(04-19-2020 08:45 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  Coach, with all due respect, you’re out of your league on the COVID-19 pandemic and how “outbreaks” are defined. It is most certainly an issue that is beyond our LT-care facilities.

(04-19-2020 02:08 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  Yeah I'm in NoVA too and social distancing/WFH is very much the norm here.

Most stores still open limit the amount of people allowed (4 per 1000 sf seems to be the general rule of thumb). I'd guesstimate most (60-70%) I see are wearing masks as well, but that's just an anecdotal observation.

Traffic is still non-existent.

To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy if WFH becomes the norm because of this. Less office construction and traffic, less strain on existing infrastructure, cleaner air and water, less energy use, better work-life balance. Instead of sitting at my desk during down times, I can tend to the garden or take a walk or do whatever I want.

And if the decrease in foot traffic and increase in local deliveries/pick-ups becomes the norm, stores in the future will need less square footage/energy to accomplish the same tasks. Overall, that's an environmental positive.

(04-19-2020 10:24 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(04-19-2020 02:08 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  Yeah I'm in NoVA too and social distancing/WFH is very much the norm here.

Most stores still open limit the amount of people allowed (4 per 1000 sf seems to be the general rule of thumb). I'd guesstimate most (60-70%) I see are wearing masks as well, but that's just an anecdotal observation.

Traffic is still non-existent.

To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy if WFH becomes the norm because of this. Less office construction and traffic, less strain on existing infrastructure, cleaner air and water, less energy use, better work-life balance. Instead of sitting at my desk during down times, I can tend to the garden or take a walk or do whatever I want.

And if the decrease in foot traffic and increase in local deliveries/pick-ups becomes the norm, stores in the future will need less square footage/energy to accomplish the same tasks. Overall, that's an environmental positive.

Sounds like the green new deal to me. You must be so excited. Implemented without the need for legislation. Death and destitution for all but my oh my isn't that air so pleasant!

(04-19-2020 07:43 PM)Grommet Wrote:  

(04-18-2020 08:00 AM)Grommet Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 04:54 PM)Grommet Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 05:38 AM)Grommet Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 07:05 PM)Grommet Wrote:  4/15: 44,169 tested, 6500 positive...14.7%

4/16: 46,444 tested, 6889 positive...14.8%

4/17: 48,997 tested, 7491 positive...15.2%

4/18: 51,931 tested, 8053 positive...15.5%

Doubling in 9 days now (4/09 4042 positive)

4/19: 54,733 tested, 8537 positive...15.6%

(04-20-2020 07:52 AM)Grommet Wrote:  A public service announcement:

(04-20-2020 07:48 AM)odu09 Wrote:  

(04-19-2020 10:24 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(04-19-2020 02:08 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  Yeah I'm in NoVA too and social distancing/WFH is very much the norm here.

Most stores still open limit the amount of people allowed (4 per 1000 sf seems to be the general rule of thumb). I'd guesstimate most (60-70%) I see are wearing masks as well, but that's just an anecdotal observation.

Traffic is still non-existent.

To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy if WFH becomes the norm because of this. Less office construction and traffic, less strain on existing infrastructure, cleaner air and water, less energy use, better work-life balance. Instead of sitting at my desk during down times, I can tend to the garden or take a walk or do whatever I want.

And if the decrease in foot traffic and increase in local deliveries/pick-ups becomes the norm, stores in the future will need less square footage/energy to accomplish the same tasks. Overall, that's an environmental positive.

Sounds like the green new deal to me. You must be so excited. Implemented without the need for legislation. Death and destitution for all but my oh my isn't that air so pleasant!

There are numerous benefits to WFH for those businesses that can support it. Doesn't have much to do with politics imo.

I think what smudge is getting at, or at least what I take from it, is it was the norm to for every company to have office space. Now that many of us are just as productive from home (or 80-90% as productive), perhaps we can start straying away from that norm and utilize more work from home for those businesses that can support it. Doesn't really sound like a new green deal to me, just a convenience for many people that has numerous benefits with very few downsides.

