Distinguishing between groups sent home because of Coronavirus

it seems to me there might be an unfair distinction between two groups of people - someone who self-isolates because they are in one of the groups who are advised to, or they actually have the illness will be entitled to basic sick pay (SSP/ESA/means-tested benefit). And this might be for two weeks, but also it could be for 12 weeks.  If, in the same workplace - say a coffee shop - it is now decided to close, all the other workers who are not ill, will receive 80% of their wages, this could be a lot more.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

That’s my interpretation Ruth -it can be better to be designated ‘furloughed’ than to be treated as sick as self-isolating

There will be many people who wish to stay home (in accordance with advice) but do not fit the quite narrow ‘self-isolating’ definition.

Only employers in financial difficulty because of business disruption have access to the Job Retention Scheme, it is not a general subsidy to all businesses. Its purpose is to protect employment by incentivising employers to keep people on the payroll, in a way the help employees get from it is secondary.

Employers who have access may will willing to furlough an employee. Many businesses will not be suffering economic disruption and there is no opportunity to be furloughed in that situation.

I didn’t realise it wasn’t open to any employer who has to cut back on staff because their shop etc is closed .  But of course that could leave an in between group as you say. They might not fit the narrow definition for self isolation but are vulnerable. But surely a government body such as the DWP could not say “We insist on you working even though we want anyone who even suspects they have the virus to self isolate and we will not pay you any benefit if you do not go in to work”