Omg I had not even thought about doing that, it was bad enough writing up new procedures with added access/egress points..we just have earthquake down here it was enough of a jolt to send picture off the wall and for me to stand up from my desk and consider getting under it..but then it stopped..whew roll on 4 day weekend

Not yet had to specifically address an evacuation while under COVID-19 "rules" but for planning for it my first port-of-call would be reviewing how we are managing the other close(r) interactions aspects of the work routines, from the regular meetings to line operator interactions, to the less common permit-to-work issueing and even the "non-work-related" smoko/lunch room interactions. Then an assessment of the evacuation point and if spreading this out is achievable.
As for close interactions as everyone steams out of the fire exits - you'd hope that this would be reasonably short duration of close contact (otherwise you should probably be addressing if your evacuation routes are up to scratch in the first place) and so lower risk. Finally maybe throw a few bottles of hand sanitiser in the evacuation kit with your vests/hats/armbands/etc. for all those that dutifully held the handrails down the stair.

In brief, it shouldn't actually be to much extra work (unless it is actually unearthing non-COVID-19 issues that should have already been addressed).

You probably heard me from where you are!

I keep going back to the basic question "what is the risk?" (And it is frustrating the heck out of me that no-one seems to be doing this and going straight to "catastrophe". If you don't understand the risk you can't even being to think about how to manage it.

By the time we are allowed back to work there will be bugger all virus around. (And this has been the case from day one)

And if it is, as proven by the data, bugger all will happen.

And even if it does happen not much harm will come form it.

As an aside I now have 2 "but for Covid risk Management" deaths and 1 x Covid death.

So I put it to you - are you causing more problems from a solution than what the problem actually causes.

(sigh) The risk we're dealing with is not the health one, it's the economic and then the flow on health and safety risks.

Let me break it down for you... The site I work at currently has 1,500 people breaking their bubbles every day to provide NZ, Aus and Japan mainstream food items.

50+% of our workforce of 1,500 being unable to work at staggered stages for two weeks at a time over the next gosh-knows how many months during the busiest part of the year.
+ demand from NZ, Aus and Japan for the products we provide.
= supermarket shelves in NZ, Aus and Japan empty of the multiple ranges of long-lasting, great-in-a-state-of-emergency foodsuffs we provide.

(We've already broken the 25% absenteeism mark through fear and/or precautionary measures)

As I've said before, this isn't about the 'health risk' as such. It's about protecting the food supply chain (while maintaining some 'semblence of sanity). :)


Thank you - I suspect you're right in that nothing much changes from the controls we already have in place, but hadn't thought of the sanitiser in the warden kit - awesome :)


Yusss - 4 days of isolated bliss where you don't have to feel guilty for wanting to ignore the world, curl up in a ball and go to sleep :)

Sorry Rachel. I'm confused. I thought you were after information on distancing during an evacuation.

The economic risk is a whole different story. $200,000,000,000 cost/lost and we couldn't save the lives of 5 elderly frail people.

If you are in food manufacturing don't you already have protocols for dealing with infectious diseases?

[Facepalm]
[pours bourbon]