Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Planning for Employees to Return to Corporate Offices Soon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All of the modeling done so far has been wrong and extremely damaging the the perception of the virus.
People have been fear mongered to a huge extent.
They still result in air being physically blown around to be transported from the room to the vents and vice versa. This creates air movement, and spread before the virus even gets anywhere near the filters.
[automerge]1589335432[/automerge]
Maybe you should learn about Swedish culture. Their normality is a lot closer to USA "lock down" and social distancing than you may think.
Everyone loves comparing, but I keep saying you have to consider all factors. That is one, there are others.
“Deaths” is a scary metric designed to scare people. You absolutely have understand the demographic, habits, and medical condition of the deaths.
While Sweden may have a higher per capita fatality rate than the US, it is highly unlikely that they have a low infection rate given the presumed rate of transmission for this virus. If Sweden's infection rate were in fact low, then it would counter the argument that "lockdowns" are necessary (or effective) to prevent the spread of infection. Lockdowns have been, on the other hand, effective at killing 33+ million jobs in the US (including thousands of health care workers who were and remain furloughed because of nearly-empty hospitals), subjecting both children and adults to additional domestic abuse, depriving children of a quality education, preventing timely health care for those with other critical illnesses, and increasing the rate of psychological illness and death from suicide--not to mention disrupting supply chains, putting thousands of small businesses out of business (a major part of supply chains), risking retirements, and creating a substantial, negative impact to the quality of life of almost everyone (including the elderly, whose time is otherwise limited apart from this virus). Despite what some people would hope, free money does absolutely nothing to solve or mitigate any of those problems.
With respect to lockdowns, we need only look at per capita hospitalization and fatality numbers for US states, some of which never locked down, some of which locked down early, and some of which locked down late. In short, there is no clear evidence shown in the reported data that lockdowns appreciably reduced the per capita rates of hospitalizations or deaths, although in some areas (such as NYC) the lockdowns may have contributed to an increase (though there are other factors as well). In any case, the median age of death in most states is >80, and a vast majority of fatalities involved not only advanced age, but multiple serious underlying conditions (the most fatal of which appears to be heart disease). In very few areas were hospitals overrun with COVID patients, especially in states where lockdowns were not done, or done late. The reported data does not provide a credible reason why most working-aged people should be sheltered in their homes.
Really, though, the biggest tragedy are the school-aged kids. According to CDC data along with data from other countries, this virus represents almost no risk to children (certainly much lower than the seasonal flu), and studies have shown that children are not a significant transmission vector to adults. There appears to be no good scientific reason to close the schools, and no reason to "protect" the children from a disease which is less fatal to them than the seasonal flu.
It would seem that testing for the active virus at this point is mostly meaningless apart from clinical treatment. Based on the serology sampling which has been done in the US, we know that significant portions of the population in certain areas have antibodies for the virus, though clearly more of this type of testing needs to be done. There would appear to be little honest purpose in the "test/isolate/contain" strategy at this point, because the genie was out of the bottle for at least 2 months (and likely longer) prior to any lockdowns, and virtually all areas have passed peak hospitalization and fatality numbers. If you work in an office and come down with COVID-19--assuming that you're actually symptomatic--it's virtually impossible to establish how much risk you present to others in your workplace without reliable serological test data from your coworkers. Without knowing the true infection rate (even ignoring other demographic risk data), it's tough to make a serious argument that an individual with a positive active virus test result presents a serious public health threat.
And finally, masks. Apple is apparently requiring masks in their retail stores (for employees and customers), as well as for those returning to corporate offices. I have seen no credible clinical studies which show that masks (except for N95 or similar respirators) have any appreciable impact on the spread of this or similar respiratory viruses; in fact, the CDC and WHO (and others) have published studies and statements which specifically conclude that masks have been proven ineffective at preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, and may even contribute to the spread due to improper practices of the wearer. Even masks which have been proven effective in preventing the spread of such diseases depend on proper protocols for use, which virtually no one outside of trained healthcare personnel appear to practice.
