Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) Updates

[sharonkhoo]

zeit.\" post_id=\"2034053\" time=\"1628752210\" user_id=\"194295:

Maybe for PTers' 22 hrs/wk, Team A goes to office on Mon - Fri (9am-1pm) and WFH for the remaining 2 hrs in one afternoon of your choice. Team B goes to office on Mon - Fri (2pm-6pm) and WFH for the remaining 2 hrs in one morning of your choice?

We're already very practised at working out schedules after all the changes. My question is whether we can have every member of staff going to the office at various times, or whether only half the staff can return to the office, while the other half are full-time WFH (and cannot return to the office). If you read the MOM statement, it can be interpreted that way as well! When my husband and I read it, I read it has \"return to the past rules\" while he read it as \"only half the staff get to return to the office\". That's what I'm asking.

[Zeal mummy]

I have heard of alternate week arrangements to wfh. I believe as long as 50% workforce can return, the rest is up to each company’s digression.

[Imp75]

Yes in the pre-75% days (ie 50% days), we were to operate on a split team basis coming in on each alternate week. So Team A comes in Week 1 and Team B Week 2. There should never be overlap between Team 1 and 2 despite physical presence in office not hitting the 50% quota. When 75% comes, it becomes anyone can come in provided quota at 75%. So I am assuming it should be back to the prior 50% rule (alternate split team/week arrangement).

[MrsKiasu]

Imo, even tho no mention of split team. Having fixed team and split will be better to ensure continuity. Maintaining 50% should be including the PT staff that … just imagine at any point of time we see 50% total workforce?

[sharonkhoo]

Yes, I’m probably overthinking. I know they did it in a hurry, but it’s already the 3rd working day since N Day - plenty of time to iron out the ambiguities in their language.

[Sun_2010]

I am not in HR. Based on what my company is planning - not more than 50% any given day , WFH is the company preferred mode. While we will be doing the split team arrangements generally , in special circumstances and with approval, there can be exceptions.

[zeit.033699]

slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2034128\" time=\"1628758801\" user_id=\"28674:

Yes, I'm probably overthinking. I know they did it in a hurry, but it's already the 3rd working day since N Day - plenty of time to iron out the ambiguities in their language.

I'm not HR also, but I know there're many hybrid arrangements HR can adopt. Just ensure the working hours are compliant with the EA.
Maybe some bosses are ok to let Part-timers follow the Team A/B arrangement like Full-timers, but you know some 'ngeow' bosses do prefer to have some part-timers to be physically present daily, be it AM or PM to support the Full-timers.
https://i.imgur.com/0g7dsml.png\">

If they kindly let Part-timers all pick AM session on alternate week A/B basis, the company could be left with only Full-timers in office in PM session to fight the fire. Really depends on the nature of your biz.
https://i.imgur.com/uaFPpjy.png\">

Red tiny print = WFH hours

[sharonkhoo]

Sun_2010\" post_id=\"2034138\" time=\"1628759835\" user_id=\"18393:

I am not in HR. Based on what my company is planning - not more than 50% any given day , WFH is the company preferred mode. While we will be doing the split team arrangements generally , in special circumstances and with approval, there can be exceptions.

If this is what most companies are doing, I'm happy to do so too! I was just wondering if the instruction meant something different this time.

[pirate]

Dreamaurora\" post_id=\"2034040\" time=\"1628750215\" user_id=\"38907:

slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2033959\" time=\"1628727691\" user_id=\"28674:

[quote=Schootopia post_id=2033938 time=1628705899 user_id=143961].. I observe a rather clear shift in the official narrative to give prominent emphasise to unvaccinated elderlys in Singapore dropping dead on a near daily basis, repeated broadcasts of messages by senior politician claiming that vaccine is safe, and intentional policies to differentiate Singaporeans into two camps of vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Fact is,
- mRNA vaccines have no unprecedents;
- they are only on Emergency Use Authorisation Status by FDA;
- if they are fully authorised by the end of this year, this will be unusually rushed. By the usual drug approval staging, it probably means some low frequency or long-term effect, which can be high-risk and not obvious, are not yet well understood.
- vaccines, by definition, are targeted at people who are otherwise healthy. It's not a situation of giving an experimental therapeutics to someone on death bed.

But when it is known that the risk of getting to the \"death bed\" stage is higher (especially for some groups), and a vaccine, even if fairly new but has been well-tested, can limit the no. who are likely to get to the \"death bed\" stage, I think it is fair to encourage it. How long is long enough, balanced with the no. who may die of the disease before then? And how many of the reluctant are going to be around (for all sorts of reasons) by then anyway? (I am referring to those aged over 60 or so).

And the \"otherwise healthy\" can help to reduce the risk of people getting to the \"death bed\" stage by getting vaccinated. Since deciding against vaccination raises the risks for others, I fully support the differentiated measures. Some tweaking for those who are unable to take the vaccination should be given (for fairness). But those who choose not to be vaccinated should weigh all the conditions when making that decision.

Yes, new medical treatments/vaccines by definition have a shorter track record, but serious situations require taking some risk. The vast majority of medical workers and scientists back these vaccines, and they even administer them to their elderly parents, family members and themselves. I find that persuasive.

The amount of fake news and conspiracy theories related to Covid vaccine is staggering. Many of anti-vaxers claim that state medias like Straits Times and CNA are just pushing for government approved narratives, but in their bids to be contrarians they turn to something worse. I have relatives who are very easily susceptible to these fake news, but they grudgingly got themselves jabbed after it's clear daily life is going to be very inconvenient for them. Those remaining hardcore anti-vaxers are probably hardcore anti-establishment anyway and I predict eventually government would mandate vaccination.

We know now that vaccines do not completely prevent infection or serious symptoms, but they still significantly lower the risk of getting one. Yes, the long term side-effects of these Mrna vaccines are still not known, but seriously, how bad can they be? I doubt we are going to get cancer or infertile or turn into zombies.[/quote]But it is false dichotomy. It is not a choice between mRNA vaccines and no vaccine. I am sure it's not because our gov has investment in BioNTech or is trying to have Moderna set up shop here.

[emoh]

https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/20210813-moving-towards-a-more-targeted-and-sustainable-approach-to-keeping-schools-safe