Covid-19 #29: Gazing Into the Abyss, Again

[S John]

I think some of you are imagining that I mean all telework all the time for all office type workers, the death of the physical office. While that will probably be the case for some, what I mean is that most employers will retain the option for employees to make telework arrangements on a part-time basis as suits their work/life balance beyond the pandemic.

most of us will still go to the office most of the time, but it will become a staple employment perk that employees are widely able to take 1, 2, maybe 3 days a week to work from home. If employers are not flexible on this point, it will be a sticking point in attracting and retaining talent. If people can’t or don’t want to furnish and fund a home office then they will be still be free to go into the office.

I have a few coworkers who can definitely afford a home office but can’t stand WFH and go in almost everyday. I think the amount that you go in to the office will begin to reflect the personal preference of the employee rather than company policies dictating 100% physical presence.

[Fez]

25 hours on, and the only side effect I've had from dose 1 of Pfizer has been a little bit of arm soreness. Hoping it stays that way. Anecdotally at least, it's sounded like dose 1 of Moderna, and the J&J shot, are much rougher than dose 1 of Pfizer. Though everyone I've talked to who's gotten Pfizer did say dose 2 basically knocked them down for about 24-36 hours.

One annoyance, here in Virginia apparently the system for getting dose 2 is that it doesn't get scheduled immediately. Instead, 4-7 days before 3 weeks are up, the county will email you, inviting you to schedule the second shot. I sure hope there's a separate allocation of reservation slots for those doses, otherwise I'm not sure how they guarantee there won't be an enormous wait for that second shot.

 

On WFH, my company has been 100% WFH since 2002, and, at least since I started in 2012, the policy has been that you can include your entire internet and phone bills in your monthly expense reimbursement claim. All other office expenses, within reason, can be claimed too. My cellphone, which doubles as my personal phone, was also reimbursed. It's hard imaging a WFH situation where a company didn't reimburse for the things you need to do your job, though I'm sure it happens all the time.

[S John]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

One annoyance, here in Virginia apparently the system for getting dose 2 is that it doesn't get scheduled immediately. Instead, 4-7 days before 3 weeks are up, the county will email you, inviting you to schedule the second shot. I sure hope there's a separate allocation of reservation slots for those doses, otherwise I'm not sure how they guarantee there won't be an enormous wait for that second shot.

 

This is probably due to your local jurisdiction, not the state. I got my first shot in Virginia and my second shot was scheduled on the spot.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, S John said:

This is probably due to your local jurisdiction, not the state. I got my first shot in Virginia and my second shot was scheduled on the spot.

Interesting. That's even more annoying then.

Also, Arlington apparently contracted with eventbrite to do the scheduling; makes me feel like I'm going to get a shipping and handling charge at some point...

[Filippa Eilhart]

does anyone know what's up with Bulgaria? It's lagging behind the rest of the EU but also seems to have received fewer doses per capita?

[S John]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

Interesting. That's even more annoying then.

Also, Arlington apparently contracted with eventbrite to do the scheduling; makes me feel like I'm going to get a shipping and handling charge at some point...

Yea I think it’s just northern Va having to deal with so many more people. Most complaints I’ve heard are from friends that  live in that region of the state. I’ve heard mostly stories of how easy / convenient it was from Virginians living in other parts of the state and that was my experience as well.

[Zorral]

Partner's arm is pretty stiff and sore from Pfizer #2 in the middle of yesterday afternoon.  He's far more concerned the Walgreen's pharmacy people forgot to give him back the vaccine card, and that he didn't notice until morning.

Me for Moderna #2 late tomorrow.

 

[Clueless Northman]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

People who live in such conditions as so many on this forum do who already are in large houses with enough space for an office and the resources to equip an offices as they like, and who can take coffee breaks on their patio overlooking their back yard, don't seem to understand what it is like for younger, le$$ privileged. 

Yup. At some point, if we, as a society, decide it's good for us and for the planet to have way more "work from home", then the State will have to intervene, because half people in Western countries just can't do it well, they're too densely packed in tiny flats to be able to really do it in not-totally-shitty conditions; they're actually better off working from office at least 4 days a week. For a starter, the whole standards of big cities lodgings will have to be entirely rethought. Granted, we're also going to gain a lot of space with all the empty office places, but that's tricky to repurpose.