Let's face it, no one wants to get sick. Even with a head cold. That should be reason enough to practice good hygiene and take precautions which are proven to be effective in reducing the spread of *any* airborne disease. Personally, I think (and have always thought) that the "open concept, family-style" work areas are a bad idea. Collaboration is good, but everyone needs his or her own personal space and time alone to concentrate on job-related challenges, and you just don't get that when you're sitting at a big open-air table with a bunch of your coworkers every day. On the other hand, constant social isolation isn't healthy or productive for anyone, which is why--regardless of the risks--we must all get back to our "normal" routines as soon as possible.
With respect to lockdowns, we need only look at per capita hospitalization and fatality numbers for US states, some of which never locked down, some of which locked down early, and some of which locked down late. In short, there is no clear evidence shown in the reported data that lockdowns appreciably reduced the per capita rates of hospitalizations or deaths, although in some areas (such as NYC) the lockdowns may have contributed to an increase (though there are other factors as well). In any case, the median age of death in most states is >80, and a vast majority of fatalities involved not only advanced age, but multiple serious underlying conditions (the most fatal of which appears to be heart disease). In very few areas were hospitals overrun with COVID patients, especially in states where lockdowns were not done, or done late. The reported data does not provide a credible reason why most working-aged people should be sheltered in their homes.
Really, though, the biggest tragedy are the school-aged kids. According to CDC data along with data from other countries, this virus represents almost no risk to children (certainly much lower than the seasonal flu), and studies have shown that children are not a significant transmission vector to adults. There appears to be no good scientific reason to close the schools, and no reason to "protect" the children from a disease which is less fatal to them than the seasonal flu.
It would seem that testing for the active virus at this point is mostly meaningless apart from clinical treatment. Based on the serology sampling which has been done in the US, we know that significant portions of the population in certain areas have antibodies for the virus, though clearly more of this type of testing needs to be done. There would appear to be little honest purpose in the "test/isolate/contain" strategy at this point, because the genie was out of the bottle for at least 2 months (and likely longer) prior to any lockdowns, and virtually all areas have passed peak hospitalization and fatality numbers. If you work in an office and come down with COVID-19--assuming that you're actually symptomatic--it's virtually impossible to establish how much risk you present to others in your workplace without reliable serological test data from your coworkers. Without knowing the true infection rate (even ignoring other demographic risk data), it's tough to make a serious argument that an individual with a positive active virus test result presents a serious public health threat.
And finally, masks. Apple is apparently requiring masks in their retail stores (for employees and customers), as well as for those returning to corporate offices. I have seen no credible clinical studies which show that masks (except for N95 or similar respirators) have any appreciable impact on the spread of this or similar respiratory viruses; in fact, the CDC and WHO (and others) have published studies and statements which specifically conclude that masks have been proven ineffective at preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, and may even contribute to the spread due to improper practices of the wearer. Even masks which have been proven effective in preventing the spread of such diseases depend on proper protocols for use, which virtually no one outside of trained healthcare personnel appear to practice.
Let's face it, no one wants to get sick. Even with a head cold. That should be reason enough to practice good hygiene and take precautions which are proven to be effective in reducing the spread of *any* airborne disease. Personally, I think (and have always thought) that the "open concept, family-style" work areas are a bad idea. Collaboration is good, but everyone needs his or her own personal space and time alone to concentrate on job-related challenges, and you just don't get that when you're sitting at a big open-air table with a bunch of your coworkers every day. On the other hand, constant social isolation isn't healthy or productive for anyone, which is why--regardless of the risks--we must all get back to our "normal" routines as soon as possible.
The stay at home order were not to limit deaths! They were to limit overtaxing our health care systems. What don't people understand about that? People dying in Sweden is not proof that their method of handling the crisis is wrong. They have a lower population and a national healthcare system. As long as their population can handle the surge they are fine. Also, they will not have a second wave.
So then, I assume you would argue for reopening to the extent that we do not overwhelm the Health Care system, since we are well within capacity for most of the US? Turn the valve on until we see danger signs that we might be approaching capacity.
