COVID-19 Manitoba

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Yeah. It’s been four months. During a global crisis. Relationships, workflows and routines are already established. I firmly believe that companies who think they can download the cost of office space to their employee’s dining room tables will be sadly mistaken in the long run. That’s if you’re lucky enough to have a dining room table. 30% of people in Winnipeg live in an apartment.

Corporate culture. Professional development. Mentorship. Collaboration. New hire and intern training and growth. Interpersonal relationships. Even human contact and well-being. I don’t believe any of this happens as effectively sitting alone in your basement.

I’ve been designing office spaces for years to try and foster all of these things. Companies pay extra for it because that is how their business grows and advances. That idea hasn’t just suddenly gone away. I don’t believe that long term any professional will develop the same being alone, compared to in a collaborative environment. Companies that think saving the cost of office space is the key to their success will learn that people are the driving force behind prosperity.

It’s fine short term. Most professionals can relocate and get through it. But I firmly believe it’s not a long term solution. Some jobs, maybe. But I don’t think it’s sustainable for most. I can see more flexibility, maybe, but I don’t buy a seismic shift. Most professional jobs aren’t just about ‘productivity’...unless you’re a sausage maker or brick layer.

Agree in full. Especially the bit about well being. Everyone's always rah rah mental health until we talk about work from home which for a huge amount of people will definitely have a negative impact.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Corporate culture. Professional development. Mentorship. Collaboration. New hire and intern training and growth. Interpersonal relationships. Even human contact and well-being. I don’t believe any of this happens as effectively sitting alone in your basement.

Employers making big shifts to WFH can likely find ways to still foster positive corporate culture and promote professional development and mentorship in new ways.

You also talk about working from home as being banned from the office, this doesn't have to be the case. All we're likely talking about is WFH, and commute to the office as needed. New Hires and intern training may likely have to be done in the office full time for a period of time until they can WFH, though not everyone has to work from home, potentially just a percentage of people.

For you the human contact and well being are negatively impacted by being stuck at home, I for one have had more opportunity to spend time with my family and when my bubble opens more I will have more time to interact with friends.

Innovation can be found anywhere and a corporate environment is likely only stronger when it offers more options to its employee's to be successful.

Imagine your firm wanting to hire someone who is the best candidate but has a parent with dementia and at risk of wandering. That employee may not be as productive if they have to come to the office and worry about their parent wandering out in the winter without a coat and dying of hypothermia because no one knew he left. That same employee may be better suited to WFH.

In a world where distancing is required and going forward having options can only be positive. Being close minded to only one way of doing things may be a little regressive. This can be used to find a positive new normal, we don't have to just revert back to the same old way.

[dam_well]

I think "options" is the big keyword here. Some people will definitely do better in a WFH situation while others won't. I think there will definitely be an increase in WFH but I don't think it'll be a mass exodus from the office. It'll definitely be interesting to see where people end up when this is all over.

I for one have so much trouble staying productive at home.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by dam_well

I think "options" is the big keyword here. Some people will definitely do better in a WFH situation while others won't. I think there will definitely be an increase in WFH but I don't think it'll be a mass exodus from the office. It'll definitely be interesting to see where people end up when this is all over.

I for one have so much trouble staying productive at home.

I think we're more likely to see hybrid options. Work 2 or 3 days in the office per week, 2 or 3 at home. Some tasks are easier to do in isolation at home, and others benefit from riffing off other people at the office.

[zalf]

My workplace has had a strong WFH culture for a long time. People choose to come into the office most of the time, but it wasn't at all uncommon for someone to stay home for a week at a time either.

Originally Posted by Festivus

Work 2 or 3 days in the office per week, 2 or 3 at home. Some tasks are easier to do in isolation at home, and others benefit from riffing off other people at the office.

This is pretty much how it worked for us.

