Why is policy to go back to the office? That's going to guarantee viral spread. Shouldn't we at the minimum avoid clustering until the last of the virus is killed? This policy makes no sense to me.
The deaths and suffering others faced doesn't justify that, but wfh has been the catalyst in this improvement.
I must be living on a different planet then.
> but forcing everyone to live in fear is not the solution
Nobody forced me. I could have gone into the office. But why should I have?
Being vaxxed and boostered the risk is relatively low. Still I don't go back. The last two years were the most free of all in my career. I missed theater. And concerts. But regarding work. Or weekly food shopping with distance or click and collect were a boon.
Do I expect that to be true for everybody? Hell no.
Everybody has a different view. Projecting ones view onto the planet probably dies not help us discuss in good faith.
Less than 15 years ago, I was well below the poverty line. In the meantime, I live well. And I can't complain.
Still, I know that as the child of a middle-class single father, I am clearly counting as privileged.
Everyone worked their entire lives to get to where they are in this moment, whether that's rich or poor, privileged or not. Enjoy your blessings.
Even if "only" 30% of the population had a very bad time during the lockdowns I would still call the last 2 years a dystopia.
We even kept our sport/dance group running via zoom. Did cooking sessions and social dates.
I am enjoying the moments to meet some people in person. Even in group settings, when our local business network is able to meet and enjoy the produce from the farms and producers in the network.
> Even if "only" 30% of the population
As said I would call it a dystopia for these people. Not for the planet or all members of society.
Else you would need to call pre Corona times a dystopia as well as around your number of people probably have a bad time in "normal" times.
You and me are very different people. Maybe that would be acceptable a couple of months in but not after TWO YEARS
I totally get that people want to return to the office. To socializing, to chats at the coffee machine.
That people want to travel to clients. Have workshops, go to conferences. And so on.
As much as I understand how people discovered more freedom during the pandemic and do not want to trade this freedom in for the sake of the ones that want to go back to the way it was before.
We need ways to accommodate both.
Remote work is even more fun when there's movies and shows and other events available. Makes all that extra free time during the day even more fun :) I've been remote for half a decade and I can't wait for stuff to open up. Feels half-retired.
There are plenty of trustworthy orgs recommending opening procedures and personal safety mitigations without the baggage of weird US “libertarian” think tank funding and completely ascientific calls for action.
Pay-to-publish: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-...
Think tank Funding: https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/13/koch-funded-pr-agency-aid...
For example, it says "Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside" but in my country there is no such lockdown for any age group.
It says "Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home" but in my country employers aren't required to stop allowing young people to work from home (before 2020 working from home without breaking laws was basically impossible in my country).
If they're only speculating it at this point, then they're way behind the times and shouldn't be called experts. Animal reservoirs were confirmed in 2020, and more found in 2021. Omicron may have been a jump back from rats to humans. We're way past the point of it being here to stay.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precaut...
That seems (literally) unbelievably high. If you take an average life expectancy in the US of 78 years (it was 79 in 2019), assume roughly equal number of males and females, each female would have to be pregnant for 7.8 of the 78 average years, or 10.4 full-term pregnancies per woman in the US. That can’t possibly be the right figure.
Total estimated pregnancies in US in 2009 (most recent figure I could readily find) was 6,369,000 (4,131,000 live births, 1,152,000 induced abortions, and 1,087,000 fetal losses). If you give all 4.1 M as full term and treat all the others as half-term (a gross over-estimate), you get around 5.2M full term pregnancies or 3.9M years of pregnancy against a US total population of 307M (person-years in 2009) or a bit over 1/4 of your figure.
It is not the flu.
GB declaration supporters are part of the reason why so many are still dying.
Nobody is forcing people to live in fear - we are just not pretending everything is ok when clearly it isn't.
The most dystopian part of the last 2 years has been the loud voices of those who actually support the virus (for financial and ideological reasons)
Covid is here forever, same as any other cold/flu, we must learn to live with it.
Between the two options, I would certainly trust an epidemiologist over an elected politician on the topic of epidemiology, and I have a hard time understanding the cognitive dissonance that allows people to get to a state of "we have to trust our governor because governments lie." It's not like the governor isn't part of the government.
But formal logic assumes absolute and understandable truth or falsehood of facts among all parties. In terms of data analysis and interpretation, especially when both involve parties that lack the skills or training to do these things, trusting authority is likelier to generate positive outcomes than trusting one's gut or one's untrained analysis in most circumstances.
In general sure scientists can be wrong, even in fields they are experts on. But overwhelmingly they are not.
Also as I mentioned, and you did not respond to, all of us use appeal to authority probably multiple times every day. One example is that most people go to experts to see help, for example lawyers, doctors, dentists etc. The other is that it is common at work to have an expert resolve an argument. It would of course be better to research 100% from first principles every time, but that is just not feasible to do all the time.
Hope that clears it up. Next time it would also be more constructive to bring your own arguments, not just say "appeal to authority". Logical fallacies are pretty often quite nuanced and it is very easy to use them incorrectly.
We don't toss gravity out the window because Einstein refined Newton and found cases where Newton's laws give the wrong answer.
If so, then no, you don’t take the CDC seriously. You only take them seriously about Covid, probably because their advice on Covid matches your priors.
Their job isn't to give you guidelines to strictly follow, it's to give a pessimistic take that someone else can use to plan tradeoffs.
Even if we waved a wand and destroyed all traces of COVID once and forever, this statement would still be true.
We can't let our plans hinge on the presence of a virus. If offices need better air management to reduce the risks, then that's what we should focus on.
No. Is it not common knowledge that viruses are a constant threat to human life that we must live with? Do you remember before COVID when people got sick and died and the world still turned? Unfortunately, we are all mortal. We can't live this way forever. We stopped society because of things like what happened in New York. That's not happening anymore. COVID is now a hazard of life.
You don't get it because you have a totally ridiculous expectation of "until the last of the virus is killed"
sars-cov-2 is endemic, we're well past the flattening the curve phase, it's time to get on with life. Everyone eligible in the US has had more than enough opportunity to get vaccinated and boosted to prepare for the inevitable exposure.
As much as lots of people did not want to be forced to stay at home now maybe even an equal amount of people don't want to return to the office every day.
Probably there will be a lot of different variants in terms of how people work in the future.
Cubicles were bad enough, but open offices are an idiotic environment to subject knowledge workers optimally kept in a flow state to.
I have days with 7 hours of meetings. Why should I stress my colleagues with talking the whole day into a computer.
At some point you just have to get back to living your life, unless you want to become a recluse who's stuck inside for the rest of your existence.