
How to Work During a Pandemic - ajaviaad
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/01/how-to-work-during-a-pandemic/
======
cryoshon
>This is going to cost you money, time, and opportunity

herein lies the problem. everyone knows the virus is costing time and money.
but how much do you want to bet that unscrupulous people are going to want to
try to keep their employees working in-office or on their retail sites so that
their bottom line doesn't get hammered as hard?

without a public health response mandating certain measures -- a response
which the US public health bodies have been woefully slow to initiate -- many
people will be left at risk.

then there's the other issue: what do we do about people who can't afford to
stop working or work remotely? at present, we have no plan. these people are a
ticking time bomb because our political apparatus refuses to mobilize in
response to this threat.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
I'm curious what would lead to more death and disease overall: shutting down
retails sales, or trying to keep it running?

For really basic goods and services: production and sales of food, fuel,
electricity, healthcare, etc., it's easy to imagine the health impact of a
prolonged interruption.

But what about less urgent categories, such as building construction,
automobile manufacturing, restaurants, and tourism? Is it possible that a
prolonged reduction in economic activity from _those_ sectors would have a
major impact on public health?

~~~
Frost1x
It's certainly an incredibly complex multifaceted issue. It would be
interesting with the correct data to model the infection rate and mortality
rate.

As a back of the envelop calculation from someone who doesn't do
epidemiological modeling, the US has ~330M people. The flu itself infects
5-20% of the population from what I read so let's say this virus infects a
conservative 3%, we're at 9.9M.

Based on the data I'm seeing, mortality rate is higher than 3% but there's a
lot of factors that go into that (so who knows), so were at just shy of 300k
deaths. I think those are conservative figures, personally. My guess is the
transmission rate and mortality rates are both higher but there are again so
many unknowns.

[https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/01/23/coronavirus-outbreak-
mapping-...](https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/01/23/coronavirus-outbreak-mapping-
tool-649-em1-art1-dtd-health/)

~~~
alexanderchr
I think it’s more and more looking like the mortality rate is lower than
initially predicted due to massive underreporting of asympomatic/mild cases.
Looking at the Diamond Princess there are (so far) 6 deaths out of 700+ cases
in a population skewed towards risk groups.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
So assuming 40% of the world gets it, and 1% mortality that's about 30,120,000
dead.

If it's 70% of the world gets it approximately 52,710,000 dead

however, I think once we're at 40% of the population having it I would expect
things to go worse because that is a lot of people overloading the health
system.

------
jdlyga
Masks aren't really an individual thing that will keep you safe if only you
wear it, but it helps if you look at a population that wears masks vs doesn't
wear masks. If masks are worn by a certain percentage of the population, it's
been shown to put a halt to influenza pandemics (according to a paper posted
late last week). It stops people from touching their mouth, and stops infected
people from spreading their germs to others. It's one of the reasons why the
coronavirus hasn't taken hold in Hong Kong more than it has.

The reason it's not been recommended in the US is because it's not really part
of our culture, and so we don't have a huge supply of them. Medical workers
need them the most. But if we did have enough, yes they're definitely
recommended.

~~~
ghostpepper
Is there any evidence that masks stop healthy people from acquiring the virus?
I think everyone agrees that sick people should wear one to stop it from
spreading.

I'm also not convinced that a mask stops you from touching your mouth. Some
experts are saying that it will actually cause you to touch your face more,
and if the mask is not waterproof (are N95 respirators waterproof?) after less
than an hour of wear the humidity of your breath will have created a large wet
patch directly covering your mouth and nose. Now any time you touch a surface
and then readjust your mask, you're planting more bacteria and viruses
directly on that wet patch.

~~~
rayvd
Masks, as most people wear them, don't do much. They'd need to be custom
fitted to ensure no "leakage". The surgical masks do even less.

~~~
thedudeabides5
This is a very western approach the problem.

Even if the mask isn't perfect in protecting you, it's probably pretty good
for protecting _others_ when/if you are sick.

Containing your own viral spread is as important as protecting yourself when
you think at the societal level...

~~~
nitrogen
Especially because transmission can occur while there are no symptoms.

------
rob74
"Masks are actually not recommended, but won’t make anything worse" \- sounds
very short-sighted to me. If a lot of people start buying and wearing masks
just because it makes them feel safer, people who might actually need masks
(i.e. medical personnel) might have trouble getting them...

~~~
geddy
This is already happening: [https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-
biz-n95-face-mask...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-n95-face-
mask-coronoavirus-20200228-43zikhw4ercbdma3lfeul4u6py-story.html)

~~~
Seenso
It's already _happened_. Ever since the coronavirus hit _China_ , N95 masks
have been sold or selling out in the US. I'm sure some were bought by
preppers, but many were bought to export to China to help relieve acute
shortages in Wuhan.

