Faced with a ‘severe’ RSV outbreak and a possible imminent rise in flu cases, Chile has decided that all schoolchildren above the age of five must return to wearing a mask. Adults are exempt – save for the requirement to wear one in health centres, which is now a permanent measure. Euro.ESEuro.com has the story.
Chile is facing one of the largest outbreaks of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in recent years, with an imminent rise in cases of flu (influenza), in a situation that has forced [sic] the authorities to take extreme measures. One of them was the return of the mandatory use of masks for school-age children.
The measure was communicated by the Minister of Health, Ximena Aguilera, who had just faced a controversy over the lack of coordination in the search for a critical bed for a three-month-old baby in the city of San Antonio (Valparaíso Region), who ended-up dying from pneumonia. …
With this context, the South American country will resume the use of face masks that became widespread during the acute phase of the Covid pandemic, and which was mandatory until October 2022. This time, the measure will apply only to a part of the population and in a specific place.
According to the indications of the Chilean Ministry of Health (Minsal), masks will be required for all children over the age of five who attend schools. Compliance will be verified by each educational establishment and will be coordinated with the Ministry of Education (Mineduc). In parallel, it was recommended that minors wear the protection element outside the classroom when they are on public transport, crowded places or places with little ventilation.
Higher education establishments such as universities, Technical Training Centers (CFT) and Professional Institutes (IP) were exempt from the obligation.
Adults of any age will continue to have no mandate to wear face masks in public places. The only places where they will be required will be at health centres, in a measure that became permanent after the Covid crisis.
Read the full story here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“demand employers offer IVF”
Fake news headline to get people worked-up about Gen Z. It’s clear from the article content that it’s about what might attract employees, not what they demand.
“family benefits are important or very important for retaining employees”. Is that any different from recent generations?
I tend to agree. I’d love it if my employer could afford to offer private healthcare so I wouldn’t need to use the NHS, but we looked into it and it’s pretty expensive unless your workforce is predominantly young – and of course there’s no opt-out from paying for the NHS so it’s double bubble.
“A survey from family health company Maven Clinic revealed an ever-increasing list of demands including…….”
A marketing punt by Maven as predictive programming to soften up the employers and encourage the employees by normalising this. I am no longer an employer – glad I don’t have to deal with this nonsense. Most people are reasonable and appreciate some leeway when they need it. Support of co-workers through the absence of someone in need is the key – the business has to function and its co-workers who take up the slack.
Why would any company wish to provide a benefit that would encourage staff absences such as IVF treatments?
Load of boll ox.
I’m OK with providing benefits that make good workers want to stay with the firm and where flexibility from the employer is repaid in kind by the staff. That has generally been the case where I work, but we may be exceptional. I think there’s an issue with providing a benefit that not everyone can take advantage of equally though so I prefer to give people flexibility when they need it and pay people a decent wage which they can decide to spend on whatever is best for them.
I thought the same. A survey from family health company … looks awfully like this family health company seeking to market its own products.
The employer can always refuse.
Too many covid
? Can’t get pregnant?
This is a completely unscientific observation but all of my duly multi-perforated relatives seem to have a much harder time with whatever the next ‘variant’ happens to be than I do. They’re still getting really sick because of it in periodic intervals while this has meanwhile developed to being (sometimes very annoying) nuisance for me.
Adam Smith pointed out that all wages are the same.
You either get your IVF, but less money in your pay packet, and reduced holiday entitlement, or no IVF and more pay and holidays. You choose.
In the high tax1960s/70s (thanks to Labour then and coming back again thanks to Labour) company cars became popular, as at the time they were not a taxable benefit.
Employees accepted lower wages plus car because overall it worked out better for them. Similarly, days off in lieu of payment for working overtime, or in teased holiday entitlement instead of pay increase were popular as this could not be taxed.