That said, I think what S John says - 1/5 or 2/5 days at home - is realistic across most office jobs. Heck, I'm tempted to push for 1 day of home office for myself, though probably not a fixed day, but depending on needs, meetings and that kind of stuff.

[Zorral]

5 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

State will have to intervene, because half people in Western countries just can't do it well,

When the very young me moved the first time to try and make it in NYC, in the winter there was very little heat in the two-bedroom apartment I shared with three other people. Going to work meant I could at the very least be warm.  And work was indeed entry-level, which barely covered my share of rent and utilities and the commute. And we didn't have the expense of high-speed internets then, and powerful laptops and desktops either, though I didn't go out restaurants and clubs to save for my own personal correcting IBM Correcting Selectric one which to compose and type my grad school work.  (I was also in graduate school, yah.)

[Fragile Bird]

The dancing Sikh of the Yukon, celebrating getting his second dose.

 

[JoannaL]

32 minutes ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

does anyone know what's up with Bulgaria? It's lagging behind the rest of the EU but also seems to have received fewer doses per capita?

I don't know about Bulgaria, but I learned that while every EU country had the possibility to get  the exact same amount of doses (in regard to population) at the same time , there was a possibility for every country to order less or later. In this case the doses were bought by other EU countries. It may be the case that Bulgaria opted to buy only / or proportionally more AZ in which case it would have a problem now, because it is AZ which failed to deliver.

Another interesting AZ news: The guardian is citing  a  Australian newspaper, which claimes that AZ UK exported 700000 doses AZ in February to Australia.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/08/uk-ministers-silent-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-shipment-australia-eu-blocked-export

There is no confirmation, but it would be extremely scandalous if true. I cant remember how often it was said that the delivery failure of AZ in the EU could not be mitigated with the UK capacities, because there was a mysterious unknown early contract which forced AZ to deliver its first 100 mio doses exclusively to the UK. If that contract exsists how could it ship to Australia. And why did the UK allow this export to a country with no Covid cases, while they could not spare one dose for their hard hit neighbours?

[JoannaL]

Another scandalous vaccine problem (this time not AZ, must be the first !!):

Slovakia which decided to order Sputnik (along with Hungaria and the Czech Republic) before it is approved by the EMA, decided to not use the delivered doses because the delivered batch differentiated with the published qualities of the vaccine (meaning its not Sputnik, or a differnt version, but not the substance used in scientific publications). Thats .... really something else...

[kairparavel]

12 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

I am so fucking sick of hearing about “sustainable and equitable”. If you don’t have to go into the office and you can work from home, is it really that fucking heartrending???

Cry me a river.

Actually Chataya, yes it can be. Far be it from you to imagine situations and circumstances beyond how your work and living arrangements are set up.

The money saved on one aspect of working from home gets routed into another unplanned expense that could possibly be more than what they are saving. Being thrust into a position many companies and employees were not prepared for is one thing but a lot of people had to make a lot of out of pocket expenses to accommodate this way of working. Is it really that crazy to want the employer to at least share the expense with their employee? Christ, how many companies offer reimbursement or subsidies for using personal phones or cars for work? So what about internet? Electricity? And that's just expense. The lack of physical separation between work and home takes a different toll. I can't imagine having kids during this. I cannot wait to get to the office for a few days a week so I get a different view from bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, living room and that constant loop from waking to sleeping. Not all of us live in houses or have yards or general areas of privacy/physical boundaries of separation. 

Anyways, there's no reason why all parties in this relationship cannot come out winners. If it's not equitable it will not be sustainable, no matter how flippant and elitist and super shitty your protests might be.

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

I don't know about Bulgaria, but I learned that while every EU country had the possibility to get  the exact same amount of doses (in regard to population) at the same time , there was a possibility for every country to order less or later. In this case the doses were bought by other EU countries. It may be the case that Bulgaria opted to buy only / or proportionally more AZ in which case it would have a problem now, because it is AZ which failed to deliver.

Yes.  That should be it.  This is then related to the recent tiff regarding the 10m extra doses Pfizer/Biontech were giving the EU.  The EU suggested that the countries which had refused to take their full share of Pfizer/Biontech originally, would now be given a bigger share of the extra 10m pie.  So they can catch up.

This is probably paywalled but it talks about it.

