Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 409 posts

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

#391

Post by nostrademons »

jmchuster wrote: post #380
nostrademons wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think I'd lean towards "I don't know, but tending towards yes", i.e. I don't think the evidence is conclusive but it is highly suggestive.

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

#392

Post by camelCaseOfBeer »

Loughla wrote: post #5

Meanwhile, my employer has said zero remote work once the state transitions into the next phase. They want to be "fair" to everyone, including those who have positions that cannot be performed remotely. So, you have a co-morbidity? Nope. You have no childcare suddenly? Nope. It's startling how stuck in the 1980's some people are. Just absolutely astonishing.

And you make more than $15 an hour, too? The audacity. Don't they know the plan? Poor people and minorities are supposed to take the risks we're not willing to face upon themselves! Best take to social media and start in with the self-congratulatory virus shaming and empty solidarity with the lower class. Remember - you are socially responsible and letting the peasants fight Covid-19 is all part of The Final Solution.

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

#393

Post by camelCaseOfBeer »

devalgo wrote: post #273
standardUser wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been pro-lockdowns and have not indulged in any conspiratorial nonsense. But at a certain point, if states and localities don't accept the mounting evidence that outdoor transmission is not a significant threat, it will start to feel a little tyrannical.

It's probably a question of awareness. How many of these people are reading e.g arxiv preprints to see this kind of research in the first place? There's also a rebound/face saving effect: if the CDC, State Health Officials, etc. got it wrong at first why should we believe them about anything? I just really doubt there are secret totalitarian Mayors and Governors out there intentionally locking people in their homes d…

When someone is rewarded with attention for a social position, it tends to polarize their views. The politicization of Covid opinion shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. There's a strong self congratulatory component to alarmist opinions. A restaurant re-opened in my city recently and they posted a bunch of ads proclaiming they're, "opening responsibly" picturing their servers wearing masks. Public perception being the key point of consideration, not necessarily the efficacy of forcing laborers to hide their faces behind spit covered masks. The attitude in general seems to be, "post a sign blaming people for Covid-19 next to the door, some sanitizer, aaaand we're done." Opposed to something like propping the door and ensuring customers don't all touch the same door knob, for example.

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

#394

Post by kzrdude »

dijit wrote: post #328
kevindong wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That honestly looks more cramped than any office I've ever been in.

I thought the same thing initially; it looks terribly cramped. But the longer I look at the picture, the more I realise that they have more personal space, sound isolation and visual privacy than I have in my office.

They have their own desks, instead of "clean" desks, so that's something.

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

#395

Post by WalterBright »

Loughla wrote: post #386
WalterBright wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 alterna…

The issue is, all of your 4 points can be overcome with just one intervention - communication. WFH relies on communication, in multiple modes, more times a day than working in an office. Failure to do that will lead to issues.

Out of sight, out of mind.

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

#396

Post by NotSammyHagar »

devalgo wrote: post #220
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…

It's definitely concerning how people are acting but that being said I think the initial research is showing that outdoor spread during the day is very unlikely. UV light seems to be devastating to Covid and Vitamin D seems to be protective. So a crowded beach is probably not all that bad. Packed bars and restaurants? That's a near worst case scenario

This whole thing is like a giant self-destructive part of the population coming together. There's ideological based reasoning (masks are for libs, somehow), it reduces my freedom (cause I have the right to die if I want). But you are making a choice for other people by exposing yourself.

It's hard not to see this as the decadent end of a powerful empire (sound like the most famous case), where the people just want to party and they don't care that it will be killing them and greatly reducing their future prospects and their descendants also. They have lost trust in the institutions around them. Let's just go ahead and break up and let the west coast join Canada already.

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

#397

Post by NotSammyHagar »

CydeWeys wrote: post #350
jeromegv wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of your perception of safety, being indoor without a mask for a long period of time is probably the highest risk factor you got yourself into. By a big margin.

Yup. Really hard to justify this risk in Florida right now just for a restaurant meal. I wouldn't do it.

I don't like to pick on other people, and I'd dearly love to go out and do something other than stay in my house. But that poster two up who went to a restaurant - you are putting yourself at risk if it is indoor. And you put at risk the other people around you if they aren't wearing masks. The choices of the politicians is contraindicated, it's against what the scientists tell us is safe. Yes, people want to go out, but you are engaging in risky behavior for everyone around you, not just yourself.

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

#398

Post by NotSammyHagar »

ta17711771 wrote: post #390
rubidium wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where you remain for 15 minutes or more with 20 or more people.

Where you remain long enough for one person who is carrying to breathe enough viral load into your airspace.

I remain stunned by the people who think they will not endanger themselves and others. I wish the OP diner in the restaurant would explain why they think this is safe? Let's assume he is a programmer or some kind of educated person who thinks basic science, math, etc works. Why would they think it's safe to go to a restaurant where it is an enclosed space.

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

#399

Post by NotSammyHagar »

klenwell wrote: post #322
larntz wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I agree that going outside, especially when wearing a mask and staying socially distanced, does not seem especially risky. Public officials in Southern California have generally been accepting of outdoor activity, so long as it hasn't involved large groups gathering. I have avoided it myself because I have family members in elevated risk groups. (Although, in truth, I think we are all to some degree.) The thing that…

You are endangering yourself and others. Political advocations should be carefully considered with the actual science behind it. You might be young and think there's little risk. All the other people around you might not be the same. By the way, your vox link says going to an indoor area with others is the highest risk. It's not low risk.

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

#400

Post by qu4ku »

waltherg wrote: post #274
Loughla wrote: post #5

Meanwhile, my employer has said zero remote work once the state transitions into the next phase. They want to be "fair" to everyone, including those who have positions that cannot be performed remotely. So, you have a co-morbidity? Nope. You have no childcare suddenly? Nope. It's startling how stuck in the 1980's some people are. Just absolutely astonishing.

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…

'face-to-face meetings are a justification for middle management to exist'
Post reply on HN