The central argument for the lockdowns (and "stopping the spread") was to prevent a spike in excess deaths due to the healthcare system becoming overwhelmed. However, the US healthcare system was *never* overwhelmed, nor anywhere even remotely close to it; there were some hospitals in NY/NJ, MI, and elsewhere which went on diversion, but that is not something which is unusual in times of high demand (such as after any other crisis or disaster). On the whole, there was a gross oversupply of available beds (and ventilators) within the US healthcare system versus the shortages which were forecast.
There is no question that the new coronavirus is a disease to be taken seriously, and it appears that our healthcare workers here in the US have done a great job in responding to it. From a public policy perspective, we probably would have done better (fewer deaths) to focus on locking down nursing homes and isolating patients at hospitals rather than stopping the economy. I doubt very much that most nursing home residents are riding the subways in NYC or working on the Apple campus, for example.
The only CA automaker is Tesla, and they've reopened, which may be illegal.
Last edited:
Educating an entire population that know no sterile techniques takes time - time you do not have as infections spread exponentially. You also need to discipline an entire population and acceptance to change rules to protect other than yourself. That is very problematic to do in a few weeks time and hence the lockdown.
Being a Swede living in Denmark, I follow both countries pretty well. My conclusion is that the Swedish approach has yet to show its advantage over the Danish more restricted approach. We will see in a years time who had the best strategy as we all lack data at the moment.
Whatever strategy - COVID-19 is exposing weaknesses in all countries and these weaknesses are not necessarily the same.
Great with the option of working at home. More productive, less stress, no road rage, no emissions, no need to build more roads, more time for leisure, more time with the kids... In the long run I could easily work 2-3 days a week from home. The companies that gets this working from home will have an advantage in the future.
They don't make the hardware there, so I don't see it. They design physical things, but the designs are virtual.
Working from home has been a bit more productive for me at Big Tech Company™. Having people constantly interrupt me with questions at my desk instead of messaging was worse than me having to cook and such on my own schedule. But I feel like some people are slacking big time; those open offices were mainly to prevent that.
Last edited:
You mean Sweden with the highest death rate in whole scandinavia?
Right, it only makes sense to compare to neighboring countries that locked down, which there are.
Sweden has the highest death rate among them, which IMO isn't a useful stat. Deaths per capita makes more sense, and theirs is also much higher. So any way you slice it, they're doing worse, at least so far.
The parallel with Facebook or even Google doesn’t make any sense. Apple is mostly selling hardware. Facebook and Google are selling services (Google arte also selling hardware but to a less extent).
Apple needs a physical presence in some departments.
The problem is this virus isn’t going anywhere...
Countries are opening up but people are still getting sick.
Apple needs a physical presence in some departments.
The problem is this virus isn’t going anywhere...
Countries are opening up but people are still getting sick.
Then why are so many people dying there? The only possible advantage is that their immunity means fewer deaths by the end of this, but I doubt it, especially if a vaccine is developed.
There is nothing to learn from a country like Sweden. It is hard to judge numbers at this point, but mortality rate per million of citizens are among the highest in Europe, and the country has just 10 millions citizens on an enormous territory. The first impression is Sweden didn’t a good job in controlling the infection, and their model isn’t applicable in more complex countries like US.
The Apple campus is in California, so NY, NJ an MA are irrelevant. The SF Bay Area locked down before the rest of the company, and the tech companies in the area, including Apple, sent workers home before the government did.
32/24 is the 33% I indicated. More importantly it is higher for a lower infection rate which is typical of countries who react slowly to an outbreak and let their healthcare system become overwhelmed.
The rest of your comment is full of “mights“ which just indicates wishful thinking. They might also be on the precipice of doom, but I didn’t make that argument because there is no evidence to support it. The only evidence we have is current data which shows that Sweden is significantly underperforming California and is not an obvious positive role model in this scenario.
The economics haven’t fully played out here, but there’s a lot of variables. Shutting down is causing economic trauma for sure, but not shutting down is likely to as well. Government response to the hardship will also play a critical role in the economic outcomes as well.
