BAME staff

[Pomegranatepompom]

Which professions are currently asking BAME staff to shield/WFH?

We are not currently in the NHS trust I work in (London) - probably because we'd have to close services. I do wonder if we should have special measures in place and I'd like to raise this point next week in our hospital zoom meeting. Apparently everyone is going to have a risk assessment but it's taking a while ...
Interested in what other professions are doing.

I know there are lots of differences with shielding depending what hospital you work in. Currently people with asthma are working (unless severe) and people can choose to work clinical or WFH if pregnant. Clinical staff who can't go home due to vulnerable household members, are living away from home or if admin, are WFH.

:04SoVeryLost

Pomegranatepompom

Some of these replies feel a bit dismissive.

Of course they are. This is mumsnet, posters here on the whole will fight against BAME people.

@Callimanco the highest risk is to Black Africans...

@SoVeryLost
Source for this please? All reporting I have seen says Bangladeshi heritage people have highest UK risk.

Sample report from New Scientist, 2nd June
"The data also shows that black people are between two and three times more likely to be diagnosed with coronavirus than white people, and death rates from covid-19 are highest among people from black and Asian ethnic groups. People of Bangladeshi ethnicity had the highest risk of death of any ethnic group, around twice the risk compared to white people. People of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Other Asian, Caribbean and Other Black ethnicity had between a 10 and 50 per cent higher risk than white people.

Read more: www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-people-in-the-uk-are-sleeping-less-well-under-lockdown/#ixzz6OTQtdv37"

Your assumption that my factual statement of relative risk is "fighting against bame people" is incredibly offensive.

This is mumsnet, posters here on the whole will fight against BAME people.

What a ridiculous statement. Replies are dismissive because it's a silly idea.

It's not fighting in favour of racism to try to discuss reality. You can't address structural inequality by blanket policies which act as if all non white people are the same. OP doesn't seem to have a clue why some ethnicities have higher rates of Covid 19.

The pressure put on the government to stop charging foreign health care workers who get sick is a good example of successful, practical solutions which addresses systemic inequality.

Our school staff survey has a question about ethnicity.
We have been informed that if BAME staff want to wfh they can and should, but it's their choice.

@donquixotedelamancha I have been reading the data. Apologies if I appear not to have a clue- I thought it was a reasonable issue to gather opinion on.
Any decisions won’t be made by me - I just wanted to raise it at our hospital meeting.
God people are snippy and rude on here.

@Callimanco

:04SoVeryLost

Pomegranatepompom

Some of these replies feel a bit dismissive.

Of course they are. This is mumsnet, posters here on the whole will fight against BAME people.

@Callimanco the highest risk is to Black Africans...

@SoVeryLost
Source for this please? All reporting I have seen says Bangladeshi heritage people have highest UK risk.

Sample report from New Scientist, 2nd June
"The data also shows that black people are between two and three times more likely to be diagnosed with coronavirus than white people, and death rates from covid-19 are highest among people from black and Asian ethnic groups. People of Bangladeshi ethnicity had the highest risk of death of any ethnic group, around twice the risk compared to white people. People of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Other Asian, Caribbean and Other Black ethnicity had between a 10 and 50 per cent higher risk than white people.

Read more: www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-people-in-the-uk-are-sleeping-less-well-under-lockdown/#ixzz6OTQtdv37"

Your assumption that my factual statement of relative risk is "fighting against bame people" is incredibly offensive.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52219070 @Callimanco I never said you were, but you only need to look at some threads to see how loads of mumsnetters tie themselves into knots dismissing racism or explaining how something isn't racist.

Just look at the posts stating white men over 50 should be shielded more than anyone. Surely the correct statement would be all men over 50 should be shielded? I'll happily accept men are at higher risk over women.

@donquixotedelamancha

This is mumsnet, posters here on the whole will fight against BAME people.

What a ridiculous statement. Replies are dismissive because it's a silly idea.

It's not fighting in favour of racism to try to discuss reality. You can't address structural inequality by blanket policies which act as if all non white people are the same. OP doesn't seem to have a clue why some ethnicities have higher rates of Covid 19.

The pressure put on the government to stop charging foreign health care workers who get sick is a good example of successful, practical solutions which addresses systemic inequality.

I would agree with discussing reality however, the dismissive responses to any thread posted by or about BAME people. Discuss the realities why derail the thread with lets send white men home?

