Manager keeps booking Covid tests for me

[Jimbellselmbath]

We have on site covid testing at my work. No need for symptoms, anybody can have one. A few people go just for 20 minutes away, most don't want one as they do not want to isolate and lose 2 weeks wage (plus partners wage I suppose) if they were to test positive with no symptoms.

Anyway, I don't think they are getting the uptake they anticipated and suspect there are targets managers are being given for testing.
I keep getting texts saying 'your covid test has been booked for xyz' I have not attended any of them.
I had a message on my screen yesterday from my manager saying 'can you do me a favor, I have booked you a covid test for xyz' I still didn't go, manager is off site and there is no way of replying to her.
Today I got a text saying my test has been booked and I must attend even if i do not plan on taking the test (automated type texts- cannot reply)
I don't know whether to go or not. I won't be having the test but I don't think the testers would have any way of stopping these messages as surely they don't have access to that system?
Manager isn't in today, we only cross paths about once a month, i wouldn't know how to contact her outside of this. There are other managers who are more accessible, should I ask those? Is it an HR matter? Do I just keep ignoring the messages as they have not been promoted by me? I feel like complaining about the sneakyness of it all but I don't know who to.
What would you do?

All they are concerned about is their “human rights” not to do something that could possibly save the lives of others.

Do you have this same attitude towards people who don't give blood? Or donate kidneys / livers / bone marrow to random strangers?

We all have a limit of what we are prepared to do to possibly save the lives of others. The government sets to minimum (testing if you have symptoms, isolating if positive etc). The rest is individual choice. Choosing not to face serious financial hardship isn't particularly selfish.

People “just don’t get it” because it doesn’t suit them. All they are concerned about is their “human rights” not to do something that could possibly save the lives of others

Says the person with the pantry and the steady regular pension. It wouldn't make any difference to you would it. Maybe you should cover the ops wages for two weeks if you're so determined she should do it (even though she doesn't need to).

ilovemypantry Why do you persistent say it’s people that don’t follow the rules that are spreading it? That’s blatantly not true.

Yes, some of them are rule breakers but others will be picking it up by going their day to day basis. Stay locked up if you want but others don’t have to do what you are doing.

And frankly, if everyone is tested regularly then the country will be screwed as workers everywhere will be self isolating. No nurses to treat us, no school staff to teach children, no supermarkets staff to help us, no police officers to take our calls.

Says the person with the pantry and the steady regular pension.
Do you really think getting behind with the bills and using a food bank is an equal hardship to someone losing a long one. Or someone having long Covid? @Caroncarona

@Ilovemypantry - how would you feel if the government introduced a new law tomorrow that said that no pension could be paid (private or state) unless recipients submitted to a weekly testing regime. And if they tested positive, their pension would be removed for the next two weeks. This would happen each time they tested positive, irrespective of whether it was a false positive (you do understand the maths behind false positives, don't you?) or a true positive, so it could happen multiple times over the course of the year and they might NEVER be infected/carrying the disease for ANY of those occasions. And if a positive (false or otherwise) test happened too many times, the pension entitlement would be wiped out forever.

That is what you are expecting the OP in this scenario to do. She isn't symptomatic, she has no financial protection if she gets a false positive test and is long-term financially vulnerable if she ends up taking too much time off work.

Compulsory testing of people without symptoms is a totally different ballgame to requiring those with symptoms to isolate for 14 days (and/or test).

And isolating on full pay/pension is very different to isolating with income removed during the period of isolation.

People who argue for blanket testing and are prepared to visit financial penalties on those who test positive really seem to think that all tests are 100% accurate. They aren't. And even with 98-99% accuracy, testing in an asymptomatic population will deliver vast numbers of false positives.

Do you really think getting behind with the bills and using a food bank is an equal hardship to someone losing a long one. Or someone having long Covid?

Ahh, so not only is the op infectious with her lack of symptoms, she's also potentially likely to kill someone too. I hope you're getting weekly tests too right?

I think that the harms caused to people through no income can indeed be an equal hardship. An income is somewhat necessary to feed yourself, pay your bills, heat your home and keep a roof over your head.

AlexandraLeaving Excellent post!

