Would you ask a first aider to treat a serious injury? No, you'd get the victim to a doctor.

No one excepts a mental health first aider to treat a serious mental health issues. Primarily they're there to seek out the signs, raise the issue, and help people find the right support. There are other benefits too, like reducing the stigma around discussing mental health.

From the HSE study cited:

There is a lack of published occupationally‐based studies, and the studies that have been conducted are limited in quality.

- So there's not enough evidence to draw the conclusion that MHFA programmes probably don't work.

There is consistent evidence that MHFA training raises employees’ awareness of mental ill‐health
conditions, including signs and symptoms. Those trained have a better understanding of where to find information and professional support, and are more confident in helping individuals experiencing mental ill‐health or a crisis.

- So there is evidence of positive outcomes of MHFA

There is no evidence from the published evaluation studies that the introduction of MHFA
training in workplaces has resulted in sustained actions by those receiving the training or that it
has improved the management of mental health in the workplace.
There is limited evidence that the content of MHFA training has been considered for workplace
settings.

- So we can probably agree that there needs to be research into this area, and there should be a particular focus on the New Zealand context. Our culture, and needs would be different from those in the UK.

How is wearing a hoody any different to wearing a rain jacket?

Fair Pay Agreements set the minimum standards for employment agreements, conditions cannot be lower, there's no suggestion that they'll allow things like Health and Safety will be negotiated away. HWSA will still apply.

I'm in the same boat, I think that info will be available tomorrow once the system is live.

With NZ government now advising that cloth masks are NOT suitable and everyone should wear approved / verified KN95 or N95 masks, these types of masks are being snapped up quickly and they are not so easy to source at this time.

The Government has specifically said this is not the case, they have said for those under a vaccine mandate masks must be an actual mask (e.g. 3 ply surgical/ medical mask). They have not mandated P2/ N95 masks specifically due to cost and availability.

I edited my comment, it seems that advice had changed. For a while it was a bit confusing as different MOH advice seemed to contradict itself.

Our trial is too small to have encountered false positives yet (it's only got eight people in it).

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/moh0011_rat_info_guide_decision_tree.pdf

Our experience has been quite good.

We are currently undertaking a trial with a key part of our business where people are self-testing three times a week. There's good compliance, the team see the importance of the testing, and they understand how it fits into our overall Covid response.

As @robyn moses has mentioned I think supply will be the biggest issue going forward. Suppliers are already mentioning delays until late-Feb/ March.

Here's some updated MoH Guidance:

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/contact_tracing-guidance-for-businesses-13dec21.pdf

Notably:

Where consistent mask use by the worker (the case) can be assured, this may lead to fewer people being classified as Close contacts.

And there are new definitions or a Casual Plus Contact:

Casual Plus contacts are people who had close range contact with a case (refer to box on the left), but
because of consistent use of other public health measures, such as masks, they are at a lower risk of getting COVID-19, especially if they are vaccinated.

Furthermore vaccinated Casual Plus Contacts:

Can continue to work. Self-monitor for symptoms for 10 days and if symptoms develop, no matter how mild, they should get a test and stay at home until a negative test result is received.

It would depend on the specific advice from the Ministry of Health, but it is very unlikely close contacts would be able to not isolate.

CHASNZ have quite good guidance on this: https://www.chasnz.org/covid19

Can we not have the anti-vax BS? The risk assessment of the vaccine you have attached has absolutely no place in a health and safety setting and it is incredibly biased. Unless someone is an expert in infectious diseases, epidemiology, vaccinations their role is to apply the science and information that is supplied to them.

OSHA is also mandating that all workers in businesses over 100 people are vaccinated or are tested weekly.

I think going back to your original post, no workplace in New Zealand is requiring workers receive an experimental vaccine. If this was a reference to the Pfizer vaccine, it is not experimental and has received provisional Medsafe approval.

It's important that we do not treat anecdotes as data (With your first example with the ambulance, over 75% of eligible New Zealander's have been vaccinated so for most people the answer to this would be yes), as Health and Safety professionals we have an obligation to base our decisions and recommendations on fact.

The Health and Safety professional does an objective risk assessment, based on the relevant information they have available to them (e.g. WorkSafe, MOH). They do not do their own research into the science unless they have specific training and qualifications in that area. They then come to a conclusion that best reduces the risk to their employees and workplace for their specific situation and complies with the law.

Kiwi Rail or Air NZ are the PCBU. In this instance the person isn't a literal human being, instead the organisation is deemed a person. This is called a legal fiction.

https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/getting-started/understanding-the-law/primary-duty-of-care/who-or-what-is-a-pcbu

That's a very specific public health order for a very specific circumstance. If the government was mandating health monitoring HSWA or regulations would be just as explicit and not ask about informed consent.

I don't see how it wouldn't be considered medical treatment. In some instances you'd be forcing a worker to undergo a blood test against their will. I don't know any part of society where that would be tolerable. Even COVID-19 tests aren't compulsory for people staying in MIQ.

In this situation it's more important to explain to the worker the purpose of the health monitoring, and why it's important. Perhaps show them the information that is shared with you, and explain to them what the employer is doing with this information. Allow them to make a fully informed decision,. If WorkSafe is saying the employer must have informed consent, it would suggest that workers are able to not consent.

Because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act grants everyone the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.

Our supplier has an opt out form that they provide the employee and have them sign it. It states they understand they may be exposed to hazards and they are choosing to forgo monitoring. Though it's not really used, usually just an email or written confirmation that they are forgoing the monitoring should be enough.

We've had success with the SiteSafe Leadership in Safety course:
https://www.sitesafe.org.nz/training/our-training-courses/leadership-in-safety/

While SiteSafe generally is construction based, this one is probably the least so.

It would apply to all industries, and yes the customers would need to accept it.