Working from home is great if you manage it right.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Personally i love it. I think my company are planning to move towards one or two days in the office a week at most and compensate with a bit more team outings. We already did a lot of our work through conference calls though.
I think forcing employees in either direction is obviously a mistake but the flexibility to allow it is hugely beneficial to most people's work life balance.
If I was going to be a massive spanner, or reduce the quality of discourse significantly, I could suggest that your post is a short way of saying “I don’t really care about poor people down the line, or those that are crippled by debt and lost business, my Nan is fine and I’m alright, Jack.”
I’m not a massive spanner, mind you. Just a small one.
There is a very real discussion that the general public need to confront. Coming out of this is going to be brutal. Absolutely brutal. The sad reality is that the most disadvantaged in society are going to pay a very heavy price, and people who were bettering themselves in all manner of ways are now going to find themselves climbing back out of the well. Some will make it; some won’t. Public services, relentlessly underfunded and over-scrutinised, will be left to pick up the pieces. Acknowledging this probable reality can exist separately from the ongoing tragedy of death.
I'm not sure a 500 person study of one specific job type (working in a noisy call centre vs being in a quiet home environment), lasting only 9 months with an obvious and direct incentive to the people involved to be productive (that a large increase in productivity would likely lead to being able to work from home full time, which would save the employee in commuting costs as well as hundreds of hours of their annual time) and in an industry with very little investment cost to trial this and with a company in a country whose population are notoriously compliant is great evidence. Neither of course is my much more limited and anectodal evidence.
However if an employer could effectively pay their staff 221 hours a year less in salary (the average annual commute) whilst also paying them £795 a year less as that would be the average saving per employee; whilst they were being 13% more efficient (therefore they could employ far less staff for the same output) and at the same time with far smaller office rental, heating and general running costs ... Either every employer would already be doing this and saving a large % of their fixed costs with zero downside; or the companies not doing this would have been driven to bankruptcy by the ones embracing this being able to offer the same services or products at considerably more competitive prices.
Motivating my staff isn't a problem in the office, however it is whilst they're working from home. That's the point.
Either way we'll have a conclusive answer in a few years as almost every firm is having their own enforced trial at the moment. If the majority of companies have great experiences with incredibly productive staff they will no doubt be giving this option to staff going forward.
Last edited:
As opposed to the joys of spending hours (and money) commuting to and from work every day?
Whatever about having to work from home all the time, having the flexibility to do so is a massive perk.
My partner will probably lose her job soon. My sister lost hers. My self employed brother has no work right now. Numerous close friends have been heavily affected from a financial perspective. So .. no ... that's not true. I'm extremely concerned about the economic impact but I also respect the fact that the alternative - more deaths, and a completely overwhelmed health service, is much worse.
People talk about economic costs but Italy only locked down when they were forced to because their health service (one of the world's best) was on the verge of total collapse and ended up having to do the longest, and one of the most restrictive, lockdowns of any country, and at massive economic cost, too. As Pogue already said, the economic and social consequences of not taking these actions and letting this virus infect more people is probably much worse.
Where I do think there should be a bit of discussion is on countries reopening. I think our roadmap here in Ireland is ridiculously long-winded and restrictive because our out-going government are a bunch of cowards, and I hope to feck it gets shortened before we completely cripple ourselves with debt, but I don't want us reopening the economy too fast either. We've had our lockdown, we've gotten the virus under control, and I think we need to start thinking about being a bit less restrictive and a bit more trusting of the public to adhere to social distancing, without going too far to the point where we will need a lockdown again.
I don't think anyone is in any position to say a Government is being too conservative. This strikes me as the correct policy when there is a large amount of uncertainty about what happens when a lockdown is ended. If it is found that the measures can be eased more quickly, then the policy can be changed accordingly.
After seeing the US unemployment figures I am now leaning towards opening up economies at the risk of widespread infection... Does that make me a republican-abroad?
