opinion that's not what they suggested.

Who belittled them?

My thoughts are that they are not heroic

Do you think rail workers are heroic?

You did in your last post and you've just did it again in this post

 

[bramling]

Nobody is asking you to clap for them. Sadly, this is the attitude I'm talking about and confirms there are still people on this forum who will go to any level to belittle rail workers. It's bizarre.

The clapping was one of the most facile and cringeworthy elements of all this, and all this “thank you NHS” stuff has to some extent stifled a proper discourse about how well (or not) the NHS has coped with this.

Any clapping would certainly be rather hollow for people whose relatives died after catching Covid within a healthcare setting, or perhaps inside a care home where the NHS had dumped someone.

This is all probably more important than whether X profession was at more or less risk than Y.

 

[yorkie]

Its my view, i work on them daily

Do you work trains with opening windows or aircon?

It's not for you to tell someone what the fear is for them, and if there are exceptions then that's reason enough to worry about catching the virus.

I'm sorry but you can't stop people calling out hyperbole and questioning claims that a risk is or was "massive"; we are going to have to agree to disagree on that.

Most of my colleagues are middle aged or approaching middle aged, they aren't all 18-21. I have a family member who is under 40 and considered fit and healthy and he was very fortunate to make it through covid and he will forever live with the life changing consequences of the illness. Workers have families that they are enitled to worry about.

I am sorry to hear that you know someone under 40 who has life changing consequences but this is very much the exception and does not mean the risk is, or was, "massive".

Even with two vaccinations I worry immensely about family who are vulnerable

I would try not to worry; the vaccines are very effective. Even the most vulnerable group who are immunocompromised, the vaccine still offers pretty good protection.

People who claim the vaccines are ineffective generally have ulterior motives for doing so; they tend to cite 'infections' as a reason for justifying their views, however vaccines are not intended to prevent infections as such (though they do massively reduce the chances of infection) but give the body the ability to fight an infection and avoid serious illness.

The post was about a risk to workers and how they were expected to go to work, not to suggest rail workers being more at risk than other front line workers. The risk did seem massive to some, particularly at the time. The worry was immense.

I am glad you agree the risks were no greater for rail workers than other front line workers.

It's very easy to misconstrue this thread as the poster suggesting rail workers were at massive risk compared to other key workers, in my opinion that's not what they suggested.

There was no "massive" risk either in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't go round telling people I was at "massive" risk.

 

[bramling]

Do you work trains with opening windows or aircon?

I'm sorry but you can't stop people calling out hyperbole and questioning claims that a risk is or was "massive"; we are going to have to agree to disagree on that.


I am sorry to hear that you know someone under 40 who has life changing consequences but this is very much the exception and does not mean the risk is, or was, "massive".


I would try not to worry; the vaccines are very effective. Even the most vulnerable group who are immunocompromised, the vaccine still offers pretty good protection.

People who claim the vaccines are ineffective generally have ulterior motives for doing so; they tend to cite 'infections' as a reason for justifying their views, however vaccines are not intended to prevent infections as such (though they do massively reduce the chances of infection) but give the body the ability to fight an infection and avoid serious illness.


I am glad you agree the risks were no greater for rail workers than other front line workers.


There was no "massive" risk either in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't go round telling people I was at "massive" risk.

“Unknown” risk probably fits better. None of us really knew what the real score was last March.

 

[maradona10]

Yorkie, curious to know, did you work front line during the pandemic in a front facing capacity and did you or have you worked as a TE or guard?

 

[Cdd89]

The concept of key workers is one that rapidly became outdated, in my opinion. The law viewed all work as exempted from lockdown regulations; I am not a key worker but was expected to be back on trains for hardware work from late April 2020. Despite often travelling on crowded services, it didn’t strike me as the most risky thing I was doing during the pandemic (whether through choice, or out of compulsion from work).

I accept the period from March to April was quite scary for anyone working, including (but not especially) rail staff. In retrospect the models of the NHS being so overwhelmed as to need to close its doors have been discredited, but they were believable at the time and I’d have been scared working in that period due to the predicted elevated risk from any illness. But thereafter we have been dealing with quantifiable risks, and from May 2020 onwards with significant risk reduction strategies in place, so I would certainly challenge the assertion that these risks were massive.

 

[PupCuff]

I'm afraid I don't buy the argument that rail staff have been put at massive risk. It implies that the attitude has been business as usual, when in reality throughout the pandemic the industry has worked immensely hard to reduce the risk to staff and customers, including (I mean, where to start?) non-business critical staff stood down on full pay, spare from home to reduce numbers travelling and in messrooms, additional cleaning, comprehensive risk assessments, rearrangement of staff working areas to enable social distancing, introduction of additional facilities for staff to take breaks (you don't just click your fingers and another messroom appears), training bubbles, working from home where this is possible, conductors not having to do tickets, BTP proactive enforcement of coronavirus legislation on the network, additional requirements for staff taxis (and reduction in use where possible), rewriting of diagrams to allow for longer trains to maximise social distancing capacity; all on a national scale whilst trying to operate on in many cases an already trimmed to the bone staffing quota with the added challenge of colleagues shielding and self-isolations etc.