I think you have no idea what you just posted. Nothing about that graph supports your point (and certainly not the point of the Twitter guy). Deaths haven’t collapsed. That graph is showing the date of death accounting for reporting delays— meaning new deaths reported today but delayed 14 days are shown on that graph 14 days ago. It’s a really useful way of looking at the progress of the disease.
The reason the bright colored bars that seem to have gotten your attention are getting smaller to the right is because not all of the deaths from those days have been reported yet because of the reporting delay— which is the whole point of that chart. The gray bars show the modeled deaths. The gray bars start to deviate from the colored bars about 14 days ago because the longest delays are about 14 days. In other words, today is May 12th and some data is delayed as much as 14 days so data for April 28th is likely not yet complete. As each day passes the colored bars before today will continue to grow as the reports come in and eventually should come close to the gray bars.
If you’re going to distrust the media, that’s fine, but you need to be able to interpret data on your own if you want to be an independent thinker, not just start posting pictures that you don’t understand but that you think make your point.
Last edited:
The problem with "waiting this out" is that it won't work. As soon as people return back to normal - it's going to spread again, if we don't stay home until a vaccine is ready for us. The vast majority of the world's population will get Covid-19, that's a inevitable fact
”Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
No, if you "wait it out" then you limit the virus ability to spread. If it has no hosts to spread to due to lack of contact (isolation, social distancing, etc.), and the people who ARE infected either die or recover, it burns out.
It does however require a time commitment to actually work, and re-opening everything without sufficient controls (including contact tracing, supply of PPE, modifications to the work environment, etc.) whilst there are still large numbers of active cases is not going to help at all.
We're close to this in Western Australia. We are back down to 1 single identified case who is currently isolated in hospital. We have border controls, regional quarantine/travel restrictions, etc. so we have a very realistic possibility of killing this locally entirely after only 590 or so cases in ~2.5 million people in this state. We were seeing exponential growth (similar rate to everyone else) for about 1-2 weeks before we locked down around mid-late march.
Last edited:
Problem is, Sweden does not know if their infection rate or, even more important, immunity is better. I only know that their strategy is fitting for low risk persons. 70+, like my parent are affected very hard and are essentially seeing real lockdowns. It is phrased as "recommendations ". Sounds not so bad but a "recommendation" in Sweden, particularly for the 70+ generation equals an "order".
But hey, they are "only" boomers. The last was sarcasm but with the edge that someone is paying the price for any strategy. In Denmark, it is mix of politics and healthcare expert recommendations which I prefer. In Sweden, the whole show is run by the healthcare experts. Who is going to pay the price is in my opinion a political question and should not be decided by the healthcare experts. That being said, Denmark has been opening up and is by next week, soon to be as open as Sweden. Let's see what happens.
We know in 1-2 years or longer who had the best strategy.
Back on topic: I am happy to work from home and I think many other as well so something good has come from this.
We don't even know if immunity is even a thing yet.
Throwing caution to the wind and assuming that people who get infected won't just get re-infected again later after either a period of limited immunity or re-infection by a mutated strain of this is.... optimistic to say the least.
Every time it spreads there is a chance of mutation. If you let this thing run wild, after enough mutations you end up with something significantly different which may well be able to re-infect someone immune to the original strain.
Much like the common cold, another coronavirus; for which there is no vaccine despite decades of effort.
Throwing caution to the wind and assuming that people who get infected won't just get re-infected again later after either a period of limited immunity or re-infection by a mutated strain of this is.... optimistic to say the least.
Every time it spreads there is a chance of mutation. If you let this thing run wild, after enough mutations you end up with something significantly different which may well be able to re-infect someone immune to the original strain.
Much like the common cold, another coronavirus; for which there is no vaccine despite decades of effort.
Agreed
I would disagree with this. Look at the active case stats for countries that have implemented a proper lock down.
New Zealand COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
New Zealand Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.
www.worldometers.info
South Korea COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
South Korea Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.
www.worldometers.info
Norway COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
Norway Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.
www.worldometers.info
I strongly disagree with this. Other countries that have issued lock downs haven't seen anywhere near the rate job losses that the US is seeing. The problem is the ineffective US government that has not been preventing job losses.