It wasn't a binary choice, of course. New Zealand have "in epidemiological terms" eliminated the virus, and they're going to re-open the economy far more successfully than the US. What the US are suffering from most is a poorly executed strategy. The notion that the US somehow forgot about the economy in all of this kind of ignores the most important part of the story - the initial exponential growth. Cases were doubling every three days and they had thousands of cases by the time they implemented social distancing. New Zealand were at 100 cases by the time they reached "level 3" - essentially what we've called lockdown - and Czech Republic had under 100 cases by the same stage. That's because they had the economy front-and-centre at that stage, as they have in every stage. They were forced into this approach when the scale of the public health crisis became overwhelming, not because they put public health above the economy.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
UK
+626 for all deaths
+4649 cases, 97k tests
+626 for all deaths
+4649 cases, 97k tests
If only they’d hold the UK to the same standards.
I was very much in the “lockdown can only be done for a matter of weeks” before it causes even more problems, but that was partly because I didn’t ever see the government offering the economical support it has. I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but cannot see how ending the lockdown now is the right move. The numbers are still too high for track and trace to be effective, and we still don’t have the infrastructure for even a smaller number.
So my road has thought it’s a good idea to have a street party... no social distancing being undertaken whatsoever. I can’t believe how people can be so ignorant.
Is it an affluent and like minded area?
Working from home may be more productive, but I think working from home under normal circumstances is different to enforced working from home. Coronavirus on the whole is reducing productivity because people don't have that realise of being able to live a normal life at the moment because they are always stuck at home.
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/20/21187...rus-productivity-mental-health-nicholas-bloom
https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/4/...irus-pandemic-covid-19-capitalism-ep-thompson
I didn't really read the comment thread so this may be off topic, but I just thought it was an interesting side note.
I have applied that to all of his posts for the last couple of years to be fair. Saves me a lot of time reading the exact opposite opinions to my own.
I waked through my town centre today for the first time since lockdown started. Quite frankly I was appalled. Large groups of kids on bikes, people stopping to chat, loitering and literally nobody following a safe distance. People were literally laughing at me and my partner for zig zagging and stopping and starting our walk patterns to keep distance.
Not gonna do that again in a hurry. Honestly it was like a normal Friday.
Not gonna do that again in a hurry. Honestly it was like a normal Friday.
It’s definitely harder than usual working from home right now. Especially for anyone with kids!
I really was just making a broader point that most studies (all pre-covid) seem to show people are as much, if not more productive at home than in the office. Which is counter-intuitive but there you go. What this crisis is showing is that many companies are able to function reasonably well in the hardest possible scenario for home workers. Which will hopefully cause a big rethink in the future.
Apart from anything else, if the recession really bites deep then spending less money on real estate would potentially be a great way to cut costs while maintaining productivity. Which will make even more sense when companies think about the expense of converting offices to enhance social distancing. Can you imagine the headfeck of working in a high rise tower with only one or two people allowed in the lift at any one time?
It's definitely changed in the last few days. Too many people seeing gleeful headlines with only rumours of changes in the last few days to confirm their own opinions, and it's seemingly back to normal outside. Like a giant school holiday.
A little data on excess deaths v covid deaths in Greater Manchester:
https://medium.com/@urbixio/greater-manchester-covid-19-related-excess-deaths-c382c95b14f
On the face of it, it looks like a lot of the reporting coming in from (non-hospital) death certificates comes down to what local GPs and coroners are taking as policy, and a stance on "most likely" cause, or even disagreement on the approach when documenting deaths amongst people with other illnesses.
In Bolton for example, "Bolton reported 472 deaths in April 2020 and have had a yearly average of 222 for the month. There have been 168 Covid-19 deaths reported which would be a difference of 82 deaths above the yearly average and Covid-19 toll."
Whereas in its neighbouring town, Bury: "Bury reported 282 deaths in April 2020 and have had a yearly average of 155 for the month. There have been 110 Covid-19 deaths reported which would be a difference of 17 deaths above the yearly average and Covid-19 toll."
Some of these may be timing related. Others may come down to an individual outbreak (in a care home or something) that isn't described wholly by the numbers. But still, it sounds like the recording may come down to policies adopted by individual GPs/GP practices. Certainly that Bury number seems more credible than the Bolton one. It would be interesting to know if that kind of policy divergence is taking place in other health authorities as well.
https://medium.com/@urbixio/greater-manchester-covid-19-related-excess-deaths-c382c95b14f
On the face of it, it looks like a lot of the reporting coming in from (non-hospital) death certificates comes down to what local GPs and coroners are taking as policy, and a stance on "most likely" cause, or even disagreement on the approach when documenting deaths amongst people with other illnesses.