Yes, there has been additional risk, and no doubt a lot of worry for many of my colleagues, but overall I think the rail industry should be very proud of the coronavirus pandemic response and we've kept a reliable service running for those who needed to use it over the last 18 months or whatever it's been.

 

[bramling]

I'm afraid I don't buy the argument that rail staff have been put at massive risk. It implies that the attitude has been business as usual, when in reality throughout the pandemic the industry has worked immensely hard to reduce the risk to staff and customers, including (I mean, where to start?) non-business critical staff stood down on full pay, spare from home to reduce numbers travelling and in messrooms, additional cleaning, comprehensive risk assessments, rearrangement of staff working areas to enable social distancing, introduction of additional facilities for staff to take breaks (you don't just click your fingers and another messroom appears), training bubbles, working from home where this is possible, conductors not having to do tickets, BTP proactive enforcement of coronavirus legislation on the network, additional requirements for staff taxis (and reduction in use where possible), rewriting of diagrams to allow for longer trains to maximise social distancing capacity; all on a national scale whilst trying to operate on in many cases an already trimmed to the bone staffing quota with the added challenge of colleagues shielding and self-isolations etc.

Yes, there has been additional risk, and no doubt a lot of worry for many of my colleagues, but overall I think the rail industry should be very proud of the coronavirus pandemic response and we've kept a reliable service running for those who needed to use it over the last 18 months or whatever it's been.

All this is very much correct. *However*, implementation was rather inconsistent especially to begin with. Just as in all sorts of workplaces, few measures were in place during March, and didn’t really start to come into place until well into April, and in some cases longer.

At one place I know desks were moved to create space, then someone came in and put them all back as they didn’t like it, and sent out a snotty email asking “who has rearranged all the desks?”, implying it was some kind of prank.

Likewise, on the theme of railway staff, situations will have arisen for which there simply wasn’t any workable mitigation. So on the one hand two people in a cab was banned, but how do you then carry out a procedure which requires two people in a cab? Especially bearing in mind stuff like masks were in short supply at the time. In reality people just had to get on with it and hope for the best.

As was no doubt the case in many workplaces which remained open, the March-May period was very rocky at times. It certainly wouldn’t have been easy for someone who, for example, was lower risk themselves but lived with someone of higher risk, or for someone not on the shielding list but at the older end of the working age spectrum.

Massive risk or not, to many it would certainly have felt that way. Likewise quite probably for some like station staff or conductors who later in the year were essentially given a mask and left to get on with things - I wouldn’t have been happy if in that boat to be honest.

With the arrogance of this government in the way this has all been handled, it shouldn’t really be surprising that lots of people have a sour taste in the mouth.

 

[43096]

Nobody is asking you to clap for them. Sadly, this is the attitude I'm talking about and confirms there are still people on this forum who will go to any level to belittle rail workers. It's bizarre.

On the flip side there are rail workers who are full of their own self importance and are happy to “big up” the risks they faced as if they are some sort of brave hero. Quite rightly thy are being called out on the realities.

 

[nedchester]

Let’s be honest the reason that it is being claimed that rail workers were at a massive risk is because it’s being used to justify a pay increase rather than any else.

At the time literally no one was travelling on the trains and as a result the chance of “customer facing” staff meeting customers was massively reduced. Drivers were isolated in their cabs and guards isolated in the cabs at the back as they were not doing revenue checks.

It’s amazing that rail workers are even contemplating a pay rise when the industry is on its arse financially with cuts being made to staffing across the board and almost certainly further cuts when the reality comes through that important commuting revenues are down (don’t be fooled by the crowded off peak services). There’s a harsh economic reality out there.

 

[Horizon22]

I think we underestimate how concerning it was early on when there were so many unknowns and the death rate seemed to be going up exponentially and nobody had the answers, yet trains still had to run (even if it was mostly fresh air). I don’t work in a ‘frontline’ role but was still coming into an office where they were still trying to work out how to arrange social distancing whilst trains were running around with fresh air.

I think know we can look back with hindsight and say precautions were taken, but there was this period of “wtf is happening” for about 3 months which could have been quite unnerving.

