SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

finneh said:
I think I should be a prime candidate in terms of WFH. Early 30's, no kids, self motivated, enjoy work and very much career / finance focused. However I'm unequivocally less productive; even when my 110 minute daily commute is factored in.

My staff would all work from home four days a week if they could and truly I'd be a fool not to consider it (I have of course). I could genuinely offer them this in lieu of 3 years salary increase which would save me comfortably 5 figures annually. I'd save on fixed costs also and alleviate my biggest bugbear too... Parking!

In my experience annoyingly however it just doesn't work productively on the whole. For myself for example I've never (maybe once a year) taken a lunch in the office but from home find myself taking a lengthy lunch daily and procrastinating far more frequently.

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

I'm sure though that the construction industry and it's supply chain aren't fully indicative of the entire country (we're two decades behind in everything else!). However what I am certain of is that any company that ignores something that could potentially save huge sums every year does so at their own peril... The people, country, app or business that masters it are bound to be hugely wealthy.

Therefore it isn't a question of businesses resisting, they'd be embracing it open armed if it produced results.


It isn't just about being watched. Outside of day to day productivity for example it's about staff hearing how other staff deal with issues every day and (hopefully) adapting and developing according to the skills of those around them. Some are detailed but passive, some assertive but sloppy, some inexperienced. Being in an office you hope people lose their negative attributes and encompass others' positives, becoming more rounded (I certainly have).

I regularly use scenarios I've heard with how staff have dealt with complex situations as an example to other staff who I've seen deal with things less competently. Hell most of the time I don't even bring it up as you'll see passive people becoming more assertive when the situation requires it merely by hearing how someone else has dealt with a situation more assertively. Likewise the reverse where assertive people have seen how calmer people have defused a situation. Over a period of time you see a group of staff dispel their own weaknesses and take on the strengths of their colleagues.

I can't reiterate enough that it would be such a no brainer to allow all staff who can to work from home to do so. As a business owner I'd be committing career suicide to not allow it. However with my current experience the reverse would be true.
Click to expand...

I’ll say what everyone else seems to be dancing around.

You seem to be devoid of any valuable business acumen, and sound like an absolute cnut to work for.

If anyone working for you is putting down those kind of hours, YOU are the problem, and it’s a big one. Start doing better.
 
finneh said:
I think I should be a prime candidate in terms of WFH. Early 30's, no kids, self motivated, enjoy work and very much career / finance focused. However I'm unequivocally less productive; even when my 110 minute daily commute is factored in.

My staff would all work from home four days a week if they could and truly I'd be a fool not to consider it (I have of course). I could genuinely offer them this in lieu of 3 years salary increase which would save me comfortably 5 figures annually. I'd save on fixed costs also and alleviate my biggest bugbear too... Parking!

In my experience annoyingly however it just doesn't work productively on the whole. For myself for example I've never (maybe once a year) taken a lunch in the office but from home find myself taking a lengthy lunch daily and procrastinating far more frequently.

I'm fully aware some people thrive at home; I have (a small minority of) staff that absolutely do. They log in to our server at 5:30am and log off at 8pm, using commuting time plus interest to work. However they are a small proportion. For every person I've seen who're 10% more productive there are 5 who're 30% less.

I'm sure though that the construction industry and it's supply chain aren't fully indicative of the entire country (we're two decades behind in everything else!). However what I am certain of is that any company that ignores something that could potentially save huge sums every year does so at their own peril... The people, country, app or business that masters it are bound to be hugely wealthy.

Therefore it isn't a question of businesses resisting, they'd be embracing it open armed if it produced results.


It isn't just about being watched. Outside of day to day productivity for example it's about staff hearing how other staff deal with issues every day and (hopefully) adapting and developing according to the skills of those around them. Some are detailed but passive, some assertive but sloppy, some inexperienced. Being in an office you hope people lose their negative attributes and encompass others' positives, becoming more rounded (I certainly have).