In Bolton for example, "Bolton reported 472 deaths in April 2020 and have had a yearly average of 222 for the month. There have been 168 Covid-19 deaths reported which would be a difference of 82 deaths above the yearly average and Covid-19 toll."
Whereas in its neighbouring town, Bury: "Bury reported 282 deaths in April 2020 and have had a yearly average of 155 for the month. There have been 110 Covid-19 deaths reported which would be a difference of 17 deaths above the yearly average and Covid-19 toll."
Some of these may be timing related. Others may come down to an individual outbreak (in a care home or something) that isn't described wholly by the numbers. But still, it sounds like the recording may come down to policies adopted by individual GPs/GP practices. Certainly that Bury number seems more credible than the Bolton one. It would be interesting to know if that kind of policy divergence is taking place in other health authorities as well.
@Pogue Mahone How likely do you think it is that the virus’ incubation period may actually be up to 28 days rather than 14? A few doctors around the world are advising that, but surely if there was any likelihood of that being true then governments around the world would have already changed their advice?
The statistician in me (and I hate fecking stats) always gets a bit irked by these excess deaths calculations, without confidence intervals.
The yearly average is exactly that, an average. With a wide range, year on year. So talking about an “excess” of 17 deaths in any given month based on the yearly average just seems silly.
There’s bound to have been months in years gone by with a similar, or even greater, number of “excess deaths” - as compared to the average - which never even got a mention.
Last edited:
For sure it could do with some +/- deviation bars sat on those graph averages - because as you say, averages are just that. It's more that as you move around Greater Manchester authorities you see different patterns that intrigues me - as Manchester as a whole probably does wobble up and down together (based on weather, flu, holiday timing and all those other tangible risk factors).
As you say though, isolating datasets too much doesn't help, something completely different may happen in May, and we won't see the big picture until we've got many more months (and regions) of data on the charts. I'm more curious about whether doctors writing death certificates are getting policy advice on characterising cause of death, and if so from what source.
Indeed. The amount of shoddy reporting of statistics that has gone on the last few weeks and months is frustrating. It doesn't surprise me mind, but it's still frustrating. Confidence intervals are generally so easy to get and add so much more than a point estimate, but I suspect a lot of the time they're left out as they provide the sort of info that the person reporting doesn't want to show.
Regional mortality differences are interesting. With this pandemic we’ve all got used to seeing how some areas get really badly effected, while others seem to dodge the bullet. Previous outbreaks of illnesses like swine flu probably followed a similar pattern. Super spreaders or care home outbreaks causing localised mortality. Apart from a few PH specialists and research virologists, most of use were blissfully unaware!
Based on that the claim is wrong though. The study discovered that kids weren't the main source of transmission within 31 households studied but they still represent around 10%. To even suggest that they aren't infections at all is an exaggeration. They are seemingly less contagious some studies believe that it's around three times less contagious than adults but they still are.
This is pretty mad/dystopian. A robot patrolling parks in Singapore, shouting at people who aren’t social distancing.
I've seen Westworld, I know where this is going.
In all fairness, it's not shouting. It doesn't really need to say anything. It scares the shite out of people!
I found it really weird that BBC news were reporting from a “street party” this morning. People sitting outside their front gardens on the pavement, others walking past. A couple of weeks ago they were shaming people (who probably live in small flats in London) for walking in parks.
My partner wasn’t allowed to come to my grandads cremation, but everyone’s allowed to prance around to celebrate something that can be done annually.
Why couldn't it have been an Artoo lookalike? It's nightmarish.
Holes in the roof and now the glazers can't even keep most of the lights on!
They are killing this club.
joke
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa424/5819060
Authors' Summary: In this cluster, 12 Covid-19 cases (one asymptomatic) were linked to one single index case. One child, co-infected with other respiratory viruses, attended three schools while symptomatic, but did not transmit the virus, suggesting potential different transmission dynamics in children.