Also, US medical facilities and government _already_ don't have a sufficient
stockpile, so there will be shortages and they're talking about changing usage
practices to conserve the supply. 3M, at least, has said they're going to
prioritize medical customers, but they're not going to catch up until April,
at least.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/shortages-confusion-
an...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/shortages-confusion-and-poor-
communication-complicate-coronavirus-
preparations/2020/02/25/d9e56396-575d-11ea-9b35-def5a027d470_story.html)

~~~
TeMPOraL
Let's not forget price gouging. There are those despicable "entrepreneurs"
that bought up masks to resell them on-line at high markup.

There's supply and demand, but then there's straight profiteering from a
public health crisis.

~~~
dmurray
To play devil's advocate: the profiteers are providing the mask manufacturers
with cashflow and a strong market signal to manufacture more masks. Given that
the coronavirus is spreading so slowly, this kind of market activity might
actually increase the availability of masks when they're actually most
necessary.

Of course, there are other ways to achieve this effect: governments could
order the mask manufacturers to step up production, or the manufacturers could
take a gamble on the future and step up production before seeing an increase
in sales (and a bank could finance that if cashflow was an issue). But you
know, you wouldn't criticize the mask manufacturers for increasing production
and thereby profits, so it's a bit harsh to blame the intermediaries.

~~~
Seenso
> They are providing the mask manufacturers with cashflow and a strong market
> signal to manufacture more masks.

No they're not. The profiteers are resellers that bought masks/respirators
from the manufacturers at regular price, then sell them with a crazy markup.

I've been watching the prices of these items throughout this whole crisis, and
the prices of 3M respirators sold through reputable retailers has not budged.
3M is not increasing them either:

[https://news.3m.com/blog/3m-stories/3m-responds-2019-novel-c...](https://news.3m.com/blog/3m-stories/3m-responds-2019-novel-
coronavirus):

> 3M has not changed the prices we charge for 3M respirators as a result of
> the outbreak

~~~
dTal
Arguably, 3M _should_ have put the price up as soon as demand shot up, so that
stock would not run out. Shortages are a market inefficiency. If masks are
suddenly valuable because they are required to handle an ongoing health
crisis, the price _ought_ to reflect that. The "price gougers" are correcting
that inefficiency, and the profit that they make is their comission.

The trouble is that unlike in the perfect world we wish the market worked in,
the most deserving are not always the best funded. So it would probably be
more ethical for either 3M or the "price gougers" to offer some sort of
preferential pricing - although deciding who to offer it _to_ might be tricky.

Perhaps, in an ideal world, the government is competently in charge of any
urgent social emergency, and if resources are required the government can
pluck them out of any incipient market bubble by gently requiring that the
entire stock be sold to them, at a fair market price.

~~~
Seenso
> Arguably, 3M should have put the price up as soon as demand shot up, so that
> stock would not run out.

No. Raising prices is the econ 101 solution, but we don't live in an econ 101
world. There are other ways to deal with shortages, and 3M chose one of those
other ways:

[https://news.3m.com/blog/3m-stories/3m-responds-2019-novel-c...](https://news.3m.com/blog/3m-stories/3m-responds-2019-novel-
coronavirus):

> We notified 3M authorized distributors that we are prioritizing orders to
> help serve our base business – including hospitals – due to high global
> demand.

Some retailers are also implementing non-price-based solutions to the
shortages:

[https://www.ajc.com/news/home-depot-limits-coronavirus-
mask-...](https://www.ajc.com/news/home-depot-limits-coronavirus-mask-sales-
per-person/mnD4dHzpSFPId34Qcg03zL/):

> As fears continue rising about the deadly coronavirus outbreak, Atlanta-
> based The Home Depot is limiting the number of protective respirators to 10
> per purchase.

------
matthewmcg
It's only a matter of time before school closures begin. For working parents
with school-aged children, that essentially means no available working time.
I'm surprised there's not more attention being paid to this.

~~~
cryoshon
school and business closures should have happened two or three weeks ago when
it was clear that the US still had a chance to nip the infection in the bud.

now, it's way too late. we've had numerous instances of community transmission
where we can't track the origin of the infection. we'll need to shutter
everything for a longer period if we want to prevent widespread infections.

~~~
usaar333
School closures can be enormously disruptive if not handled correctly. As OP
notes, who is going to watch the kids if you close schools?

We have large numbers of essential services (medical, utility, food, etc.)
that must keep running. - perhaps you could set up childcare for said workers,
but again, you have to be careful here your prevention doesn't cause more
harm.

~~~
PeterisP
The whole point of school closures is to avoid kids from many families being
together and mingling, so setting up a community childcare service for said
workers is not appropriate.

The counterpart to "who's going to work if they have to watch the kids?" is
"who's going to work if they're infected because kids braught the virus from
school?".