[trueviking]

This is an interesting study. The headline appears to want to make this seem shockingly bad but it’s actually the opposite. Canada has had about 15,000 cases since the beginning of July, which means only about 3% come from being in public places. Such a small proportion compared to the amount of fear we have being in public places.

Shows you how media can skew a message. No mention of the tiny proportions. Which would change the message completely.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctv...1_5058227.html

Chart shows number of outbreaks not cases. These outbreaks total 500 cases.

[Hecate]

I don’t think the headline skews the message at all. It’s very straightforward actually, and while our numbers might be low, one can just look to the state North Dakota south of us where they are averaging over 120 cases a day for the past couple weeks. This virus travels quickly and easily, and one simple case can easily turn into fifty in a very short period of time. Be thankful you have the luxury of working at home. IT IS A LUXURY! The fact that you view this as a detriment to your mental health is quite shocking to me. Because there are people making $11:50 an hour exposing themselves to this risk at gas stations, grocery stores, and all other types of retail locations. You don’t have to continuously be putting yourself at risk of exposure. Be thankful.
A side note My friend has been in Belize since November last year and the country had under 100 cases, they opened the borders up and it’s exploding down there. He probably won’t be able to get home again. At least he has a home there. Now is not the time for complacency.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by trueviking

This is an interesting study. The headline appears to want to make this seem shockingly bad but it’s actually the opposite. Canada has had about 15,000 cases since the beginning of July, which means only about 3% come from being in public places. Such a small proportion compared to the amount of fear we have being in public places.

Shows you how media can skew a message. No mention of the tiny proportions. Which would change the message completely.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctv...1_5058227.html

Chart shows number of outbreaks not cases. These outbreaks total 500 cases.

I would imagine the number is higher, but simply can't be confirmed. When you catch the virus, it can take up to 14 days to show symptoms, and between 20% and 40% of people who have it show no symptoms at all. This makes it very difficult to trace where people caught it. Look at New Zealand today—4 new cases (one family) after 102 days of zero cases. They haven't been able to figure out where they got it, and the family hasn't travelled.

I would agree that most exposure takes place in the home, but people originally catch it in public (workplace, gym, bar, etc). It seems like Churches and Bars seem to be the super-spreader public events (that one house party in BC being traced to over 100 cases, for example, or the church in South Korea being responsible for over 1/4 of all cases in the country).

So I suspect the actual number is much higher than 3%, but we simply are having a very hard time contact tracing where people are catching it since the virus is so good at spreading through the air.

[esquire]

If only 3% of the cases are from public places, where did the rest happen? Homes and workplaces?

[trueviking]

Close contact spread.

I don’t see any reason to assume the numbers are much higher. I think it’s pretty well understood that longer direct exposure is the source of the vast majority of transmission.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Close contact spread.

I don’t see any reason to assume the numbers are much higher. I think it’s pretty well understood that longer direct exposure is the source of the vast majority of transmission.

It's definitely a sliding scale, and not all equivalent places are equal. A packed nightclub/bar is going to be a larger opportunity for spread than a seated restaurant at 50% capacity, for example. Since the virus predominantly seems to be droplet-based in the air (perhaps going as far as calling it airborne since it may stay in the air for hours), you need relatively close proximity.

Other places that are higher-risk are churches since there is much more singing, or cramped workplaces involving a lot of talking (call centres, etc). Basically, any place where you are expelling a lot of air.

I think as long as good precautions are taken in most public places (like grocery stores, etc), then public settings are relatively safe. When I say good precautions, the big two are wearing a mask and staying 2-5 meters away from people as much as possible. Those two simple things massively slow the spread. If you're in a packed bar with 200 other people, then the distance and masks won't matter that much since you'll be breathing the same air for so long.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Close contact spread.

I don’t see any reason to assume the numbers are much higher. I think it’s pretty well understood that longer direct exposure is the source of the vast majority of transmission.

