CDC recommends sweeping changes to American offices | Hacker News Reader

CDC recommends sweeping changes to American offices

cdc.gov

50 pointsbookofjoe28 comments

The advantage of being colocated in an office is collaboration--being able to work together in close proximity--and community--adhoc gatherings in communal areas. Take out these things to make the workplace safer and I can't see many advantages of being in the office at all.

I know that there's a lot of people who can't work effectively at home for many reasons, especially city dwellers with tiny apartments, but I wonder if there's a market for small private offices for them. A open office where you sit in a cubicle surrounded by perspex walls seems the worst of all worlds.

> Modify or adjust seats, furniture, and workstations to maintain social distancing of 6 feet between employees.

> Install transparent shields or other physical barriers where possible to separate employees and visitors where social distancing is not an option.

> Replace high-touch communal items, such as coffee pots, water coolers, and bulk snacks, with alternatives such as pre-packaged, single-serving items.

Hopefully this will help inject some sanity into open offices designs, or better yet, kill the idea entirely.

I hate this "new normal". Whatever evidence you see for or against these policies, they are incredibly depressing to me. I don't want to spend the rest of my life 6 feet away from everyone afraid that they might infect me.

I think you're interpreting the "new normal" too literally. My understanding of it is that this is just until we get to a place where people can contract the virus without overwhelming hospital capacity. i.e. we have established better treatment options, perhaps achieved some level of herd immunity or immunization, and improved hospital triage plans.

More than that - there's a population at-risk of death. At 3-5X the ordinary disease rate. They'll be isolated until a vaccine becomes available - months or years.

> I don't want to spend the rest of my life 6 feet away from everyone afraid that they might infect me.

Well, this is within your choice.

The real problem is dealing with the weird consent issue people are having.

I'm happy to shake hands, cuddle, etc, it has a hell of a lot better risk reward ratio than say, eating fast food.

I hope that half of the population aren't worrywarts forever - we already have enough division in society.

I recognize the level of choice I have in it, but like you mention, it's the other worrywarts - if I'm willing to be <2m away from someone, but they are not, it's still the same...

Yeah, I feel you.

To be honest I figure it's going to just be obvious as time goes on. When the pubs re-open in the UK I'm just going to assume that anyone there doesn't care about this nonsense, otherwise they'd barricade themselves inside.

There's a real risk of a segment of our populace forever marked by this fear. Phobias and obsessions will be around for a lifetime.

Not to mention, further isolation of the old. Keep away from old people! They're fragile and you could kill them with a hug!

It will be a difficult time for the next generation. And the aging previous one.

Hey! Some old folks have money. How about a permanent-quarantine old-folks community? Live in Healthy-Town, where Covid is banished! No young people ever allowed; no risk of infection! Electrified fences and sterilized goods in and out! Just pay a down payment to make your reservation now.

Per HN Guidelines, the title should be changed to "COVID-19 Employer Information for Office Buildings". There was no reason for the submitter to editorialize the original title.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Elevators, stairwells and bathrooms are going to be problematic in a work environment. And will fire drills be cancelled until COVID-19 has been defeated?

Elevators are a huge problem: a friend of mine told me her employer calculated it would take 24 hours for all employees to arrive at their desks if they follow social distancing rules.

While not an office problem, per se, but using public transport to get to work seems like the biggest challenge to solve.

OUT OF THE CUBICLES AND...gosh almost anything else. Offices, even if it's just the size of a cubicle, would be really appreciated.

> OUT OF THE CUBICLES AND...gosh almost anything else.

Even cubicles would be an improvement on many "modern" office designs.

The actual title is “Employer Information for Office Buildings.”

It’s not as catchy as “CDC recommends sweeping changes...” but per HN rules shouldn’t the original title be used?

@dang, can we get this altered?

>C.D.C. Recommends Sweeping Changes to American Offices

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/health/cdc-coronavirus-of...

I'm glad to see them talk about HVAC systems and air filtration. Not enough conversations around reopening discuss this despite studies showing that HVAC systems can cause outbreaks and render all other efforts moot.

Doesn't mention removing hot air dryers that blow droplets all over the place and replacing them with hand towels and changing taps to no touch ones.

Also the Dyson air blades: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/dyson-dryers-hurl-60...

Note: Published in 2016

Not really understanding the editorializing in the headline here. The CDC isn't characterizing these recommendations as "sweeping changes", certainly. And at a first read they all seem quite sensible to me, and in line with general scientific consensus.

Some of them might be expensive, sure. It's a global pandemic, is it the government's job to make it magically free, somehow?

I believe you're interpreting "sweeping" to be negative, but the word itself is neutral and just describes the magnitude of change.

You're reading too much into it. "Sweeping" means broad or widespread or large. It's not a judgement on whether the changes are sensible, scientifically sound or should be funded by the government.

I hate the meme of a "scientific consensus" especially with this current topic. It really goes against the core of what science is. There is no "consensus" at this time about coronavirus, even if there are certain large groups that agree - that's not consensus. Perpetuating this idea that there is "scientific consensus" means that implicitly there are certain scientists that should be excluded because of their work or perspective in order to create this consensus (exclude those who disagree so that all agree).

Science, in the strict and true sense, denotes knowledge. Because knowledge is boundless, a scientist is an eternal revisionist; his overarching goal is to falsify his existing understanding, either by making new, contradictory observations, or by proposing better theories.

I'm sorry, can you be specific? What recommendations in this CDC document reflect science on which you feel there is significant uncertainty or disagreement?

This is almost all just straightforward isolation requirements. Social isolation as a disease prevention strategy has been practiced and studied for literally millenia. Yes, it's very much "scientific consensus".

Sure, there are questions unanswered, and there always will be. I don't see how that's relevant to "keep your workers from getting too close and keep your air from circulating unfiltered among them".

Sorry for the confusion, I'm referring to the parent poster's mention of "scientific consensus", not directly related to the CDC guidelines. There is a strong meme of talking about "what the science says" as if there is only one unified Science (TM) and people (scientists, even) who have differing views are either not real scientists or crazy

The change to elevator and stairway rules to incorporate social distancing is sweeping. NY offices (and other skyscraper-based office buildings) will, practically, never re-open while everyone had to maintain strict 6' distances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com