Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021 • Hacker News Board

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#371

Post by nostrademons » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:03 AM UTC

jmchuster wrote: post #352

nostrademons wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been shown to be less infectious. Mortality rates are the same for both strains.

No idea what original article I read now that compared mortality rates, but I'd suspect it used this analysis as it's source: https://www.cato.org/blog/two-supertypes-coronavirus-east-as... which led me to conclude that the mortality rate differed.

Here's the Twitter thread from Trevor Bedford (head of the NextStrain project cited in your link) reviewing the work that discovered the spike protein mutation in the European strain that may affect transmissibility:

https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1257825352660877313

"Both Korber et al and our analysis show no measurable effect on patient outcome. Hence, the hypothesis at this point is entirely in terms of transmissibility rather than severity. 14/16"

The conclusion that mortality is higher comes from the higher death rates in European countries. However, there's a major confounder: when the epidemic exceeds testing capacity, only the most severe cases are tested and counted, and so the denominator in mortality rates (total cases) is inaccurately small. We know this is the case in much of Europe (and NYC): follow-up antibody tests put the number of total infections at ~10x the number of detected cases. That brings the mortality rate back in line with the ~0.5-1% that's been found in populations where everyone was tested.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#372

Post by nostrebored » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:07 AM UTC

peterwoerner wrote: post #303

treis wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a result, it will appear from this graph that deaths are always declining whether they are or not Most deaths are reported relatively quickly. If there were, as an example, a 2x increase in deaths it would show on the graph within a few days. It would show as something like a 1.8x increase before trickling up to the full 2x over the following weeks.

Death lags new case by as much as a month (due to time from infection to death). So we won't really know if there is an increase an death due to the new cases for a number of weeks after we see a rise in cases.

The death rate absolutely does respond more quickly than a month, and in a time series with this distribution the tail of the data is not the most important factor.

We should be seeing increased deaths from this in places that have reopened weeks ago.

The problem is, we accelerated deaths drastically due to insane public policies like housing the sick in close quarters with the elderly. In engineering, overengineering like this wastes time. In public health, it kills people.

My expectation is that we'll see an increase in infection rate, a decrease in new deaths per day, and we'll have spikes associated with pockets of the elderly who were previously not impacted being exposed.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#373

Post by nostrebored » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

jeromegv wrote: post #342

trustfundbaby wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been saying this for a while now ... since the Georgia Reopening, I've been monitoring a lot of state data daily, lots of places that started seeing spikes 3-4 weeks ago haven't even had as much as a slight trend upwards in deaths (Here's South Carolina for example https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/south-carolina-c... ) Wisconsin has seen a spike come and go and death rates have remained about the same http…

Death rate is down because the average age of people getting COVID is younger, it’s already been documented and talked about quite a bit. Doesn’t mean they won’t get lifetime lung damage and that they won’t eventually re-infect the older folks at risk.

The lifetime of lung damage myth is absolutely one of the most ridiculous pieces of modern folklore about covid.

Please point to the incidence of these cripplingly disabled healthy young people?

We have no reason to assume reinfection is possible prior to functional mutation. Functional mutation is likely, but at a much slower rate than the flu. However, what we know from other novel viruses is that mortality rate will usually trend down over time in successive, functionally different mutations.

Stop fearmongering.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#374

Post by tschwimmer » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:36 AM UTC

deevolution wrote: post #170

nicoburns wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it's not a realistic option for most people. If we're talking about "shoulds", then we should have a welfare state that covers these scenarios rather than putting the burden on individuals, many of whom will not have the means to implement it even if they wanted to.

A welfare state isn't necessary if people save aggressively like in Singapore. People are actually required to save something like 35% of their income and their employers have to contribute an additional 15%. Some welfare exists but only for special circumstances like for the needy or disabled. Simply telling people to save more wouldn't cut it in America. If we end welfare like the Republicans want, I think we would…

I don't think anyone's in favor of rampant money supply expansion like we've seen over the past decade or so, but I think you have to ignore or disagree with some pretty basic conclusions to be in favor of returning to the gold standard. Despite the potential negative effects, printing money seems to be effective in staving off the most severe effects of economic downturns. Evidence from 2008 and the coronavirus stimulus seems clear - you can fairly effectively prop up employment and demand without driving up inflation too badly.

And yes, I'm aware that the way that official inflation is measured is bad - but is it really terrible? Technology is definitely under-measured but it's also still relatively cheap. You can get a decent laptop that will last a few years for a couple hundred bucks. You can get Netflix or other streaming service that's very arguably better than for $100 a year. Healthcare and real estate are super jacked up (and maybe education) are super jacked up, but that's arguably due more to terrible policy and a fundamentally limited supply (God isn't making more land in Manhattan).

In theory MMT[0] sounds like this shady conspiracy to force the working man to buy more Coca Cola and Ford Trucks but in practice it turns out that unemployment is very painful and inflation isn't.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#375

Post by aggie » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:53 AM UTC

munificent wrote: post #60

kyawzazaw wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not interacting with people, not having a place to go, just being in the house all day is absolutely terrible for my long term well being. Could this just be due to a pandemic? I think in normal WFH, what you described wouldn't be much of a problem.