I regularly use scenarios I've heard with how staff have dealt with complex situations as an example to other staff who I've seen deal with things less competently. Hell most of the time I don't even bring it up as you'll see passive people becoming more assertive when the situation requires it merely by hearing how someone else has dealt with a situation more assertively. Likewise the reverse where assertive people have seen how calmer people have defused a situation. Over a period of time you see a group of staff dispel their own weaknesses and take on the strengths of their colleagues.

I can't reiterate enough that it would be such a no brainer to allow all staff who can to work from home to do so. As a business owner I'd be committing career suicide to not allow it. However with my current experience the reverse would be true.
Click to expand...
You really come across as the sort of person I would hate to know in real life.
 
TMDaines said:
Probably some reflection is due on just these two snippets alone. Never taking a break isn’t anything to admire; it’s utter indiscipline and stupidity. Why would you not want to keep yourself mentally refreshed and fuelled? Why are you working through time, or expecting others to, that is unpaid for a reason?

Anyone working 5:30 to 20:00 in my organisation would be given a serious intervention and support to understand why. Either the organisation has screwed up in creating a job role that is far too demanding for one ably skilled and qualified person, or that individual is creating serious inefficiencies that will be detracting from the quality of the most important parts of their role, and this may well be either be because of, or contributing to, serious mental health issues. I’ve had to manage a staff member through this and it took a massive amount of my time to do so. Ignoring it was never an option however.

Possibly there’s a more innocent explanation and that is that the individual is just working some funky flexible hours to suit their lifestyle, but that’s not working 5:30 to 20:00.
Click to expand...
Anyone working 5:30 to 20:00;
Not sustainable on the energy or mental health
Quality of work will dip as your brain tires

It’s insane. Unless it’s a pattern like 4 on, 4 off.
To do that every day of the week? Inefficient, not sustainable and bad man management to allow it to continue
 


Really useful visual showing all the factors associated with dying in the UK. The further to the right and the narrower the “wings” the stronger the association. I didn’t realise being male was quite as dramatic a risk factor as this.

Smoking data also very interesting. Better to be currently smoking than an ex-smoker.
 
Pogue Mahone said:


Really useful visual showing all the factors associated with dying in the UK. The further to the right and the narrower the “wings” the stronger the association. I didn’t realise being male was quite as dramatic a risk factor as this.

Smoking data also very interesting. Better to be currently smoking than an ex-smoker.
Click to expand...


What do you think is the cause of the smoking dynamic, perhaps that ex smokers have some lung damage and don’t the suspected protection from actively inhaling nicotine and smoke?
 
Brwned said:
What exactly is a relatively short time frame? Almost none of the pre-existing conditions are terminal.
Click to expand...

That's up for debate I suppose and it takes us into the realms of statistics - i.e. how many years the average person lives. I read something online which I won't pretend I understand to any great degree but it talked about how much time on average was lost by older patients passing away from (or with) Covid. The older they were the less time was lost and in the older age bracket (80 plus) it was months, not years.

What is "terminal"? Life is terminal, since the older you are, the more likely you are to die. When you're 90, you will have numerous health conditions and the older you get the more likely it is one (or actually a number) of those conditions will kill you. The only certainty is that in the end, something will.

For me the question is the extent to which it is reasonable to extend the lives of some via lock down, whilst reducing the lifespan of others. To put it bluntly and clumsily - is it right to save 10,000 people from the virus if it costs 5000 lives from un-diagnosed cancer (as an example)? Where is the line drawn? That is the frankly unpleasant discussion that needs to be had for the good of society as a whole.

In some senses, we seem to have lost sight of the whole point of flattening the curve. It is not to eradicate the virus but to buy time to ensure the NHS can cope and in the hope that we can find a treatment or vaccination, which is not certain by any means. Measures need to stay in place to do just that but also acknowledge that economically and socially we have to exist with the virus for some time, and possibly forever.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
What do you think is the cause of the smoking dynamic, perhaps that ex smokers have some lung damage and don’t the suspected protection from actively inhaling nicotine and smoke?
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone knows for certain. The most plausible explanation I’ve heard is that inhaled nicotine downregulates the ACE2 receptors in your lungs that the spikes on the coronavirus binds to. Ex smokers won’t have that upside but will have residual smoking related damage to their lungs and heart.