And to me that's kind of the problem with our country. Maybe it's always been this way. But it seems like someone has an idea, and if it doesn't directly benefit me then I don't want it to be implemented. Or if it supports team A better than team B and I'm on team B then I'm saying hell no (even if it were to benefit me some). That's just an awful mindset that I wish we could get away from.

(04-20-2020 07:48 AM)odu09 Wrote:  

(04-19-2020 10:24 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(04-19-2020 02:08 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  Yeah I'm in NoVA too and social distancing/WFH is very much the norm here.

Most stores still open limit the amount of people allowed (4 per 1000 sf seems to be the general rule of thumb). I'd guesstimate most (60-70%) I see are wearing masks as well, but that's just an anecdotal observation.

Traffic is still non-existent.

To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy if WFH becomes the norm because of this. Less office construction and traffic, less strain on existing infrastructure, cleaner air and water, less energy use, better work-life balance. Instead of sitting at my desk during down times, I can tend to the garden or take a walk or do whatever I want.

And if the decrease in foot traffic and increase in local deliveries/pick-ups becomes the norm, stores in the future will need less square footage/energy to accomplish the same tasks. Overall, that's an environmental positive.

Sounds like the green new deal to me. You must be so excited. Implemented without the need for legislation. Death and destitution for all but my oh my isn't that air so pleasant!

There are numerous benefits to WFH for those businesses that can support it. Doesn't have much to do with politics imo.

I think what smudge is getting at, or at least what I take from it, is it was the norm to for every company to have office space. Now that many of us are just as productive from home (or 80-90% as productive), perhaps we can start straying away from that norm and utilize more work from home for those businesses that can support it. Doesn't really sound like a new green deal to me, just a convenience for many people that has numerous benefits with very few downsides.

And to me that's kind of the problem with our country. Maybe it's always been this way. But it seems like someone has an idea, and if it doesn't directly benefit me then I don't want it to be implemented. Or if it supports team A better than team B and I'm on team B then I'm saying hell no (even if it were to benefit me some). That's just an awful mindset that I wish we could get away from.

(04-20-2020 08:55 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 07:48 AM)odu09 Wrote:  

(04-19-2020 10:24 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(04-19-2020 02:08 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  Yeah I'm in NoVA too and social distancing/WFH is very much the norm here.

Most stores still open limit the amount of people allowed (4 per 1000 sf seems to be the general rule of thumb). I'd guesstimate most (60-70%) I see are wearing masks as well, but that's just an anecdotal observation.

Traffic is still non-existent.

To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy if WFH becomes the norm because of this. Less office construction and traffic, less strain on existing infrastructure, cleaner air and water, less energy use, better work-life balance. Instead of sitting at my desk during down times, I can tend to the garden or take a walk or do whatever I want.

And if the decrease in foot traffic and increase in local deliveries/pick-ups becomes the norm, stores in the future will need less square footage/energy to accomplish the same tasks. Overall, that's an environmental positive.

Sounds like the green new deal to me. You must be so excited. Implemented without the need for legislation. Death and destitution for all but my oh my isn't that air so pleasant!

There are numerous benefits to WFH for those businesses that can support it. Doesn't have much to do with politics imo.

I think what smudge is getting at, or at least what I take from it, is it was the norm to for every company to have office space. Now that many of us are just as productive from home (or 80-90% as productive), perhaps we can start straying away from that norm and utilize more work from home for those businesses that can support it. Doesn't really sound like a new green deal to me, just a convenience for many people that has numerous benefits with very few downsides.

And to me that's kind of the problem with our country. Maybe it's always been this way. But it seems like someone has an idea, and if it doesn't directly benefit me then I don't want it to be implemented. Or if it supports team A better than team B and I'm on team B then I'm saying hell no (even if it were to benefit me some). That's just an awful mindset that I wish we could get away from.

80%-90% as productive? I take it you either don't have kids or you live in a McMansion with your own office where you can shut the door and your wife doesn't work so she can contain the kids. Takes me from 7AM to 10PM to get done less than what I can at the office leaving around 5 most days. Work never ends from home. From the office, I almost never bring it home. I am looking forward to keeping it separate again.

(04-20-2020 08:05 AM)757ODU Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd3ELlngx30

Interesting video.