Bulgaria, Croatia and Latvia were big beneficaries of that new distribution.

The problem was that AZ was a lot cheaper than Pfizer, so you can understand why some of those countries originally said AZ would be fine.  The EU ordered much more than they needed after all.

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

Slovakia which decided to order Sputnik (along with Hungaria and the Czech Republic) before it is approved by the EMA, decided to not use the delivered doses because the delivered batch differentiated with the published qualities of the vaccine (meaning its not Sputnik, or a differnt version, but not the substance used in scientific publications). Thats .... really something else...

Hah.  That's not going to help Sputnik's reputation.  The EU is also investigating whether the people who participated in the original Sputnik trial were forced to.  I think I may have been optimistic when I said that it would be approved by June.

It probably is a decent vaccine.   And maybe if it was produced in the EU things would be more transparent.

5 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Australia's advisory body on vaccines has just recommended to the Government that people under 50 be given the Pfizer vaccine. This a major blow to our vaccination rollout, already well behind schedule, as AZ is the only vaccine being manufactured locally and was expected to be the one that most Australians received. It's also a worry for me personally as I'm over 50 and now feeling a bit of that 'vaccine hesitancy' about the AZ vaccine - particularly as we have no active community cases in my city and have just moved to 100 % capacity for cinemas and theatres, so the chance is of contracting covid is currently low.

But Australia was probably focused on vaccinating older people right now anyhow?  Perhaps when the focus shifts to the Under 50's things will be different.  In the meantime, anyone vulnerable can get Pfizer.

The link that Filippa gave estimates the risks.  Australia obviously has the advantage that nobody (practically) has COVID, so that changes the overall story but for somebody over 50, the risk is calculated as 4 in 1,000,000 people.  I know I read that you are more likely to get a blood clot flying.  And i'm sure there are a lot of other very unlikely things that are much more likely than 4 in 1000000.

I've said this a couple times but I think it would be useful if the medical people discussed treatment.  (And to be honest, they might have.  I haven't been paying that much attention).  You'd like to be told that it is extremely unlikely that you'll get this but if you pay attention and notice the signs, doctors are well able to treat you.  So you have even less to worry about.  It is fair to be concerned but your doctor would probably be very reassuing.

Edited to add:  I meant to say.  Schools re-opened 5 weeks ago here.  4 weeks ago, our COVID numbers stopped dropping and started to go up marginally.  Schools began their Easter holidays nearly 2 weeks ago.  Numbers started to fall again last weekend.  If numbers start to go up again a week after schools reopen next week, I will be jumping to all sorts of conclusions...

[VigoTheCarpathian]

1 hour ago, kairparavel said:

Actually Chataya, yes it can be. Far be it from you to imagine situations and circumstances beyond how your work and living arrangements.

Anyways, there's no reason why all parties in this relationship cannot come out winners. If it's not equitable it will not be sustainable, no matter how flippant and elitist and super shitty your protests might be.

Agreed with this - my team is “able” to work from home, but there was no expectation/requirement  that they be able to, before March 2020.

Half of them have no dedicated office space in their homes - one is working from his kitchen table.  His spouse is also working from home (she has to have a closed door for her job, so took over his office) and a college freshman, all trying to work over vpn on the same internet connection, and I have no real recourse as a manager if he can’t reliably get online to do his job, because it wasn’t a condition of employment and I can’t send him into the office to work because of crisis.  Not to mention the untrod ground of ergonomics and work-based injuries...

It’s been really hard for companies without a work from home culture to adjust, and it’s frustrating as a supervisor to try and help people be effective and stay sane during a huge disruption, where the company has no real resources (I.e., internet reimbursement) in place for us, as of yet.

[DireWolfSpirit]

6 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

However, if there is no subsidy you run the risk of making workplaces inaccessible unless you are already wealthy. I know when i started my current job I couldn’t have afforded to shell out for new office equipment, higher electricity bills etc. I was very fortunate in that my employer offered to cover expenses for WFH equipment (there was an upper limit but I can’t recall what) but I know not everyone was so fortunate. I’d also add though that the expenses were paid after you had already bought the equipment so i’d have been dipping into overdraft territory if i’d had to do that.

They don’t give any subsidy for electricity bills etc. but luckily i’d worked there long enough to have made more substantial savings than I had when I started so i’m able to afford that.

