COVID-19

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Five things that would save more lives than shutting down schools over Covid-19:

1. Repealing the 2nd amendment.

2. Banning smoking.

3. Permanent revocation of license and mandatory jail for 1st offense DWI.

4. Medicare for all.

5. Banning motorcycles

The shutting down of schools will probably save some lives because it will reduce the number of deaths due to school shootings.

[Spider-Dan]

I reject that kind of "Why are we worried about asbestos insulation or lead paint when thousands of people are dying in car crashes?" mindset.  We can address more than one problem at a time.

If you want to work towards solving any of the problems you listed, by all means, do so.  But closing schools to stop the spread of this virus is a concrete, worthwhile step that we can and should do.

[BuccaneerBrad]

I think the whole country is overreacting like fucking morons to this.   Eleven years ago, Swine Flu killed more people in less time and no one shut down anything.   

I'm shocked and appalled to see all the beaches, theme parks, schools, and sports leagues shut down.  Wake up people!!   This is another flu strain.   It's NOT the end of the world.

[Pappy13]

Most of the people who are going to die from this disease are folks who without this disease were going to die in the next year or so anyway.

This is not true or at the very least it's conjecture. There have been people that have died who were perfectly healthy before contracting the virus and those that have had health issues already there's been no indication those people were terminal already.

The reason this virus is different is because we don't have a track record on it and we don't have a vaccine for it. We know how the Flu works now and there's a vaccine for those who are high risk. Most people that get the Flu get it during the Flu season and then once the season is over few people get it till the next season so it likely will never become pandemic. We don't know if this virus is like that or not. It may not be seasonal and if it's not then the chances of it becoming pandemic go up. So while it may not be any more terminal then getting the Flu, it's possible that a much larger percentage of the population could contract it, especially those at high risk because there is no vaccine. Once there's a track record on the virus being seasonal and a vaccine for it, then it will become like the flu, but not until then.

The thing about precautions is that no one thinks they are important until after something bad happens. Now I'm being asked to come into the office rather then working from home even though they suggest not meeting face to face with people, send them an e-mail or use chat etc and there's zero reason for me to be in the office. My gut is this is largely because airlines are hit hard by this and there's a worry that people could be let go and I'm a contractor so my contracting firm doesn't want it to appear that we are not working.  So I should risk my health so that my company doesn't lose business even though if it did I would be out of job and if I get sick they certainly aren't going to be giving me paid leave unless I use my own.

[CF DolFan]

Sure we can.  Look at the kinds of drastic action the country took during WW2.
We have a wide range of options available to us.  The question is which actions are appropriate, and whether we are willing to take them.

I saw a meme that said something to the effect ... "Your grandparents answered the call during WWII and now you are being asked to sit on the couch and watch tv. Shut up and do your part."

[Spider-Dan]

I think the whole country is overreacting like fucking morons to this.   Eleven years ago, Swine Flu killed more people in less time and no one shut down anything.

The fatality rate for H1N1 swine flu was 0.02%.  The fatality rate for COVID-19 is around 3%, or fifteen hundred times higher.  And in Italy, the current fatality rate is over 7%.

This is why governments are concerned.  There are infections that are much more deadly (e.g. MERS), and there are infections that spread more easily (e.g. H1N1), but COVID-19 is extremely easy to spread and is FAR more deadly than other quick-spreading diseases.

But what I really don't understand is why people are so resistant to taking this seriously.  It's not like this is all crazy conjecture; Italy is right there as a warning.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

But what I really don't understand is why people are so resistant to taking this seriously.  It's not like this is all crazy conjecture; Italy is right there as a warning.

I definitely take it seriously.  I definitely think it is going to kill people and overwhelm our ability to treat it.  I am resigning to that fact.  But the steps we are taking won’t change that. It might delay the inevitable by a week or two but we and every other country will be eventually going to be hit hard.  And we won’t flatten the curve to a point our healthcare system can handle, it will be overloaded.  To whatever extent we flatten the curve and lower the peak we will lengthen the time the system is overloaded.

[Spider-Dan]

"Overloading the healthcare system" is not a binary outcome, where it simply is overloaded or it isn't.  The degree of overload matters a great deal, and will have a significant impact not only on COVID-19 deaths, but collateral deaths from heart attacks, kidney failures, strokes, cancer complications, etc.

So again, I reject the notion that the system is going to be overloaded either way so it's a waste of time to try to contain the virus.  And the idea that we should let people get infected as fast as possible to get this over with is just about the most irresponsible suggestion imaginable.  I don't see anyone volunteering their own family to get infected first.

[Pappy13]

So SWA wised up and is allowing contractors to work from home for the time being. Unfortunately they said that the reason it took them so long to come to this decision was that they had to think about those that can't work from home. So let me get this straight, not only do you not believe that we will actually you know, do our jobs if we work from home but also that you don't believe that any of our coworkers who can't work from home will believe that we will actually you know, do our jobs either? Thanks for just insulting your entire workforce's intelligence. Either that's a lie meaning you can't tell us the truth (that you really just don't care that much about our health in the first place) or it's the truth and you don't think much of your workforce's work ethic nor their intelligence to see that risking the health of some that don't need to be risked is beneficial to the company even if not everyone has such luxury. I lost a lot of respect for some of SWA's management today, like our VP. Not sure if that is coming straight from the CEO as well or just our VP.