There's a thing I see all the time online where people massively underestimate human variance. While people have many things in common, they are all over the place when it comes to many important emotional and mental characteristics. There is no one-size-fits all for anything behavioral, not even close. If they say it's bad for their long term well-being, they very likely know exactly what they're talking about even…

I initially read the comment the same way, but I believe they were saying that when the pandemic is over you won't be isolated, not that isolation wouldn't be bad for wellbeing.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#376

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 6:08 AM UTC

delusional wrote: post #275

waltherg wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard two C-level guys with two separate German SMEs say that the only part of their workforce that hadn't handled remote work well was middle management. The people doing the actual work were happy WFH and simply getting stuff done. Senior management / C-level types were content seeing sales figures and general output from afar. Middle management struggled because they had a hard time judging work estimates for…

One of the execs of the bank I work at made a public statement that they actually saw the productive output of the IT organization shoot up during the WFH weeks here in Denmark. But of course middle management didn't agree so now we are back in the office.

> the productive output of the IT organization shoot up during the WFH weeks

Should be careful about projecting that to the long term. During WW2, to increase production, the workweek was increased to 50 hours. Production went up substantially. But after 2 or 3 months, productivity dropped back below the 40 hour week. With subsequent experimentation, they found they could get sustained production increases by alternating between 40 and 50 hour weeks.

It's premature to declare victory for WFH. There can be long term deleterious effects:

1. the excitement and newness of WFH wears off, and the boredom and loneliness of it sets in

2. one loses connection with one's colleagues

3. one loses the serendipity of chance encounters and lunches with colleagues

4. you don't know your boss and he doesn't know you

We'll see.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#377

Post by ponker » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 6:35 AM UTC

larntz wrote: post #291

klenwell wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the part that gets me, too. Here's a summary I put together of where the US stands on the latest "reopen" benchmarks: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQSSp19amBFU... It varies region to region. I'm in Orange County, CA. (You may remember us from such recent news events as...) This was Huntington Beach weekend before last (probably much the same this weekend, too): https://www.reddit.com/r/Coro…

I am in south-ish (north palm beach) Florida and went to the beach the past few weekends. Fortunately it was nowhere near has busy as that picture. We haven't had much issue finding a spot with enough space to feel socially distanced. We also went to Longhorn for dinner yesterday and they had everyone pretty spaced out (every other booth, no seating at center tables). All the restaurant employees were wearing masks.…

Florida Man

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#378

Post by atoav » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 7:12 AM UTC

treis wrote: post #261

CommieBobDole wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Georgia death rate graph that you link to is sort of an odd case; there's apparently a variable lag between the occurrence and reporting of a death, sometimes up to a month - When a death is reported, they place it on its occurrence date on the graph, not on the reported date. As a result, it will appear from this graph that deaths are always declining whether they are or not - the more recent deaths have not yet…

>As a result, it will appear from this graph that deaths are always declining whether they are or not Most deaths are reported relatively quickly. If there were, as an example, a 2x increase in deaths it would show on the graph within a few days. It would show as something like a 1.8x increase before trickling up to the full 2x over the following weeks.

Yeah, but the problem is the combination of these points:

* A certain percentage of infections lead to death

* Death usually only occurs one or two weeks in

* Pandemics follow a logistic curve in their spread (and this curve has an exponential part)

* Most infectious transmissions happen before one gets symptoms (otherwise staying at home once you cough would solve everything)

This is why a sudden rise in deaths would indicate that a few weeks ago something went terribly wrong. This also means that a decline in deaths does not mean you are doing just fine right now — if anything, it means you did fine 1-2 weeks ago.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#379

Post by AdrianB1 » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 9:20 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #257

AdrianB1 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really forcing? If the work contract says "we pay you $X/month (or hour) to come to the office and do this work" is this oppressive? I work from home since mid 2007, I know the benefits and I know the price. I do go to the office from time to time without anyone forcing me to do it. Without physical presence there is a significant negative impact for employees, I think the best of the 2 worlds is 1-2 days per w…

"Oppressive" is too strong in most cases. The more candid description of that side of the fence is probably more along the lines of "I prefer to work from home and not commute." Assuming your team isn't geographically distributed anyway--which it often is at larger companies--the day a week thing makes some sense. I've done variants of that in the past. On the other hand, you're now telling everyone that they still h…

Most of my team is global, just a handful of people are located in the same city as I am. We have a yearly F2F, it is very expensive and disturbing to get people from around the world (literally), get visas, fly them into a place. Because the cost, everyone wants "to make the most" out of it, resulting in stupid, meaningless meetings focused on "building the organization", making the cost/benefit even worse.

I had a colleague that worked alone in a remote place (~8 hours drive from nearest office) for 15 years. He did not went nuts, that's the best I can say about his situation.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#380

Post by jmchuster » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 9:39 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #371

jmchuster wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea what original article I read now that compared mortality rates, but I'd suspect it used this analysis as it's source: https://www.cato.org/blog/two-supertypes-coronavirus-east-as... which led me to conclude that the mortality rate differed.

Here's the Twitter thread from Trevor Bedford (head of the NextStrain project cited in your link) reviewing the work that discovered the spike protein mutation in the European strain that may affect transmissibility: https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1257825352660877313 "Both Korber et al and our analysis show no measurable effect on patient outcome. Hence, the hypothesis at this point is entirely in terms of transmis…

So would your tendency at this point be to agree with Trevor that differences in tranmissibility are inconclusive? Or would you tend towards supporting the transmissibility hypotheses as long as there is some small amount of supporting evidence?