I do ultimately enjoy working from home and would like to continue but I think there are definite steps that should be taken to ensure WFH is not unduly burdening employees. 

 

There is also the toll on mental health, especially where you live alone*, however that is a bit more tied to the combination of WFH and lockdown. I’d like to hope once things open up again WFH will allow for a better work life balance that won’t leave people feeling so isolated.

 

*I’m naturally quite solitary and i don’t so much miss people as i realise i’ve regressed terribly with my social skills over the past year and have had a lot of difficult moments of crippling loneliness. I also realised recently i’ve started talking to myself which i guess is a result of having no one else to talk to for so long. 

It's a bit of an evolution for office types I imagine? 

Imagine how trades workers have had to invest in their tools, spend on travel and so forth and you get a picture of how workers have had to be very flexible and adaptive for a great many occupations.

When I was an apprentice I had a required tool list I was expected to own to do my particular trade. Essentially hand tools were my responsibility, power tools were the companies responsibility. That's the way it was spelled out in our contracts.

All this used to be itemizeable and claimed on taxes, however the standard deductions are now so high only a small percentage of workers are itemizing anymore H&R Block tells me.

Perhaps in the near future the govt may start allowing more leniency towards claiming work expenses again?

Yikes, I'll leave it here for fear I'm straying from covid topic though.

[aceluby]

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Heck, I'm tempted to push for 1 day of home office for myself, though probably not a fixed day, but depending on needs, meetings and that kind of stuff.

This was pretty much my company's policy before the pandemic.  Since WFH, pretty much everyone on my team has agreed that we'll only go into the office "as needed", which would be 2-3 times a month at most.  With that being said, we're all software engineers, I actually prefer coding at home, we all own our homes and have space for a dedicated office, and for me personally, being home when my kids are so little is something I want to take advantage of for as long as I can.  I feel like being able to be around more often when my kids are pre-school age is something a single income family rarely, if ever, could achieve.  I do acknowledge that this is an enormous amount of privilege, but for me I'm embracing the opportunity.

[williamjm]

9 hours ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

this is an interesting article talking about risk/benefit analysis for AZ for different age groups, quoting data from the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication.
Basically it's almost always better to take the vaccine, unless you're 20-29 y.o. AND live in an area with really low incidence.

https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1702234.html

That does seem a good visualisation of the risks, although it does seem a bit simplistic to say ICU admissions are the only serious effects of Covid. While it may be less life-threatening I think avoiding some of the worse examples of 'long Covid' would be another strong argument in favour of vaccination.

I think there was a story yesterday about an early trial for vaccinating children with AZ being halted due to the side-effects in adults. I suspect that whole idea might get dropped since the analysis of relative risks would be even more biased against children taking it than people in their twenties and other vaccines seem safer.

2 hours ago, Padraig said:

The link that Filippa gave estimates the risks.  Australia obviously has the advantage that nobody (practically) has COVID, so that changes the overall story but for somebody over 50, the risk is calculated as 4 in 1,000,000 people.  I know I read that you are more likely to get a blood clot flying.  And i'm sure there are a lot of other very unlikely things that are much more likely than 4 in 1000000.

I saw one comparison that the risk of dying in an accident when taking a car journey of 250 miles is approximately one in a million (I guess it would have been worse in previous decades).

[S John]

2 minutes ago, williamjm said:

That does seem a good visualisation of the risks, although it does seem a bit simplistic to say ICU admissions are the only serious effects of Covid. While it may be less life-threatening I think avoiding some of the worse examples of 'long Covid' would be another strong argument in favour of vaccination.

I think there was a story yesterday about an early trial for vaccinating children with AZ being halted due to the side-effects in adults. I suspect that whole idea might get dropped since the analysis of relative risks would be even more biased against children taking it than people in their twenties and other vaccines seem safer.

I saw one comparison that the risk of dying in an accident when taking a car journey of 250 miles is approximately one in a million (I guess it would have been worse in previous decades).

Would actually be slightly surprised if it was that low.

[williamjm]

3 minutes ago, S John said:

Would actually be slightly surprised if it was that low.

I found the article:

That's roughly the same risk as being murdered in the next month or - if you get in a car and drive for 250 miles - the risk of you dying in a road accident on that journey.