[Spider-Dan]

What kind of work are you able to do from home...  back end logistics and such?
We aren't talking about the people at the airports, are we?

[Pappy13]

I do technical support and development for their maintenance system, but I can login to my desktop PC from home and it's essentially like being there and since we use all online systems like e-mail, jabber, in-house systems etc I can do all of that from home. I don't typically go to a lot of meetings and the ones that I do go to are often teleconference calls because I work with both near shore (Mexico) and off shore (India) folks.

It's important that I can do this because I'm on call 24X7. I never complained that I had to get up in the middle of the night or on a weekend and perhaps work all night or all weekend to help recover from an outage. Now that the tables are turned and it's actually beneficial for me to be able to work from home and all those 9-5 people that have to keep coming to the office don't have that luxury, I should have to keep working in the office to keep them happy? No, I don't think so. It's a trade off. I'm on call 24x7, but I have the luxury of working from home when I need to. They work 9-5 and don't have to worry about their job once they leave, but then they have to come to the office or airport or whatever is their place of business.

The most ridiculous part of this is that I typically actually work longer hours from home then I do when I go into the office because I have 1 hour commute to and from work. I still get up at the same time when I work from home and because I don't have to commute I'm typically logged in at least 30 mins earlier then I normally would and sometimes I work 30 mins more because I don't have the commute home. It's sad that my management doesn't trust me to work from home. I do as good as job working from home as I do from the office, perhaps even better.

[Fau Teixeira]

The most ridiculous part of this is that I typically actually work longer hours from home then I do when I go into the office because I have 1 hour commute to and from work. I still get up at the same time when I work from home and because I don't have to commute I'm typically logged in at least 30 mins earlier then I normally would and sometimes I work 30 mins more because I don't have the commute home. It's sad that my management doesn't trust me to work from home. I do as good as job working from home as I do from the office, perhaps even better.

That's generally the case, offices that promote remote workers statistically see more productivity with lower costs, but our corporate system is still tied to the factory idea of work that companies don't adapt when it's in their best interests to do so.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Pappy,

While I don’t disagree with you, there is a second aspect at work, given your employer.  Having everyone stay home for the next few months will bankrupt your employer, your employer is dependent not only driving to work as normal, but fly to business meeting, family gatherings, and vacations.  If we move to an everyone shelter in place model, there is no need for you to work remotely as the planes will stop flying and the company will cease operations.

Your employer is in the industry least likely to promote staying at home. 

You’re now free to move about the country.

[Pappy13]

Pappy,

While I don’t disagree with you, there is a second aspect at work, given your employer.  Having everyone stay home for the next few months will bankrupt your employer, your employer is dependent not only driving to work as normal, but fly to business meeting, family gatherings, and vacations.  If we move to an everyone shelter in place model, there is no need for you to work remotely as the planes will stop flying and the company will cease operations.

Your employer is in the industry least likely to promote staying at home.  

You’re now free to move about the country.

Well several things wrong with that. First off, I'm not saying for the next few months, I'm talking for the next 2 or 3 weeks. The next 2 or 3 weeks will be critical for slowing the spread of the virus and containing those that are infected. Once that's done I think we'll have a much better handle on it and can maybe go back to the office. Secondly I'm not talking about everyone, I'm talking about those that can work from home without impacting their job. I would say that's maybe 30% of their workforce? Mostly IT folks and management. It won't impact being able to put people into the air at all in fact if they end up cutting down the schedule as is expected the work is gonna slow down considerably anyway. Actually they've already done it. They just declared HDQ a yellow zone meaning only people that are required to be at the office should be there, everyone else should work from home. And if you have symptoms you must stay home and either take sick pay or time off without pay. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do that if they felt it would bankrupt them. They haven't even cut back on the schedule yet as far as I know and they'll only do that if the demand isn't there. It won't be SWA that prevents you from getting on a plane, it will be you that forces SWA to cut down on the number of flights because the planes will be half empty. If you want to fly somewhere you'll still be able to do it, maybe just not have dozens of flights to choose from like you do today.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Well several things wrong with that. First off, I'm not saying for the next few months, I'm talking for the next 2 or 3 weeks. The next 2 or 3 weeks will be critical for slowing the spread of the virus and containing those that are infected. Once that's done I think we'll have a much better handle on it and can maybe go back to the office. Secondly I'm not talking about everyone, I'm talking about those that can work from home without impacting their job. I would say that's maybe 30% of their workforce? Mostly IT folks and management. It won't impact being able to put people into the air at all in fact if they end up cutting down the schedule as is expected the work is gonna slow down considerably anyway. Actually they've already done it. They just declared HDQ a yellow zone meaning only people that are required to be at the office should be there, everyone else should work from home. And if you have symptoms you must stay home and either take sick pay or time off without pay. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do that if they felt it would bankrupt them. They haven't even cut back on the schedule yet as far as I know and they'll only do that if the demand isn't there. It won't be SWA that prevents you from getting on a plane, it will be you that forces SWA to cut down on the number of flights because the planes will be half empty. If you want to fly somewhere you'll still be able to do it, maybe just not have dozens of flights to choose from like you do today.

I agree you probably can do your job just as well from home.  But your industry needs people to reject that idea and have the attitude of this commercial (from your competitor) that you can’t work without face to face interactions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU2rpcAABbA