GP has told my DF not to go to work, but if he doesn't he'll have no money...

[Curiosity101]

Just curious if I've read the guidance correctly.

My DF has an underlying health condition that means he is really susceptible to pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses. He's been to the ICU in an induced coma twice in the past 5 years due to pneumonia (one of his stays was more than 6 weeks on a ventilator). He also lives with my Grandmother who is 80+ so also in the vulnerable category. His GP has obviously advised he shouldn't be going into work, but he doesn't have anything official as he isn't currently unwell.

He's in a customer-facing role with no option to work from home. He's spoken to work and they've effectively said he needs to take unpaid leave if he doesn't want to come into work. Harsh as it is I think that probably is the correct stance from them based on the guidelines? But what is he meant to do? He and my Grandma can't live on her pension. Obviously we'll help where we can but I was just wondering if this does sound like what you would expect if he decides not to go into work? Or should he be thinking about applying for Universal Credit (or any other government help)?

I'm sorry.

We are in this position too - sudden health emergency for one of us - must isolate - no work, no pay - and I'm having to take unpaid leave because I was advised to do so by my specialist. Our income went from just enough to terrifyingly little literally over the weekend.

Your DF should apply for benefits.

He should not be working.

Under these circumstances, you'd be entitled to SSP as the absence is considered sick following revisions made to the statutory sick pay rules x

Yes, he needs to self isolate and apply for UC immediately. If he gets the virus,it could kill him!

Sick leave - he is clearly not fit to work.

Thanks guys. I've just spoken to him and linked him to the guidance online. He'll be asking them to put him onto SSP. Obviously it's not a lot and under normal circumstances he'd rather be at work. But in his case I really don't feel like anyone is exaggerating by saying he probably wont make it through this infection. Even under normal healthcare conditions I think it'd still be touch and go.

OP, I'm just watching a Q and A session on the BBC with the Chief Medical Officer. One thing he has explained which is reassuring is that the way the death rates have been published is misleading. For example, in the UK the percentage rate of deaths is only out of those actually tested, not out of everyone who has the virus. The outcome of this is that it makes the death rate look far higher than it actually is.
Basically, if out of 100 people who have been tested positive, 10 die, the death rate is 10%. However, if out of 1000 who actually have the virus (but only 100 are tested) the same number die, i.e. 10, the death rate is then 1%. Currently, only people who end up in hospital are actually tested yet many more have the virus.