It's important to remember that it is generally going to be far easier to document cases that arise from "longer direct exposure" than it would be to trace the origin of cases that were the result of a passing exposure to someone or something. That may be why the known numbers of the latter are so low -- most of those cases end up in the "origin unknown" category.

If I were to get COVID from (say) touching a piece of mail, the chances that that would be discoverable by anyone once I became seriously ill 2-3 weeks later would be almost nil, because it's unlikely that I'd remember having done it and whatever it was I'd touched would long since have been thrown away. But if it were from going to a party it's quite likely that that particular cause would be identified. So I'm a little sceptical of the probative value of statistics like these.

[rrskylar]

40 new cases today as well as community transmission in Brandon! SOB!

[GreyGarden]

Interesting new Angus Reid study on peoples responses to the public health measures and guidelines -

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...t=mckeenthread

About 83% of people are supporting efforts to contain the spread of the virus, but about 18% of the Canadian population aren't wearing masks, aren't distancing and aren't staying within their circles. These spreaders are rare in the provinces hit hardest by COVID-19, Quebec, and especially Ontario. But in Ab, Sask and Mb the rates of people ignoring rules and guidelines are more than 1/4 of the population. They're also higher among men, and young people.

[GreyGarden]

Also interesting:

"Those who voted for the Conservative Party in the last federal election were four times less likely engage in actions that would reduce the spread of the virus than participants who voted Liberal or NDP." -

https://globalnews.ca/news/7281456/c...avirus-survey/

[plrh]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

Also interesting:

"Those who voted for the Conservative Party in the last federal election were four times less likely engage in actions that would reduce the spread of the virus than participants who voted Liberal or NDP." -

https://globalnews.ca/news/7281456/c...avirus-survey/

Whoa that's strangely worded. Do they mean 25% as likely?

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

Also interesting:

"Those who voted for the Conservative Party in the last federal election were four times less likely engage in actions that would reduce the spread of the virus than participants who voted Liberal or NDP." -

https://globalnews.ca/news/7281456/c...avirus-survey/

This is really disappointing to hear, as a conservative I find it too bad that a group of people give us all a bad name. Though coming from a conservative family I can definitely see that as a group, greater than 18% of them oppose many of the restrictions. They abide by them but are apprehensive, mostly because they oppose restrictions as a rule.

My wife and I however, impose greater restrictions on ourselves the the government mandates. Being high risk myself and a pregnant wife, we would rather be overly cautious. It helps that we are both introverts anyway, I don't want to see anyone anyway.

If cases continue it will be just a matter of time before additional restrictions are implemented again. Which is fine by me.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by dmacc

This is really disappointing to hear, as a conservative I find it too bad that a group of people give us all a bad name. Though coming from a conservative family I can definitely see that as a group, greater than 18% of them oppose many of the restrictions. They abide by them but are apprehensive, mostly because they oppose restrictions as a rule.

I suspect this is largely because Conservative voters are far more likely to be from rural areas or parts of the country that are not affected by the virus very much (so far) -- what are you really going to do when literally zero people in a 100 km radius have had the illness? They are also less likely than Liberal downtown-dwellers in Toronto and Montreal to be able to stay indoors and have things delivered to them, or to have paper-pushing jobs that can be done over Zoom.

[bomberjet]

Them conservatives are woke. The guy's youtube video on facebook told them so. That's why.

It's an ideology about constitutional rights. It's the you took r guns crowd.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I suspect this is largely because Conservative voters are far more likely to be from rural areas or parts of the country that are not affected by the virus very much (so far) -- what are you really going to do when literally zero people in a 100 km radius have had the illness? They are also less likely than Liberal downtown-dwellers in Toronto and Montreal to be able to stay indoors and have things delivered to them, or to have paper-pushing jobs that can be done over Zoom.

2/3's of voters in Alberta, Saskatchewan and rural Manitoba voted for the conservatives. It's not just remote rural dwellers, but yes could be a factor.