Wong Jnr

So following on from the other case in tower 3 (DBS), her company has now said work from home indefinitely...
Talking with friends we're of the conclusion that it's still way over-cautious and to an extent are they trying to shun their corporate responsibility to their employees?
By keeping people away from the office they can then claim the employees are out of their control and therefore not their responsibility...
Singapore is at DORSCON orange, where it's a companies duty to measure and record employees temperatures twice in the day and if something were to go down, it would be managed in a controlled manner. Now as her company has not provided means for employees to measure their temperatures they are in a way letting the employees down. DBS have provided means for their employees to monitor their health whilst away from the office.
Also by not having your employees in a controlled environment for most of the day (in the office) does it not increase their risk as they're now exposed to the whole environment more?
For instance my wife and her colleagues have already started to get cabin fever and now do meet up in coffees shops to work together which is a far less controller environment.
What one would think is a "cautious" approach does have it's pitfalls. As I've said her company is the only one that has instigated this move. The fact that they are unique in this does perhaps point to the fact they maybe taking the incorrect approach...
Time will only tell I guess.