Mind you, I think the data on vaping is less clearcut.
 
golden_blunder said:
Anyone working 5:30 to 20:00;
Not sustainable on the energy or mental health
Quality of work will dip as your brain tires

It’s insane. Unless it’s a pattern like 4 on, 4 off.
To do that every day of the week? Inefficient, not sustainable and bad man management to allow it to continue
Click to expand...

The worst part is there's a minority doing this while the others twiddle their thumbs.

By his own admission he can't motivate the rest of them to do more than a couple of hours work.
 
Pogue Mahone said:


Really useful visual showing all the factors associated with dying in the UK. The further to the right and the narrower the “wings” the stronger the association. I didn’t realise being male was quite as dramatic a risk factor as this.

Smoking data also very interesting. Better to be currently smoking than an ex-smoker.
Click to expand...

That must be the supposed nicotine effect? If you're an ex-smoker, you have no nicotine and potential lung damage on top. Wonder how vapers fare in that regard.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Just to add to the mortality in the young discussion, not dying from an infection doesn’t mean you will shake it off and live happily ever after.

Click to expand...

I can't find anything about the likelihood of long term effects in younger patients in this article?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I don’t think anyone knows for certain. The most plausible explanation I’ve heard is that inhaled nicotine downregulates the ACE2 receptors in your lungs that the spikes on the coronavirus binds to. Ex smokers won’t have that upside but will have residual smoking related damage to their lungs and heart.

Mind you, I think the data on vaping is less clearcut.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know your lungs ever fully recover from smoking?

I was on again off again smoker (20 a day when I was on it) for around 15 years. I gave up for a year or two at a time 2 or 3 times. Then I smoked when I was drinking for maybe another 4 and vaped for about a year somewhere in there too before giving up completely 5 years ago.
 
Pogue Mahone said:


Really useful visual showing all the factors associated with dying in the UK. The further to the right and the narrower the “wings” the stronger the association. I didn’t realise being male was quite as dramatic a risk factor as this.

Smoking data also very interesting. Better to be currently smoking than an ex-smoker.
Click to expand...

Hypertension a bit surprising, compared to what has been reported before.
 
Brwned said:
What exactly is a relatively short time frame? Almost none of the pre-existing conditions are terminal.
Click to expand...

The only studies I've seen on this suggest that on average approx. a decade of life is lost.

I'm not sure if they were taking the generally undercounted nursing home deaths into account, where you would expect people to die at a quicker rate anyway, though I'm also not sure how well those are taken into account in official figures either.

I'm not surprised people think less time is lost though, as one of the UK government's advisers previously said up to 2/3rds of those who died would have died soon anyway. Make of that what you will.
 
Withnail said:
It is important to ascertain what you think is a normal and acceptable productive working day when validating your opinion on the efficiency of working from home.

The question is why are they working longer hours than they would at work and why is there a need for them to be logged in for 14.5hrs in a 24hr period?
Click to expand...

In the example I gave they were working longer hours to get in front of their workload, so that they would be less stressed in the coming weeks and could tackle things more effectively.

Note being "logged in" doesn't mean you're working.

Withnail said:
You say they took breaks but did they take a break of oh say 6hrs during this period or are you paying them over-time?

This wasn't presented as a once-off busy week either. It seems to be the norm.
Click to expand...

In this specific instance they took around 3 hours of breaks over the period. It wasn't a "one off" in the sense that a 55-60 hour working week is something that is likely to happen several times a year. However if you assumed a 70+ hour week would be even an occasional occurance then you'd be wrong and I was unclear.

In terms of pay the specific member of staff received a £15k bonus in recognition of his work, but no he didn't receive "overtime" specifically.

Withnail said:
If some of your staff are apparently flogging themselves working most of their waking hours and others are only 10% productive, effectively doing nothing, and you're the manager then I'd suggest you're not a very good one and don't have the best interests or well-being of your staff in mind at all.