An example of the differences in the type of replies you get if you post from a white centric view and a BAME view are the school threads. When I was pregnant with my DC there were a number of threads posted by white mums about their child possibly going to school where they would be the only white child and the rest of the school would be from the same west African country (which is bullshit to begin with). Then another poster posted about their child being the only mixed race child within the school (the rest being white) and having the same concerns as the women mentioned above. Can you guess which posters got sympathy and which got told they were being ridiculous?

My opinion is that the optics of white people "telling" black and other BAME persons to stop work, WFH, shield, remain in their homes (thereby being more susceptible to any redundancies coming)... those optics are really poor.

If black and BAME people are not given a genuine choice, this won't be protection, it will be oppression and in many cases constructive dismissal.

Given there are contributing factors from socio economic differences, where is the sense in potentially depriving BAME people of their incomes at such an economically precarious time, thereby exacerbating one of the key factors which made BAME workers and their families more medically vulnerable in the first place?

How many office working white men aged 40 to 65 have been forcibly shielded told to go home? No, they're still out and about.

TLDR: white people really need to not be forcibly removing black/BAME people from their jobs and/or instructing them to stay in their houses.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that - well not in the nhs. Of course this should be about choice and individual risk assessments. I really want the hospital to push forward with assessments for everyone.

I don’t feel as a female in my 30s that I am at any greater risk than a male in his 50s, probably much less risk. So I don’t support a blanket stay home for people who are BAME. But I do support anyone’s right to stay home if they are concerned or if they are vulnerable in any way, and race should be considered along with the other important factors of age, sex, underlying conditions and body weight.

Yeah, we spent a long time discussing it (SLT who are a mix of BAME and white bods), and decided that if we used the phrase 'it's a choice if you are concerned', then most people would come in, because that's what schools are like (NHS too I imagine). So for now, because of the unknowns, we would just say we want you to stay home. If you are adamant that you want to come in, then it's personal choice and we'll do an individual risk assessment.

At the moment, no BAME people are working directly with children, but at least one person was in school during yesterday's staff meeting on Teams. She doesn't have anywhere to work at home (or does, but it's very hard), so she's been in school the whole time. Completely away from children, and most people, but in school.

The other day (before this decision) I had to ask a slightly overweight Indian man in his 50s to come into school for training on distance learning options that he's been ignoring so far. He normally travels by train, and I agonised about the request for ages. In the end I suggested it would be 'helpful' and left it at that. He came in, by car, we did his training, he saw no children, only two adults, and went home. But still - it's that sort of 'request' that is dodgy really.

Meanwhile, my partner is having surgery on 26th June, and I've just been told I'm not to come in to school before then either. This is gutting for me frankly.

Apologies if I appear not to have a clue- I thought it was a reasonable issue to gather opinion on.

Honestly, no apology needed- nothing wrong with being wrong and discussion of why some ethnicities are more at risk than others is important.

My robust tone is because silly proclamations of racism (as from PP) irritate me. They get in the way of progress and mock real suffering.

Just look at the posts stating white men over 50 should be shielded more than anyone. Surely the correct statement would be all men over 50 should be shielded?

Obviously that's true but people are comparing skin colour with age in the context of the OP's suggestion.

however, the dismissive responses to any thread posted by or about BAME people.

I'm certainly not arguing there is no racism on MN but I think you are reading things into posts on this thread which aren't there. That details any nuanced discussion of the actual problems.

The danger with assuming it’s BAME as a factor (rather than age, sex, deprivation, occupation overrepresentation, obesity, diabetes etc) is that it could lead to more discrimination. There then may be more reluctance to employ BAME people.

‘Race’ is so genetically diverse it would be unlikely to be something physiological that affects all BAME people but not white people. BAME isn’t genetically/ biologically one homogenous mass separate to white people.

white people really need to not be forcibly removing black/BAME people from their jobs

This is where schools are 'lucky' I guess - we're on full pay, and there are LOADS of things to be doing from home right now. Admittedly TAs are going to run out of things quicker than teachers. Hopefully schools turn out to be low risk, or no more risk than a supermarket, and we can all make some moves towards normality. My own school also 'lucky' in this regard in that we are a predominately BAME staff, white folk in the minority, so white people are not making choices for BAME people. I think we've done the right thing for now. It's going to be very complicated moving into September if we don't have more information - and that goes for all school staff who are currently at home for all the possible reasons.

In fact, looking back, the statement you called racist lost doesn't even say what you claim.

I think this is tricky. A black 25 year old may have a greater chance of dying than a white 25 year old, and a Bangladeshi 25 year old higher still, but all 3 have a far lower risk of dying than a white 55 year old man. Age is by far the strongest predictor of risk. I don't think it's logically defensible to shield young bame staff and not all staff - especially men- over 50 or 55.

