My thinking is that DHHS either don't have the data for a broader definition, or don't want the number to look higher than it already is, or both.
Would it? Lots of outbreaks in meat packing plants too. I'm not sure this sort of analysis can really prove much tbh, so many potential confounders
-
-
I'm not trying to give a precise est of HCW risk - what this analysis adds is that this is out of keeping with gen pop CT rate. If our workplace practices are perfect there should be zero added risk from work as a HCW, and we would have equal opportunity + rates as non-HCW
-
My point is that it doesn't, really. I'm not saying anything is safe or unsafe, merely that this analysis doesn't really tell you whether HCWs are at higher risk in Vic than comparable non-HCQ counterparts, or whether this risk is higher than what you'd expect
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Our workplaces are not standard - we wear PPE all day. Higher rates in HCW more concerning than other workplaces It's wrong to assume that increased opportunity for exposure to COVID cases at work means infection of HCW is inevitable - it signals a failure of prevention policy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.