This is my reading of the way the information was presented so happy to be wrong but this looks really bad at the moment.
Click to expand...

Again they are not flogging themselves and I didn't say some are working most of their waking hours whilst others are 10% productive. Each member of staff has an individual load so one person falling behind only effects their outcomes and future workload. I said that some staff work more productively from home, but most do not. A minority of staff use the quieter environment and lack of commute a great opportunity to get in front of their workload. Their 90+ minute daily commute is used instead to work and the flexibility allows them to work in "batches" that they find works for them, rather than a "normal" solid 9-10 hours when the office is open. Most staff however are less productive.

This is getting extremely off topic either way. It was merely a comment as to why I don't believe we'll see a widespread change in WFH post Covid.
 
Skills said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023

UK 'to bring in 14-day quarantine' for air passengers

Some of the decision making is just weird. No quarantine when our own infections were low, and we were probably importing the infection into the country en-masse.
Click to expand...

The UK hasn't had a quarantine for incoming travel? That was the first thing Norway did, before any sort of shut down was implemented. We've actually recently decreased the quarantine from 14 days to 10 days.

Incidentally, health authorities in Norway are now saying that the shut down was too strict and lasted too long, and probably did not have a significant effect. Indications are that the rate of infection was already falling drastically from social distancing measures before the shut down. It's unclear whether that includes the quarantine, though.
 
We've had the 14 day quarantine here in Azores. It's a lot more effective in smaller insular regions, I guess. But, as any quarantine, it requires people to be tested before it's lifted, otherwise 14 days aren't nearly enough, let alone 10.
 
Well I know my workplace is certainly planning for a large shift to WFH anyway, with a current target of 40% continuing to WFH post-crisis. Which is a lot given how many roles there are that currently can't be done from home. We were already likely to move in that direction over the next 10-20 years because that's the way the world is going but this crisis has massively expedited that process. The other larger financial service companies I'm in contact with are also signalling to their employees that they're planning to permanently shift in that direction.

The extent to which a shift to WFH can happen is very industry-specific but I suspect that not making that shift where you can will soon be a dated structure in a lot of sectors.
 
finneh said:
In the example I gave they were working longer hours to get in front of their workload, so that they would be less stressed in the coming weeks and could tackle things more effectively.

Note being "logged in" doesn't mean you're working.



In this specific instance they took around 3 hours of breaks over the period. It wasn't a "one off" in the sense that a 55-60 hour working week is something that is likely to happen several times a year. However if you assumed a 70+ hour week would be even an occasional occurance then you'd be wrong and I was unclear.

In terms of pay the specific member of staff received a £15k bonus in recognition of his work, but no he didn't receive "overtime" specifically.



Again they are not flogging themselves and I didn't say some are working most of their waking hours whilst others are 10% productive. Each member of staff has an individual load so one person falling behind only effects their outcomes and future workload. I said that some staff work more productively from home, but most do not. A minority of staff use the quieter environment and lack of commute a great opportunity to get in front of their workload. Their 90+ minute daily commute is used instead to work and the flexibility allows them to work in "batches" that they find works for them, rather than a "normal" solid 9-10 hours when the office is open. Most staff however are less productive.

This is getting extremely off topic either way. It was merely a comment as to why I don't believe we'll see a widespread change in WFH post Covid.
Click to expand...


I don't think any of that is off topic at all.

It's relevant as it informs your point of view. Working that many hours in the short-term on condition you will be rewarded with a decent bonus is a different thing altogether to what I assumed was going on.

However, I would fundamentally disagree with counting the hours previously used for commuting as business hours.

However, the way you've described how your business runs isn't the norm in my experience. We are being strongly urged to only work our regular hours and to take our breaks as we would have taken them in the office.

In my line of work, we will most definitely keep up the working from home aspect where it suits both the employee and the business and productivity is a factor in that decision-making process.

