Official Austin COVID-19 thread and discussion. (Houston: assess, to eat, subways)

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

I’m thinking more about the waiters, who might have diabetes or asthma or live with someone who does. Many service and manufacturing sector workers are being financially coerced into high-risk situations because they couldn’t find a low-contact job before next month’s bills were due. It seems naive to me to assume our economy has room for everyone to act on their own tolerance for risk. The choice is being made for a significant portion of the population.

people at high risk can continue to get unemployment via the state

On the other side of the issue, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in Texas announced some exemptions last week as restaurants and retail stores across the state reopened in a limited capacity. The guidance allows state residents who are at high risk of a severe COVID-19 infection or those who live with a high-risk individual to generally remain eligible for unemployment benefits if they are called back to work but do not feel safe going. Those considered high risk include people 65 years old or older and may include those with diabetes, heart disease, cancer or a weakened immune system, a spokesperson for the Texas Workforce Commission said. The claims will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Austin97

people at high risk can continue to get unemployment via the state

This is good but I can't help but wonder what happens if:

-- You're called back to work but refuse to come in because you feel you're high risk

-- You file the Unemployment Claim, given TWC's backlog, 2 - 3 weeks just for the claim to get processed, then another week or two before they review your case

-- They review your case and decide you're not eligible, and you also lose your job for not coming in.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Austin97

people at high risk can continue to get unemployment via the state

On the other side of the issue, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in Texas announced some exemptions last week as restaurants and retail stores across the state reopened in a limited capacity. The guidance allows state residents who are at high risk of a severe COVID-19 infection or those who live with a high-risk individual to generally remain eligible for unemployment benefits if they are called back to work but do not feel safe going. Those considered high risk include people 65 years old or older and may include those with diabetes, heart disease, cancer or a weakened immune system, a spokesperson for the Texas Workforce Commission said. The claims will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

It's better than nothing, no doubt, but it's still forcing many into a roll of the dice with a disease that still kills somewhat at random and still has a lot of unknowns when it comes to risk factors. I know legalese probably makes the "generally" and "may" mandatory when speaking with the public, but they're often "get out of jail free" cards as well. It'll be interesting, if nothing else, to see how the rules are put into practice.

[legalsea]

At the UT campus in Austin, 11 custodial workers tested positive:



https://www.salon.com/2020/05/21/vir...pen-this-fall/


The article claims they were all practicing social distancing (with a reduced staff level), but I guess they shared the spaces where supplies are kept.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

This is good but I can't help but wonder what happens if:

-- You're called back to work but refuse to come in because you feel you're high risk

-- You file the Unemployment Claim, given TWC's backlog, 2 - 3 weeks just for the claim to get processed, then another week or two before they review your case

-- They review your case and decide you're not eligible, and you also lose your job for not coming in.

Under current rules that is the way it would play out.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Under current rules that is the way it would play out.

Figured as much.

[Need4Camaro]

We may have a potential anti-viral drug it seems...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...s-study-shows/

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by VanillaBread

If corona is covered by insurance and work provided a very safe environment would it be worth going back to work and have insurance? Assuming that insurance is an option for the employee. Take the precautions seriously and take a chance as a high risk candidate. I am not sure if anyone is absolutely correct about any of this stuff yet. Just a thought. At some point these folks will have to come out.

I personally dont think anyone at high-risk should take a chance so to speak, especially not until we have approved anti-viral drugs that have been proven to reduce at-risk deaths by a significant amount. I mean yeah having insurance cover the bill so to speak is great but that doesnt exactly save your life. An emergency room cant turn you down anyway in critical situations and that doesnt exactly save your life either in terms of at-risk cases.

[Trainwreck20]

Not that anyone like cares that much, but I am curious what other people are hearing from their employers. We just got an earliest return to office ('RTO') of September 8, 2020. The provided reasoning was:

This date was selected with the following considerations:

• Allows us to wait 6-8 weeks past the last planned current governmental order expiration date to see what happens with potential COVID post-opening trends;
• Allows [the company] to provide our employees and our clients with specific information to allay their concerns;
• Allows our employees with children to know if their children will be able to return to school/daycare and plan accordingly; and
• Gives us time to monitor that:
  • New infections are declining nationally for at least four continuous weeks*
  • New infections are declining locally (per office location) for at least four continuous weeks*

*NOTE: The source for the infection rate statistics will be determined ahead of time and will be consistent with scientifically factual data (such as the CDC, Johns Hopkins, NIH, WHO and OSHA, etc.)

For what is is worth, we have ~2,800 employee in around 40 offices in North America and a couple offices abroad. I don't know how many are working from home, but it is a majority (easily) and it has been working out very well, so there isn't a huge impetus to hurry back. We had an extremely good 1st quarter and the 2nd quarter is looking to be well ahead of projections made last year.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Not that anyone like cares that much, but I am curious what other people are hearing from their employers. We just got an earliest return to office ('RTO') of September 8, 2020. The provided reasoning was:



For what is is worth, we have ~2,800 employee in around 40 offices in North America and a couple offices abroad. I don't know how many are working from home, but it is a majority (easily) and it has been working out very well, so there isn't a huge impetus to hurry back. We had an extremely good 1st quarter and the 2nd quarter is looking to be well ahead of projections made last year.

I've been interviewing alot. From what I've gathered when I ask how long will the position remain remote (as I haven't run into a single onsite IT role at this point yet) Most employers in IT throughout the nation seem not to be expecting to return back to the office before fall, and many don't expect to return before the end of this year. A few have even encouraged to work remotely from another state for short-term contracts as they don't expect to return to the office before the contract ends.

Assuming we don't incur a 2nd wave, I think that summer will be a slow ramp back to our original traffic volumes, then fall suddenly everything will just slam and we may see up to 60% of our original traffic back on the highway.. then it will be another slow ramp on through December... I also think 2020 Fall through 2021 Spring is going to be another nightmarish hiring recession and the economy will slowly start to piece back together sometime next year.