All 5 symptomatic confirmed cases were first tested between 6 to 10 days after symptoms onset. For 4 cases, a low viral load detected (often under the limit of quantification of 1 log10 copies/1000 cells) (Figure 3-4). All confirmed cases stopped viral excretion within 17 days after onset of illness (median 11 days; range 5-17) (Figure 4). Case 4, the asymptomatic case, had the same natural history of viral excretion as symptomatic case 3 with a viral shedding of 7 and 6 days respectively. Cases 2 and 6 (child) had similar shedding patterns, with virus load close to the limit of quantification for several days before being negative, much lower than those observed in cases 3 and 4. Case 13 had an endotracheal aspirate (ETA) positive at D4 with SARS-CoV-2 (viral load of 2.4 log10 copies/1000 cells), while negative in the nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) collected since admission (8 days). The NPS of the same day and the following days remained negative. The daily follow-up revealed a short-lasting excretion with only two successive ETA with a lower viral load (2.4 log10 and 1.1 log10 copies/ 1000 cells, respectively, Figure 4), the subsequent ETA remained negative. All cases were negative for other viruses except for the pediatric case, who had a SARS-CoV-2 + picornavirus (rhinovirus or enterovirus) + influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 co-infection. His two siblings were negative for the SARS-CoV-2, but had an Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection, and an Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 + picornavirus co-infection.
Because of the large number of contacts of the pediatric case (case 6), particular attention was paid to detect tertiary cases in children in the three schools the child attended while symptomatic. On 08/02, a public meeting was held to inform the parents of two schools (A and B); the parents of school C were informed by telephone. As a precaution, the first two schools were closed for two weeks and the third for one week (end of follow-up period; the pediatric case visited that school on 31/01). On Sunday 09/02, infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists evaluated the risk of 112 school contacts. All children and teachers who were in the same class as the symptomatic pediatric case were considered as high risk contacts and were isolated at home (Table 2). All hospitals in the region implemented emergency plans to accommodate potential tertiary cases.
Overall, 172 contacts were identified; 84 (49%) were classified as high/moderate risk and 88 (51%) as low risk (Table 1). Of those, 98% (n=169) were contacted; 70 (41%) had respiratory symptoms during the investigation and were thus classified as possible cases; 73 were tested; all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 except for case 13 who tested positive during hospitalization. No additional cases were identified within the 14-day follow-up period of all the contacts. The movement history of the confirmed cases during their stay in France and their contact tracing is presented in the Supplementary material. Briefly, contacts of the other 5 cases that were monitored included teachers in another school, apartment staff and cleaners, staff in shops and restaurants, and passengers in four buses and three airplanes.
Except for case 13 (tertiary case), no SARS-CoV-2 virus was detected in any of the contacts monitored. However, other seasonal respiratory viruses were detected in 64% (n=46) of the tested contacts, representing 62% and 67% of high and low risk contacts, respectively (Table 1). Overall, 33% of the viral infections detected were due to influenza (75% of influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus and 25% of influenza B virus) and 18% were due to a picornavirus (rhinovirus or enterovirus). At school C, 30% (3/10) of contacts of the pediatric case had a picornavirus infection (Table 1). In addition, “classical” human coronaviruses such as HUK1 and NL63 were detected in 16% of contacts without any cross reactivity with SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics.
Particularly, the infected child, despite interactions with a large number of contacts in different schools, did not transmit the disease, as evidenced by the large number of negative results of his tested contacts. However, the high proportion of picornavirus and influenza infections among his contacts at the schools indicated transmission of those viruses within those settings. Similarly, we observed that the family cluster allowed the dissemination of picornaviruses or influenza A viruses in the 3 children, while SARS-CoV-2 was detected in only one child. These two observations suggest that picornavirus and influenza infections are more easily transmitted than SARS-CoV-2. It is possible that viral interference in the host may impact the individual susceptibility to another viral respiratory infection as observed during the 2009 influenza pandemic and other winter seasons between A(H1N1) influenza virus and RSV (26-27). It is also possible that the very low viral load of the pediatric case and the subsequent lack of transmission might be related to his co-infection and the co- circulation of respiratory viruses. Viral load was only tested 8 days after his onset of symptoms. The child continued his normal activities and interactions as his symptoms were mild. Current evidence indicates that children develop Covid-19 less often than adults and the clinical manifestations of the disease are milder (28-30). The above suggest that children, being less likely to be infected and more likely to develop mild disease, may play a less important role in the transmission of this novel virus.