Having properly funded social programs and a functioning government with caring and thoughtful politicians will help mitigate these problems. So yes, money will help mitigate these issues. Saying "free money" is a false narrative talking point. Please don't fall in to this trap.
You can compare the US to other countries stats who locked down, and there is a huge difference. Lockdowns are more about mitigating the amount of active cases. The less active cases there are, the easier it is to deal with the patients who do have serious complications.
From the CDC site - Based on available evidence, children do not appear to be at higher risk for COVID-19 than adults -
Saying there is almost no risk is incorrect, unless it's been mentioned somewhere else by the CDC recently.
Can you cite which studies you are talking about with regards to children not being a significant transmission vector? I'm genuinely curious.
The reason to close schools is to mitigate transmission. The fact that children currently aren't being effected is really strange with this disease, but this may change. Viruses mutate, and maybe it's next mutation will start to effect children seriously. Is that worth the risk of having to home school/distance learn for a few months? I'm not sure. We are seeing some cases of Kawasaki disease in children with Covid which is really concerning though.
Testing is important for us to learn about the virus. How it's spreading, how fast it's spreading, is it mutating, who is it affecting. Less deaths is better than more deaths obviously, and we need to know as much as possible to be able to make informed decisions about how to mitigate the amount of deaths. Testing helps us know things so we can make informed decisions.
Will masks 100% stop you from contracting, or spreading covid19? No, of course not, but they will help. Say some one with Covid coughs, if they have a mask on less particles spread. I don't see why having to wear a mask is big issue, besides being uncomfortable. I'm not sure why you think it could increase the chance of spread?
Agreed. Open office plans are sometime more of a hinderance than they are a help. I don't think there is a perfect solution to the office space conundrum though.
An intersting video about open offices if you're interested
I totally get it through. Lock down is hard, and is damaging to the economy, but so is death. How do you way up the economy with death. Financially how much does a death cost the economy? Is it the job they did, the people the support, the service and products they pay for? The taxes they paid as well? Maybe add in the bereavement of their loved ones? . Death is not only heart breaking, it's expensive.
It's actually some peoples job to actually think about this.
Lives Vs. The Economy : Planet Money
Is it worth it to shut down the economy to save lives? How do you know when to reopen it? Should we let people die to save the economy? Economists say each human life is worth about $10 million dollars. How did they get that number? | Subscribe to our weekly newsletter here.
www.npr.org
An interesting listen. I may disagree a little with the final number though (I think age should be brought in to the equation to some degree).
We don't have Australian unemployment figures post-lockdown yet, however the government has spent over 120-160 (can't remember exactly) billion dollars (for a population of 25m - for context vs. the USA) on wage subsidies and job protection measures whilst those who can't work are temporarily stood down.
Essentially business are being paid to keep people officially on-staff (and receiving a pay check) even if they can't currently work with a view to having them come back after this is over.
The USA has plenty of money to do this as well (for you guys, we'd be talking 1-2 trillion (taking currency conversion into account) or so for equal per-person expenditure), it's just a matter of priorities; and under the Trump government they simply aren't there.
The cynic in me says that the current US government maybe even sees this as an ageing population solution, rather than a serious health problem to solve.
Otherwise they'd be spending the time and money required to fix it.
Essentially business are being paid to keep people officially on-staff (and receiving a pay check) even if they can't currently work with a view to having them come back after this is over.
The USA has plenty of money to do this as well (for you guys, we'd be talking 1-2 trillion (taking currency conversion into account) or so for equal per-person expenditure), it's just a matter of priorities; and under the Trump government they simply aren't there.
The cynic in me says that the current US government maybe even sees this as an ageing population solution, rather than a serious health problem to solve.
Otherwise they'd be spending the time and money required to fix it.
Last edited:
Same here, I work for a small company (70 people) and we've been working from home since the second week of March. Hopefully we'll keep working remotely for the whole summer and gradually get back to office in September.
I'll be advocating for at least partial remote even this fall, we've been able to run business as usual during the pandemic, so what's the point in coming to the office each and every day? Besides, commuting will be a real pain this fall, as trains will operate at limited capacity so traffic will be worse than usual.