(04-20-2020 09:14 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 08:05 AM)757ODU Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd3ELlngx30

Interesting video.

Definitely a good listen. I still can't understand how people just continuously dismiss the information coming out of Stanford. In any other situation we would accept Stanford, a world class university, as a leader in research, but in this case nobody is willing to hear it.

Further, why the hell is our government so averse to conducting nationwide sampling similar to the research that Stanford is doing? Getting the right denominator for the death rate is one of the 3-5 most important data points in formulating a plan to react appropriately to this situation, but for some reason, an awful lot of people really have no interest in that number, and would rather look at the completely inaccurate death rate that flashes on their tv all day and pretend like it is not completely irrelevant.

(04-20-2020 08:59 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 07:48 AM)odu09 Wrote:  

(04-19-2020 10:24 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(04-19-2020 02:08 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  Yeah I'm in NoVA too and social distancing/WFH is very much the norm here.

Most stores still open limit the amount of people allowed (4 per 1000 sf seems to be the general rule of thumb). I'd guesstimate most (60-70%) I see are wearing masks as well, but that's just an anecdotal observation.

Traffic is still non-existent.

To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy if WFH becomes the norm because of this. Less office construction and traffic, less strain on existing infrastructure, cleaner air and water, less energy use, better work-life balance. Instead of sitting at my desk during down times, I can tend to the garden or take a walk or do whatever I want.

And if the decrease in foot traffic and increase in local deliveries/pick-ups becomes the norm, stores in the future will need less square footage/energy to accomplish the same tasks. Overall, that's an environmental positive.

Sounds like the green new deal to me. You must be so excited. Implemented without the need for legislation. Death and destitution for all but my oh my isn't that air so pleasant!

There are numerous benefits to WFH for those businesses that can support it. Doesn't have much to do with politics imo.

I think what smudge is getting at, or at least what I take from it, is it was the norm to for every company to have office space. Now that many of us are just as productive from home (or 80-90% as productive), perhaps we can start straying away from that norm and utilize more work from home for those businesses that can support it. Doesn't really sound like a new green deal to me, just a convenience for many people that has numerous benefits with very few downsides.

And to me that's kind of the problem with our country. Maybe it's always been this way. But it seems like someone has an idea, and if it doesn't directly benefit me then I don't want it to be implemented. Or if it supports team A better than team B and I'm on team B then I'm saying hell no (even if it were to benefit me some). That's just an awful mindset that I wish we could get away from.

I can understand where TDM is coming from if she means less construction is going to mean less construction jobs. However, I'd argue construction will shift to other things that will be needed (ex. database centers for cloud computing).

With less office space, there will also be a need to convert existing buildings for other uses, opening up more construction opportunities. I'd argue that for big cities with soaring housing demands, it's an opportunity to convert commercial spaces into residential units.

If WFH becomes normalized, there's going to be less of a strain on roadway infrastructure and an increased demand for excellent network connectivity. State and federal dollars can be shifted towards building a nationwide infrastructure for high-speed internet; that in itself would be a huge construction effort. It also pays for itself when Americans and businesses everywhere have access to quick connectivity.

I also brought up a point about grocery stores and restaurants requiring smaller footprints, which may squeeze out jobs like stocking clerks, waiters, and cashiers. But as those jobs disappear, demand for delivery services is going to significantly increase. I'd also argue that the demand for skilled, higher-paid labor such as network technicians, UX design, and programmers is going to increase as well.

The world is always going to change and progress forward. If we're going to have a capitalist society, then it's on the basis that competition drives innovation and as such, every person has to keep up with the world changing around them. If my job becomes obsolete because society has no demand for it anymore, it is what it is. You learn a new skill and move on.

That said, I'm ok if we implemented stronger healthcare, education, and social welfare legislation in order to help people who are laid off, in-between jobs, have medical issues, etc. Without going deep into the long-term benefits, COVID-19 has clearly demonstrated that such legislation would at least fix some glaring flaws in our system.

(04-20-2020 09:27 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 09:14 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 08:05 AM)757ODU Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd3ELlngx30

Interesting video.

