Coronavirus (San Francisco: scholarship, house, public schools)

[CA4Now]

Just over a third of workers surveyed recently by staffing firm Robert Half said they would quit if required to return to the office full time.

Nearly half of those polled — more than 1,000 U.S. workers ages 18 and older — said that if they had to return to their offices, they would prefer a hybrid arrangement, dividing their time between the office and another location, such as home.

Brandi Britton, Robert Half’s district president for Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, said workers “found in many cases they were more productive when they were home because they didn’t have any distractions. Some just aren’t willing to go back to long commutes, high parking costs and would prefer if they only had to go to the office a few days a week.”

As pandemic eases, luring people back to the office isn't easy:
https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...rson-work-week

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by sav858

Hospitalization rates for young kids was already very low/rare and it's even lower than previously thought.


Studies find hospitalization data overstate kids’ COVID risk

Nothing is definitive, just like everything else concerning the virus.
Meanwhile, Singapore and Taiwan are closing primary schools again. Since "young kids" are now the only age group who are broadly unvaccinated, it would be reckless to ignore them in the equation based on nothing but inconclusive data from these studies.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Just over a third of workers surveyed recently by staffing firm Robert Half said they would quit if required to return to the office full time.

Nearly half of those polled — more than 1,000 U.S. workers ages 18 and older — said that if they had to return to their offices, they would prefer a hybrid arrangement, dividing their time between the office and another location, such as home.

Brandi Britton, Robert Half’s district president for Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, said workers “found in many cases they were more productive when they were home because they didn’t have any distractions. Some just aren’t willing to go back to long commutes, high parking costs and would prefer if they only had to go to the office a few days a week.”

As pandemic eases, luring people back to the office isn't easy:
https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...rson-work-week

Just guessing here, I'd say the vast majority of jobs in the world can't be done from a remote location and require some sort of onsite presence. For the types of jobs where WFH is viable, I figure most employers had something in place for it already. That's where I'd expect long term changes.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Nothing is definitive, just like everything else concerning the virus.
Meanwhile, Singapore and Taiwan are closing primary schools again. Since "young kids" are now the only age group who are broadly unvaccinated, it would be reckless to ignore them in the equation based on nothing but inconclusive data from these studies.

Taiwan and Singapore are shutting everything down to protect a population that is almost 100% immunologically naïve. That's a totally different story from where we are here, with everyone in at-risk groups having free access to vaccines, and the majority of the population now immune to severe COVID through inoculation or past infection.

If the virus escapes their initial countermeasures and becomes endemic in the population expect Taiwan--at least--to reopen their schools within a month. They actually view education as essential.

[joosoon]

There wasn't a here/there comparison. I was merely pointing out what was going on elsewhere in the world, particularly in Asia where pandemic mitigation has been strict. What's interesting about Singapore though (and kind of the point) was that they didn't initially shut down schools. Back in March of of 2020, the CDC specifically cited closures in Hong Kong compared to the decision to remain open in Singapore, of not having any effect on community spread with the best modeling at that moment.


That's why it's significant.


fwiw, Pfizer is supposedly advancing a plan to cover the 2-11 year old age group within the next several months. That's still a sizeable slice of the population for which no vaccine option exists. Since all ages have succumbed to the virus, I would argue there's still a vulnerable group out there now.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Nothing is definitive, just like everything else concerning the virus.
Meanwhile, Singapore and Taiwan are closing primary schools again. Since "young kids" are now the only age group who are broadly unvaccinated, it would be reckless to ignore them in the equation based on nothing but inconclusive data from these studies.

That doesn't mean that makes sense to do so. I think there is more than enough data out there at this point to show what low risk they are.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by sav858

That doesn't mean that makes sense to do so. I think there is more than enough data out there at this point to show what low risk they are.

Apparently it makes sense to Singapore. From what I recall, there were recent outbreaks in primary schools there which prompted the move. Without a vaccine option for that age group, I would expect a country which is committed to keeping their case numbers low to react accordingly. It doesn't sound like they want to rely on something being low risk alone. They want to contain the virus and not let it run its course, even in an age group unlikely to succumb to it. And again, I've learned not to trust any of the data because a year and half into this, it's still totally dynamic.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Apparently it makes sense to Singapore. From what I recall, there were recent outbreaks in primary schools there which prompted the move. Without a vaccine option for that age group, I would expect a country which is committed to keeping their case numbers low to react accordingly. It doesn't sound like they want to rely on something being low risk alone. They want to contain the virus and not let it run its course, even in an age group unlikely to succumb to it. And again, I've learned not to trust any of the data because a year and half into this, it's still totally dynamic.

But you trust their data?

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by sav858

But you trust their data?

Whose?
It's not about that. It's about what makes sense given actual facts. One fact in particular is that the 0-11 age group still isn't cleared to receive the vaccine. So if you're a nation which historically kept your case numbers low, and all of the sudden there's an uptick in the only age range still guaranteed not to be vaccinated, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to want to address that given the ease of doing so. More case numbers, regardless if they're isolated to a group likely not to be hospitalized, means more chances for the virus to creep into the rest of the population. The worry in particular in Singapore is that the new variant is tailored to afflict younger people. It would be stupid to ignore all that, right?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Whose?
It's not about that. It's about what makes sense given actual facts. One fact in particular is that the 0-11 age group still isn't cleared to receive the vaccine. So if you're a nation which historically kept your case numbers low, and all of the sudden there's an uptick in the only age range still guaranteed not to be vaccinated, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to want to address that given the ease of doing so. More case numbers, regardless if they're isolated to a group likely not to be hospitalized, means more chances for the virus to creep into the rest of the population. The worry in particular in Singapore is that the new variant is tailored to afflict younger people. It would be stupid to ignore all that, right?

So then how is closing school even relevant here?