[quote AlexandraLeaving]@Ilovemypantry - how would you feel if the government introduced a new law tomorrow that said that no pension could be paid (private or state) unless recipients submitted to a weekly testing regime. And if they tested positive, their pension would be removed for the next two weeks. This would happen each time they tested positive, irrespective of whether it was a false positive (you do understand the maths behind false positives, don't you?) or a true positive, so it could happen multiple times over the course of the year and they might NEVER be infected/carrying the disease for ANY of those occasions. And if a positive (false or otherwise) test happened too many times, the pension entitlement would be wiped out forever.

That is what you are expecting the OP in this scenario to do. She isn't symptomatic, she has no financial protection if she gets a false positive test and is long-term financially vulnerable if she ends up taking too much time off work.

Compulsory testing of people without symptoms is a totally different ballgame to requiring those with symptoms to isolate for 14 days (and/or test).

And isolating on full pay/pension is very different to isolating with income removed during the period of isolation.

People who argue for blanket testing and are prepared to visit financial penalties on those who test positive really seem to think that all tests are 100% accurate. They aren't. And even with 98-99% accuracy, testing in an asymptomatic population will deliver vast numbers of false positives.[/quote]
That's a good question.

My DPs workplace has a temperature check every day and nobody questions it, I’m surprised that you are so reluctant when you are physically in a workplace.

AlexandraLeaving Actually I would go a step further in your post. The op has no law instructing her to take tests so would ilovemypantry (and others that agree with her) voluntarily do what you are suggesting whilst knowing the financial consequences?

I'm going to have one last attempt at explaining it by using a reverse.

Imagine someone at the OP's place of work gets asymptomatic COVID, and doesn't know because they didn't want to get tested. They then unknowingly infect 5 of their colleagues who now can't work. That's 5 more people who aren't working & who need to pay their bills. Everyone loses.

PurplePi Do you work out of home?

Imagine someone at the OP's place of work gets asymptomatic COVID, and doesn't know because they didn't want to get tested. They then unknowingly infect 5 of their colleagues who now can't work. That's 5 more people who aren't working & who need to pay their bills. Everyone loses.

Gosh yes. Have you booked a test? Pay for it if you need to. I think you should make sure you get tested weekly. After all it would be bloody irresponsible of you not to do so.

Has the OP clarified about pay if self isolating after a positive result?

Because I would have thought it's in the company's best interests to encourage people to get tested because the cost of covid spreading more rapidly through the workforce is likely to be more costly than paying people to self isolate after a positive result when asymptomatic.

That's the bit that doesn't make sense, why go to the effort of creating workplace testing if it's entirely optional and therefore not likely to benefit the company at all.

Mandatory and full pay after a positive result would seem to be the most effective option.

murmurgam She wouldn’t be paid.

OK. I've tried explaining it, but it's obvious you're not willing to listen as you keep trying to divert the thread.

PurplePi Well, no you haven’t explained it at all.

Do you work out of the home?

OK. I've tried explaining it, but it's obvious you're not willing to listen as you keep trying to divert the thread.

I hear what your saying. I'm just wondering whether you're going to take your own advice in the interest of community safety.

Ah ok, so only eligible for SSP and the 500 pound support payment.

@PurplePi it is so clear you have no way of relating to the situation the OP is in, there's a reason my employer, the NHS, is not testing asymptomatic people.

PurplePi Why don’t you pay to get tested once or twice a week?

[quote Ghostoast]@PurplePi it is so clear you have no way of relating to the situation the OP is in, there's a reason my employer, the NHS, is not testing asymptomatic people.[/quote]
Ghostoast: Of course I relate to the OP's situation. I also relate to the situation of her colleagues. That's my entire point.

Are you suggesting that reason your employer isn't testing asymptomatic people is something other than the chance of coming into contact with COVID is far, far greater in the NHS?

Of course I relate to the OP's situation. I also relate to the situation of her colleagues. That's my entire point

So why don't you apply those values to your own life and get tested every week?

Especially when a private test is only £100-£150 a test. After all, that a small price to pay isn’t it?

I've tried explaining it, but it's obvious you're not willing to listen as you keep trying to divert the thread.

Have you considered that those who disagree with you understand exactly what you are saying but still think the OP is reasonable in refusing a test? Or do you honestly think that if everyone understood your point we'd all agree?

FWIW I completely understand what you are saying. But I still think that it is way too big of an ask. People will reasonably choose to feed their own kids and pay their own bills rather than going above and beyond the government requirements.