Definitely a good listen. I still can't understand how people just continuously dismiss the information coming out of Stanford. In any other situation we would accept Stanford, a world class university, as a leader in research, but in this case nobody is willing to hear it.

Further, why the hell is our government so averse to conducting nationwide sampling similar to the research that Stanford is doing? Getting the right denominator for the death rate is one of the 3-5 most important data points in formulating a plan to react appropriately to this situation, but for some reason, an awful lot of people really have no interest in that number, and would rather look at the completely inaccurate death rate that flashes on their tv all day and pretend like it is not completely irrelevant.

I think many people believe the virus is more prevalent and the mortality rate is probably lower.

But, does it really change anything?

If the more people have it (more contagious than believed), the mortality rate drops but we still have the same number of deaths. If the rate is 0.1% and 150,000,000 people have had the virus, that doesn't mean its better than if 75 million people had it with a 0.2% mortality rate.

Right now, we are at over 40,000 deaths in the US despite extreme social distancing measures. We are on pace for somewhere around 70,000 deaths before July. It doesn't take too much critical thinking to imagine how many deaths their would have been if we had done nothing.

(04-20-2020 09:03 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  I want to make it clear that when I say WFH becomes normalized, businesses still have the choice.

If it doesn't work for at your business, that's fine.

(04-20-2020 09:03 AM)bit_9 Wrote:  WFH isn't for everyone. I'm guessing some % of our firm won't go back to normal (normal being in the office 9-5). What that % is I don't know. But, firms that don't need butts in seats and can do their job with technology from anywhere are going to run the #'s. Cost/sqft for a fte in the office against anyone that can and be effective at home maybe it's worthwhile. Do we reduce our office space by 20 or 30% and convert 10% to shared spaces? Kind of a "WeWork" model? Not entirely sure. But it's definitely not for everyone. I have 2 little kids at home so this is terribly difficult to find a place to focus. And like Monachblue has said my team daily standup meetings have become devoid of energy or topics to discuss as we're just dealing with the white noise of supporting people working from home and project work has kind of stalled.

(04-20-2020 09:37 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 09:27 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 09:14 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 08:05 AM)757ODU Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd3ELlngx30

Interesting video.

Definitely a good listen. I still can't understand how people just continuously dismiss the information coming out of Stanford. In any other situation we would accept Stanford, a world class university, as a leader in research, but in this case nobody is willing to hear it.

Further, why the hell is our government so averse to conducting nationwide sampling similar to the research that Stanford is doing? Getting the right denominator for the death rate is one of the 3-5 most important data points in formulating a plan to react appropriately to this situation, but for some reason, an awful lot of people really have no interest in that number, and would rather look at the completely inaccurate death rate that flashes on their tv all day and pretend like it is not completely irrelevant.

I think many people believe the virus is more prevalent and the mortality rate is probably lower.

But, does it really change anything?

If the more people have it (more contagious than believed), the mortality rate drops but we still have the same number of deaths. If the rate is 0.1% and 150,000,000 people have had the virus, that doesn't mean its better than if 75 million people had it with a 0.2% mortality rate.

Right now, we are at over 40,000 deaths in the US despite extreme social distancing measures. We are on pace for somewhere around 70,000 deaths before July. It doesn't take too much critical thinking to imagine how many deaths their would have been if we had done nothing.

It absolutely changes things. It gives weight to the fact that the much more moderate number of hospital visits that most of the US is seeing is more representative than what NYC has seen. It also means that social distancing and all of those things are, and have been, useless so we can all go back to work. Further, it means we are much closer to herd immunity and that the flattening curve we are seeing is organic, rather than created by social engineering, so we can expect to continue to see that trend after lifting restrictions. It means we can pour billions of dollars into protecting the people who need protection, rather than spending trillions of dollars trying to keep businesses open. It is HUGE if the case fatality rate is closer to .1%-.2% than the completely false 3%-4% that is currently being reported.

(04-20-2020 09:39 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  I think Gilesfan has a good point. The mortality rate isn't as important as the infection rate. Without all the measures being taken, the number of deaths would be significantly larger.

And let's not forget that the primary point is to "flatten the curve" and not strain our medical infrastructure.