Also, the childcare argument applies to just the first few years of the school
- most of school-aged kids are old enough to stay home unsupervised if it's
needed, and high school kids can supervise younger siblings.

~~~
usaar333
> Also, the childcare argument applies to just the first few years of the
> school - most of school-aged kids are old enough to stay home unsupervised
> if it's needed,

It's a problem for basically kids ages 0-11 (depending on where your cut-off
is); that's strictly the majority of children and hits a huge percentage of
the workforce. Again, you very well can end up worse off if you do this
(someone needs to work on medical treatments, medical research, etc.)

~~~
PeterisP
In an epidemic, I'd put the cutoff much lower than that - I wouldn't feel
entirely comfortable leaving an 8-year old home alone for the whole day in
normal conditions, mostly because there's no really good reason for doing
this, but during an epidemic that might be the safest option available; if you
leave them appropriate lunch then 8 or 9 year old kid should be self-
sufficient enough to not do stupid things and phone for assistance if needed;

Of course, that doesn't work for younger kids, but then the main focus should
be not on schools closing but on preschools and other daycare options closing.

The actual practical solution would be the old non-nuclear family; i.e. send
the kids (and food supplies) to grandparents and have them spend some time in
isolation there, while the "middle generation" works.

------
AlexCoventry
I got curious about the US laws related to involuntary quarantine, last night.
The federal government can only quarantine you as you enter the country or
cross state lines. In Massachusetts, the state can quarantine you to a
hospital or your home, and the compensation for lost wages is not to exceed $2
a day! It's a good time to be working remotely.

~~~
mc32
Don’t hospitals have the power to quarantine patients as well? So you go to
hospital to get checked, one potentially end up being quarantined, depending
on their assessment.

~~~
AlexCoventry
As I read the law, I think someone needs to be explicitly commissioned for
those powers, on a disease-by-disease basis. I'm just going on my memory from
reading for a different question, though. The relevant law is here:

[https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Ch...](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter111/Section94G)
[https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Ch...](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter111/Section95)

------
alephnan
At the bottom of the article, I see an ad for TechCrunch SF in late April.
Wonder if that’s still going on ...

------
marvin
I'm impressed by the Norwegian health authorities' response thus far, and
society's receptability. We have 19 confirmed cases, and more or less everyone
who has met a confirmed infected individual is (strongly) encouraged to self-
quarantine for two weeks. Working from home if possible, staying off work if
not. This means that 100-300 people are self-quarantining at the moment.

It's costly in terms of lost time, but it's much less costly than a full-scale
epidemic will be. Will be very interesting to see whether these measures work.
My gut feeling says we'll have a full-scale epidemic regardless, but hopefully
with a lower peak that the healthcare system will be able to handle.

~~~
SilasX
"Oh, hey, please don't infect anyone" isn't what I'd call an impressive
response.

~~~
nitrogen
It's societally impressive if people take the request seriously enough that it
works.

~~~
SilasX
>>>I'm impressed by the _Norwegian health authorities ' response_ thus far,
and society's receptability

~~~
nitrogen
I suppose I would italicize "society's receptability" too. Also, if the weak-
seeming response of the authorities is actually effective, then one could find
that impressive.

------
jbverschoor
Or you just don’t.. 90% of the jobs are useless anyway.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
If your goal is to earn money to continue to live they tend to be fairly
important. We're talking animal needs here, not "is my job fulfilling or
helping society?"

------
misja111
I find this article a huge overreaction and at the same time an
underestimation of the spread of the coming Corona pandemic.

To start with the latter: this virus cannot be contained anymore, at best it
can be slowed down. Which means that sooner or later we all will get it. So
the extreme measures to isolate yourself from your environment in hopes of not
getting contaminated are a waste of time and resources.

On the other hand, for normal healthy people, who seem to be the group at
which this article is targeted, the infection is not much worse than
influenza. Many people don't even realize they have it.

"Take the loss" is the only reasonable paragraph in the article.

~~~
QUFB
> To start with the latter: this virus cannot be contained anymore, at best it
> can be slowed down. Which means that sooner or later we all will get it. So
> the extreme measures to isolate yourself from your environment in hopes of
> not getting contaminated are a waste of time and resources.

Not true at all. There is a great benefit to "flattening the curve" to spread
out the infections over time, as a high percentage of cases for older
individuals will require hospitalization, and there are a limited number of
beds available. If reasonable isolation measure are in place, this could
happen, as there would be fewer active carriers at any time to transmit the
virus to vulnerable populations.

~~~
Seenso
> Not true at all. There is a great benefit to "flattening the curve" to
> spread out the infections over time, as a high percentage of cases for older
> individuals will require hospitalization, and there are a limited number of
> beds available. If reasonable isolation measure are in place, this could
> happen, as there would be fewer active carriers at any time to transmit the
> virus to vulnerable populations.

Also, delaying infections helps buy time to bring novel treatments to bear on
the problem.