Worth stating that neither over 50s nor any particular ethnicity should be shielding.

Shielding is not fun and the risks from those factors alone don't justify it.

@donquixotedelamancha the issue is that it automatically went to white men, all men are at increased risk at that age. You must see that the statement is built upon prejudice. Discuss realities but some posters are dismissing there is an issue. These discussions aren't even happening where I work, so let's not beat OP up for seeing an issue and trying to find a way to approach it.

@donquix where am I wrong ??? I asked what people are advising and I’m advocating individual risk assessments.

@donquixotedelamancha

In fact, looking back, the statement you called racist lost doesn't even say what you claim.

I think this is tricky. A black 25 year old may have a greater chance of dying than a white 25 year old, and a Bangladeshi 25 year old higher still, but all 3 have a far lower risk of dying than a white 55 year old man. Age is by far the strongest predictor of risk. I don't think it's logically defensible to shield young bame staff and not all staff - especially men- over 50 or 55.

You really can't see the issue with comparing three young men's risk including a white man with only a 55 year old white man's risk? Why not compare the risk to young men to the risk to middle aged men? There are dismissive responses and responses built on prejudice. OP is trying to do her best...

donquix where am I wrong ??? I asked what people are advising and I’m advocating individual risk assessments.

Sorry, you are right, that's poorly phrased. The idea that all non white people should shield is wrong but you are clearly trying to prompt a more detailed discussion than that and I'm overstating my points (as I moan about others doing so- doh). Apologies.

You must see that the statement is built upon prejudice.

I don't. I think PP was comparing risks.

let's not beat OP up for seeing an issue and trying to find a way to approach it.

I agree. Back to OP's point: why are certain ethnicities more at risk? I have some thoughts and will post again if kids permit.

Also @donquixotedelamancha I didn't call it racist. I said it was built on prejudice. It's not racist, but the post doesn't sit right with me based on what I said above.

@SoVeryLost
"Just look at the posts stating white men over 50 should be shielded more than anyone. Surely the correct statement would be all men over 50 should be shielded? I'll happily accept men are at higher risk over women."

That is a misreading of a post, that I wrote.
Here it is again if you want to recheck:

I think this is tricky. A black 25 year old may have a greater chance of dying than a white 25 year old, and a Bangladeshi 25 year old higher still, but all 3 have a far lower risk of dying than a white 55 year old man. Age is by far the strongest predictor of risk. I don't think it's logically defensible to shield young bame staff and not all staff - especially men- over 50 or 55.

I did not say white men over 50 should be shielded more than anyone. I was saying that whilst a BAME person of any age is at relatively higher risk than a white person of that same age, a 25 year old black or Bangladeshi person is at lower risk than a 55 year old white man. I stated the word white to stress that age is a stronger correlation for poorer outcomes than ethinicy. Obviously a 55 year old black or Bangladeshi man is at even greater risk. The point I was trying to make was that taking bame people of any age as a homogenous group to be shielded doesn't make absolute sense, in a context where you aren't suggesting all over 50s (for example) should shield. So age is a more crucial factor in risk than ethnicity.

I would be looking at individuals rather than blanket policies. No need for a slim healthy 25 year old black woman to be required to wfh just because she is black; a 59 year old black man who is carrying some extra weight and taking blood pressure meds; absolutely that discussion should be had, yes.

Even with that new report there is still so many unknown factors. I think it is impossible to know what to do in all honesty. It seems there is an incredibly wide variety of groups who may be at extra risk for all manner of reasons - I was just reading this article about being bald for heavens sake!
www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/bald-men-higher-risk-severe-case-covid-19-research-finds/

So my take on this is no, I don’t believe there should be any kind of blanket shielding, but companies and employees need to look at individual situations and come up with the best workable solution they can.

This really worries me, I had no idea this was happening in the public sector. What are we going to be left with in a months time, a public sector with just young white females? Surely all services will collapse, and in the long term lead to discrimination. Surely unless someone is shielding (using the official definition) then they should be in work. There’s too many slightly elevated risk factors and vulnerabilities for everything to be taken into account otherwise.

The government need to get the research sorted quickly basically. Then get their guidance sorted out so it doesn't change every other day. Then somehow get us to trust them again.

So, you know... no hope of that.

@Racoonworld many people are aware of the risk but remain working. I don’t know of any BAME person refusing to work.
I do however know people who appear to have contact after contact and needed to be self isolate for around 12 weeks so far 🙄