I look after safety reports for a primary school, and we actually look for certain types of reports.
trips/grazes, bumps, minor sprains, etc are all a sign that the children are outside, active, and learning physical awareness.
A bit counter-intuitive, but not all injuries are bad, especially in a learning environment. Sometimes when people are physically pushing themselves, injuries are unavoidable.

Yeah, and often these are given at a building that is 90% of the time occupied by member of the public who don't receive (or need) this info.
All public occupied building have evac schemes developed at the building design stage with the assumption of occupants not having this info. So, what is being achieved with the 'usual H&S stuff'?

Where does the information for the Safe Work Method come from?
If everything is working as it should, your risk controls (from the register) should be feeding information into the SWMS. Think of it as your WIKI: everything you know about your companies risks should be located here.

It's a bit hard without knowing what you're doing - better to measure leading indicators, and measuring what you are currently doing (less expense).
I've attached a couple of documents giving guidance.

As well as what you're measuring, also have an idea of what you are wanting to see (e.g. low reporting can either be a sign of a low number of incidents, or a poor reporting culture). If I use report numbers, it is only in the initial stages, and I'm expecting to see an increase in the number of reports, as Teena said above its useful as an indication of a good reporting culture. I've also used average risk score of reports (but be careful with this as it can also be manipulated).

What sort of industry are you in, and where do you operate?
I used to work for a company that involved FIFO work to PNG, which meant more vaccinations were provided, as there was more exposure.
Now, I'm office-based here in NZ, Flu vaccine is sufficient.

Pilots, Bus drivers, etc have hte medical requirement as part of holding the licence, which is a legal requirement. No medical certificate, and you can't exercise the privileges of your licence - the employer doesn't get involved.

And yet, when testing was carried out, the FAA took a couple of seconds to get it burning.

I know from experience that you can have it burning on your hands and not get burnt. the alcohol evaporates at such a low temp that the flame is far enough away from your skin that it doesn't burn. (an old party trick)

You have to realise that New Zealand had a LOT of luck in dealing with this virus, which no-one seems to want to acklnowledge.

Just because you don't need to hold certification doesn't mean that these standards aren't useful auditing/management tools.
An external auditor can still audit to one of those standards, but if you have the discussion with them about what you want prior to the audit, they should be able to tailor it to your needs. There may well be parts of them that aren't applicable and you can safely put aside.

How have the outcomes of investigations into occurrences changed? Has there been a shift from the individual to the system in recommendations?

How have you broken down the hierarchy gradient (i.e. encouraging nurses to speak up, and doctors to listen)?

This is my worry too, and for SME's, its where the economic impact and safety impact intersect. I think we will reach a point (or already have) where the numbers of businesses failing will lead to an increase in our suicide rate which matches the risks of Covid.
The mental health issue is one which affects SME owners as much, as, if not more than, staff. Those of us who work with them need to make sure that we're having the same conversations with owners as with the employees.

'Probables' include those who live with someone confirmed as having Covid19, and then go on to show symptoms. https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/what-are-probable-cases-and-why-are-they-rising/ar-BB12emuK?ocid=spartanntp
Given the number of false negatives that are coming from testing, and the definition of exactly what a probable case is, I think it is dishonest to exclude them; after all, if you go to the doctor, and they tell you its the flu, you don't expect a lab test to confirm it. We haven't hit flu season yet, and this is the only respiratory virus going around at the moment, so what else is it likely to be?

Fair enough, I think my number included probables.
But, if we can keep this trajectory going, even with increased testing, I'll be happy.

And probably for a good reason. There are two ways to reduce the confirmed case numbers:
1. reduce the actual number of cases, or
2. limit testing.

Its why you should be wary of using the number of safety reports as a safety performance indicator.

P.S. I see that there are another 89 cases, which goes against what the trend appeared in your graph

Hopefully no rules are discarded - we should have identified the useless ones before today. But perhaps an unexpected benefit of Covid is we can really shine the spotlight and get full buy in on the useless rules.

CAA have issued a number of rule exemptions, particularly refresher training and checks, and medical certificate renewal. Just because you are making a calculated decision to defer requirements doesn't mean those requirements are useless.

Not done away with, but we've changed site briefings with customers to being a paper-based one, rather than face-to-face.

A standard risk assessment becomes mostly obsolete in a complex environment because cause and effect get messed up.

Yes, with an exponential growth, you are in a feedback loop. Hopefully we don't get there...

One thing to take into account, is that the restrictions will likely be lifted on a regional basis, so some sites will be open before others, and this may affect your supply chain risks, or put normally quiet sites under more strain than they usually have. Coming out of lockdown is potentially more troublesome than being in lockdown - the uncertainty returns.

Thanks for sharing that.