Because of the large number of contacts of the pediatric case (case 6), particular attention was paid to detect tertiary cases in children in the three schools the child attended while symptomatic. On 08/02, a public meeting was held to inform the parents of two schools (A and B); the parents of school C were informed by telephone. As a precaution, the first two schools were closed for two weeks and the third for one week (end of follow-up period; the pediatric case visited that school on 31/01). On Sunday 09/02, infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists evaluated the risk of 112 school contacts. All children and teachers who were in the same class as the symptomatic pediatric case were considered as high risk contacts and were isolated at home (Table 2). All hospitals in the region implemented emergency plans to accommodate potential tertiary cases.
Overall, 172 contacts were identified; 84 (49%) were classified as high/moderate risk and 88 (51%) as low risk (Table 1). Of those, 98% (n=169) were contacted; 70 (41%) had respiratory symptoms during the investigation and were thus classified as possible cases; 73 were tested; all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 except for case 13 who tested positive during hospitalization. No additional cases were identified within the 14-day follow-up period of all the contacts. The movement history of the confirmed cases during their stay in France and their contact tracing is presented in the Supplementary material. Briefly, contacts of the other 5 cases that were monitored included teachers in another school, apartment staff and cleaners, staff in shops and restaurants, and passengers in four buses and three airplanes.
Except for case 13 (tertiary case), no SARS-CoV-2 virus was detected in any of the contacts monitored. However, other seasonal respiratory viruses were detected in 64% (n=46) of the tested contacts, representing 62% and 67% of high and low risk contacts, respectively (Table 1). Overall, 33% of the viral infections detected were due to influenza (75% of influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus and 25% of influenza B virus) and 18% were due to a picornavirus (rhinovirus or enterovirus). At school C, 30% (3/10) of contacts of the pediatric case had a picornavirus infection (Table 1). In addition, “classical” human coronaviruses such as HUK1 and NL63 were detected in 16% of contacts without any cross reactivity with SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics.
Particularly, the infected child, despite interactions with a large number of contacts in different schools, did not transmit the disease, as evidenced by the large number of negative results of his tested contacts. However, the high proportion of picornavirus and influenza infections among his contacts at the schools indicated transmission of those viruses within those settings. Similarly, we observed that the family cluster allowed the dissemination of picornaviruses or influenza A viruses in the 3 children, while SARS-CoV-2 was detected in only one child. These two observations suggest that picornavirus and influenza infections are more easily transmitted than SARS-CoV-2. It is possible that viral interference in the host may impact the individual susceptibility to another viral respiratory infection as observed during the 2009 influenza pandemic and other winter seasons between A(H1N1) influenza virus and RSV (26-27). It is also possible that the very low viral load of the pediatric case and the subsequent lack of transmission might be related to his co-infection and the co- circulation of respiratory viruses. Viral load was only tested 8 days after his onset of symptoms. The child continued his normal activities and interactions as his symptoms were mild. Current evidence indicates that children develop Covid-19 less often than adults and the clinical manifestations of the disease are milder (28-30). The above suggest that children, being less likely to be infected and more likely to develop mild disease, may play a less important role in the transmission of this novel virus.
You may disagree with the study or its conclusions, but don't shoot the messenger.
Last edited:
No new cases in Donegal, Ireland over the last 24 hours.
Its a border county with Guards patrolling the border and it looks to be getting results
Its a border county with Guards patrolling the border and it looks to be getting results
Of course, I agree. However, looking at all the knock-on effects I'm wondering if the cure is indeed better than the disease. Nobody wants death, but the global economic implosion is increasingly concerning...
My estate is half filled with fecking street parties, and then the private facebook group is full of people commenting that they are disappointed their aren't more (apparently those not doing so do not appreciate the sacrifice of those in WW2).
How hard was it for the government to say "hey we know alot of you want to do something but now is not the time." Useless lot.