Most likely it would be some kind of hybrid as I feel some things can only be done face-to-face especially when setting up projects with new or existing clients where a knowledge transfer is needed.

Personally I'd need at least one day in the office a week.
 
Last edited:
Shakesey said:
OK, I thought about it for 10. Supposed someone leaves their home for whatever reason. If they follow a strict social distancing regime and adhere to all the rules set out then the virus would also bite the dust. So, staying indoors for 21 days, which I still think is possible, isn't quite so vital.
21 feckin days. I stayed indoors for 21 days. It wasn't that hard. The maskless people walking down our road clearly disagree.
Click to expand...
You know what, I could easily stay inside for 21 days. No problem whatsoever. The reason I'm able to do that is because I don't have an essential role in society, and the role I do have can easily be done from home. That's why ive not been furloughed. I've also been lucky enough to be able to get a good supply of food in the house, so if there were suddenly an enforced 21 day lock down, I'd be fine, I'd maybe have to eat smaller portions.

The obvious trouble is that my situation is not applicable to everyone. It's not applicable to nurses, doctors, people in hospitals and care homes, farmers, people who make and deliver essentials like food, the police officers and emergency workers who need to enforce these rules etc. Also, the people who don't have money in the bank, who aren't able to stock up 3 weeks worth of food - during a panic buying spree we've never seen the likes of, no less. Those people would be forced to face the choice of almost certain starvation or take their chances with the virus and the law and go looting and stealing to put food on the table.

If you've spent more than a minute playing out this scenario in your head but not thought of any of these things, then you're clearly living in another uninverse.
 
Withnail said:
Does anyone know your lungs ever fully recover from smoking?

I was on again off again smoker (20 a day when I was on it) for around 15 years. I gave up for a year or two at a time 2 or 3 times. Then I smoked when I was drinking for maybe another 4 and vaped for about a year somewhere in there too before giving up completely 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

Your smoking history is, give or take a year, exactly the same as mine. I don’t think either of us are out of the woods yet, unfortunately. But this was good to read, earlier in the year.
 
Incredibly, the 'Most Read' story for the week on my area's newspaper website is 'Piers Morgan misses ITV's Good Morning Britain - here's why and when he could return'. This, in a place where hundreds of people have died.
 
Abizzz said:
How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
Click to expand...
I think that data shows exactly that. 24 people under 45 with no pre existing conditions out of nearly 7,000 died from that New York study. Death rate from the China study show a 0.4% death ratio in the same age group (and that’s likely overestimated). I guess it depends what you think is “Young”? I’d say someone in their 50’s and 60’s is old. They may not be THAT old in 2020 when life expectancy has gone up but they certainly aren’t “young”, which again I would consider under 40.

Can Young people die from it? Yes. Is it unlikely? Also yes. Is any death of Covid at any age a tragedy? Also yes.
 
'Sol Campbell' is a man-made concept and 'deliberately targets the oxygen of publicity'.
 
Skills said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023

UK 'to bring in 14-day quarantine' for air passengers

Some of the decision making is just weird. No quarantine when our own infections were low, and we were probably importing the infection into the country en-masse.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if they'll be more detail to follow but the briefing on this so far appears to be no more than a restating of current policy dressed up as a control?

We're going to ask people to quarantine but this will be completely voluntary and in their own homes and no provisions to support it. So they'll still travel however they want and still most likely go out and do a food shop first?

In fact most likely we won't bother to track them or deport them so most will just do what they like.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
That’s going to pretty much kill off the UK airline industry isn’t it??
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's gonna gut the industry. I was hoping they would be trying to go for something like a pre-flight test at this stage. I don't know if it is possible to develop a quick response test though.
 
TMDaines said:
Even your science fiction approach doesn’t beat this.
Click to expand...
decorativeed said:
If you've spent more than a minute playing out this scenario in your head but not thought of any of these things, then you're clearly living in another uninverse.
Click to expand...
I fully understand that you two saw my posts of last night and didn't follow it to the point where I saw my folly. I'm now even more put in my place than before. Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.