 

[Darandio]

The concept of key workers is one that rapidly became outdated, in my opinion. The law viewed all work as exempted from lockdown regulations; I am not a key worker but was expected to be back on trains for hardware work from late April 2020. Despite often travelling on crowded services, it didn’t strike me as the most risky thing I was doing during the pandemic (whether through choice, or out of compulsion from work).

If 2020 gave us anything it was the lofty pedestal and the creation of the key worker. We were encouraged to clap and bang pots and pans for the 'heroes' of the NHS but all that did was divert from the fact that the instituion is underfunded and clearly not fit for purpose. They were undoubtedly key workers, we were in an unknown in those early stages and if you got seriously ill that's where you ended up. The problem was the term was used widely and therefore diluted. NHS staff, supermarket staff, rail workers and Doris in the corner shop on minimum wage selling Special Brew to the unmasked locals was a key worker too.

The issue now is how it is still being pushed today. Supermarket staff walking around wearing hi-viz effectively stating 'Back off i'm a Key Worker' can be seen around the country. Job adverts for even the most basic of roles are listed as 'Become a key worker today'.

Then just yesterday I saw an article about community housing being sold for £1, they proudly stated that a large percentage of these houses have gone to key workers. There was no context was given, just that key workers had received houses. Maybe it was £1 houses for Poundland workers, I have no idea.

Which brings us back to how this thread was diverted from the other. 'I'm striking because I put my life at risk and deserve a pay rise'. So does Doris in the corner shop because she was equally if not more at risk and the only hope she has of a wage rise is the next minimum wage increase. Whilst it's your right to fight your corner it's also unrealistic to demand and expect universal agreement on here just because it's a rail forum. These people can see it's an industry propped up by billions of pounds of public money, is culling thousands of jobs and needs to desperately entice people back to the trains to claw this deficit back. That ain't going to happen when unions are still shouting that the network is unsafe and services are decimated because of endless strikes.

 

[43066]

Who belittled them?

My thoughts are that they are not heroic

Do you think rail workers are heroic?

My thoughts are that terms like “heroic” are well over the top when it comes to describing most jobs, except perhaps those which involve genuine serious risk to life and limb, such as firemen or soldiers on active service. That goes for the NHS workers too. They were simply doing their jobs, which isn’t remotely “heroic”.

 

[adc82140]

Yorkie, curious to know, did you work front line during the pandemic in a front facing capacity and did you or have you worked as a TE or guard?

I did, in the NHS, and I agree with @yorkie

 

[43066]

In response to the thread generally, the original premise of the thread is incorrect, and simply isn’t borne out by the statistics. The fact is Covid presents an extremely low risk to the vast majority of people who catch it and railstaff don’t seem to have been affected any more seriously than many other groups.
On the other hand we have continued working throughout the pandemic with no cushy work from home option, and no option to sit at home being paid to do nothing (other than the small minority who were shielding). Certainly in the case of drivers, apart from a few weeks during the first lockdown when the service was pared back, the job has been little different.

There is certainly a lack of gratitude or acknowledgement of this fact, in contrast with all the ridiculous fawning over NHS “heros”. Sadly people seem to have very little respect for railway workers anyway, largely due to a lack of understanding of what we actually do, so perhaps that’s unsurprising.

I’d echo @bramling ’s comments above, there is a cohort of railway workers who are older, but not otherwise vulnerable, for whom going to work during the first weeks and months of the pandemic when the virus was more of an unknown quantity must have been a real worry. That shouldn’t be the case any longer now that the vaccine has arrived, and there are undoubtedly some staff (including a few at my depot) who seem to want to continue fear mongering, and are now throwing their toys out of the pram about masking requirements and one way systems being removed.

 

[bramling]

There was no "massive" risk either in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't go round telling people I was at "massive" risk.

Not everyone is you. At the time, plenty of people thought they were taking some element of risk, perhaps because they were older, or perhaps simply that had watched the television news and seen the graphic images of intensive care units in Italy. It may well be the case that some of this turned out to be over-played, but people weren't to know that *at the time*, which is the context anyone's judgement of risk-taking is based on.

Had you been using the railway during that time, you'd have been hearing announcements using language like "Coronavirus is a national emergency", "affects all ages and backgrounds", "for your own safety, you must stay at home if you can", "only go out for absolutely essential reasons".

I don't think you can blame people for feeling they were taking a risk, and the risk is based on what they knew *then*, not what might be known *now*.

Is "massive" an overstatement? Again going back to the scenes being seen on the news, and the general atmosphere and mood during March, for many people it's fair to say it probably felt quite a big thing. I know plenty of apparently healthy middle-aged (or in a few cases younger!) people in numerous varied occupations who essentially stopped going to work and locked themselves up indoors. Likewise it would have been pretty scary for anyone with, for example, and elderly or infirm relative - even if they didn't feel at "massive risk" themselves.