"One worker’s company “had everyone come into the office for an outdoor luncheon a week ago,” according to a post"
Some of the stuff companies do truly baffles me. It's only the beginning of June, you can't really assume your whole team is fully vaccinated. Why would you bring everyone in for lunch and then send them home? All downside and near-zero upside. It'd be another matter if it was a full day event where you did some meetings or seminars in addition to the meal, but are you really going to make people commute in, eat, and go home?
I'm finding there are a certain group of people who are really struggling socially, and to them this is a good thing, even with the risks. Some people lost their whole social network when the office went home, and they long for it to come back.
As a person who can only handle so much social interaction, it is baffling, but to others, it is baffling to stay home all the time.
A lot of those people are only struggling in the first place because the broken office-first model required them to relocate to a metro where they have no family or social network. This is particularly bad in the tech industry, because the major tech metros are notoriously unsocial. People on the West Coast tend to have fewer friends and be less outgoing[1], so it's particularly hard to meet people when you relocate there from somewhere friendly like the Southeast.
In a remote-first model people could stay located in the areas that suit them best socially. They could live in the hometowns they grew up in, or by their families, or in their college towns. Concentrated industries like tech are particularly bad, because there are so few metro options, compared to the geographic flexibility of doctors or accountants. Office-first in tech is a siren song of loneliness. First it draws us far away from our loved ones, which leaves us with no other option for meaningful human connection outside the workplace.
I won't argue with this being a difficult issue, but I also want to push back a little bit on this notion that forcing people into a situation is a totally net bad thing.
As an adult, you have precious few opportunities to make lasting, deep friendships. I consider myself an outgoing person with lots of shallow friendships, but my best, deepest friends are still the ones from High School, College, and the surrounding activities -- places I was, more or less, forced to be.
Being forced to be somewhere, be it the office, your college dorm, or the US West coast, gives you a sense of shared experience. Is it ideal? Maybe not, but a lot of people are, for better or worse, forced into experiences that (can) lead to deep and lasting friendships.
Candidly, I actually miss the office, even with all its warts. It builds a shared experience that is difficult to replicate digitally. I can see it in the faces of new hires since WFH started - despite best attempts at inclusion, they're still a little bit on the outside looking in.
To be frank, my life energy is not yours to consume. Your "shared experience" requires interaction from others, many of whom do not want to be giving it. Your perspective of "being forced to be somewhere" as a positive thing is selfish and unempathetic.
People that have been struggling socially are not the sort of people I would want to be stuck in an office with, if for no other reason that they are going to be wasting my time at work.
Maybe it's a bit rude of me but I'm fine letting the socialites struggle in isolation for a bit.
Pay close attention to how you feel during all of this, extroverts, and remember it. You probably make introverts feel like that every day with your pushy social behaviour.
If you have proper tracing and know there's small infection rates in your area, we do this all the time, but still keep the distance.
You could go all isolation and lockdown mode for over a year. Either due to fear, or due to lack of control. However, at some point the costs outweigh those risks.
Depends on whether you get everything right. If done correctly, yes. But for example in my local area, most "outdoor dining" was inside tents with poor ventilation and tables at most 6 feet apart where nobody was wearing masks. Once we understood the aerosol transmission model it became obvious that this was bad, but it kept being done.
In a sense, an outdoor lunch event is potentially much worse than a seminar or meeting since at least during a seminar/meeting people don't have an excuse for taking off their masks and they can socially distance more easily vs sitting at a table together.
My entire team has been fully vaccinated for weeks at this point. If we did get everyone together we would obviously make exceptions for anyone who isn't vaccinated yet or even just doesn't feel comfortable yet. My wife and I have been fully vaccinated for awhile, and even then, doing things in public has been weird.
Anyone can catch anything and potentially pass it on all the time. But at least the CDC thinks the risk is sufficiently low that it is not worth worrying about:
>If you’ve been around someone who has COVID-19, you do not need to stay away from others or get tested unless you have symptoms.
I don't know what this caveat right after that is about though.
>However, if you live or work in a correctional or detention facility or a homeless shelter and are around someone who has COVID-19, you should still get tested, even if you don’t have symptoms.
CDC has lost a fair bit of credibility from my perspective over the past several years. A lot of their guidance, or lack of it, has been politically influenced.
Guidance for masks and COVID shutdowns under a government led by people publicly denouncing masks and shutdowns was politically influenced?
Guidance for opening up and removing mask mandates under a government led by people publicly for masks and for extra caution for opening back up is politically influenced?
Sounds like some terribly ineffective political influence.
Seattle area has had access at least as long, and I drove 90 minutes to get that shot as early as I could. I hit full vaccination status on Monday of this week, so no outdoor lunches for me last week. Which makes me kinda wonder what point you're trying to make.
Yeah, that's my model here. I'm still waiting on full immunity and I got shot 1 a day after eligibility opened up. I am not particularly concerned about my safety but I'm still wary of accidentally exposing someone who's unvaccinated and it bothers me to see businesses and other organizations just dismiss the risks posed by actions they could simply avoid taking.
Vaccines have been readily available to anyone who wants them (in the US) since mid April, even in the highest demand parts of the country. If you are not vaccinated, at this point, there is no excuse.
(edit: obviously, I’m assuming the article is talking about a company in the US, since the article is about the US.)
So, I made a comment about how vaccines are widely available in the US, on an article about the US, and you’re nitpicking it because you have an ideological problem with what I wrote.
I'll paraphrase the reply I put under a post that's about to also get buried in a flurry of downvotes:
Seattle area has had access since mid-April, and I drove 90 minutes to get that shot as early as I could. I hit full vaccination status on Monday of this week, so no outdoor lunches for me last week. But math is hard, amirite?
Only if you are in certain parts of the world. If you aren't, then no. No they are not. For the record: I'm in Norway. Vaccine rollout has been slow - and it hasn't been my turn yet.
At least 10% of Americans don't live within 5 miles of any pharmacy, and nearly 10% don't have access to a vehicle, a number which is higher among no non-white populations.
Depending on what area they're in and local policies, undocumented immigrants may have difficulty getting the vaccine.
Those are just a few examples of situations that, due to your unexamined privilege, you're apparently incapable of imagining.
We've only just reached the 50% mark for vaccinated people. Certainly some percent of those don't want the vaccine, but included in the remainder are people who have difficulty getting time off work, difficulty with transportation, etc.
Similar issues apply for voting. If these factors weren't important, Republicans wouldn't spend so much effort trying to disenfranchise voters by exploiting these factors to make it more difficult for people to vote.
The idea that pointing these issues out is "posturing" is either a sad commentary on your obliviousness, or indicates that you're perfectly aware of the status quo and want it to stay that way. Neither is a good reflection on you.
IANAD, but I'm sure there are some medical contraindications for certain individuals, such as people who are immunocompromised, that may legitimately keep them from being vaccinated. That's why achieving herd immunity is important, and my understanding is that we aren't quite there yet.
Sure, but this thread is about an employer bringing everyone in for a luncheon. People who are not vaccinated for medical reasons should be taking responsibility for their health in these situations and declining to attend an event like this. (If the employer will count this absence against them despite their medical situation, that's a shitty employer that might be violating ADA laws.)
The issue is with the anti-vaxxer types (including people who won't get vaccinated for religious reasons) who seem to be more likely to attend an event like this without caring about their (or others') vaccination status.
I do believe it is true that everyone in the US who both wants and is able to medically tolerate a vaccine should have been able to get at least their first dose by now.
Regarding herd immunity, I'm honestly not expecting that to ever happen in the US. There are too many people who are skeptical of these vaccines, some for the regular disappointing anti-vax reasons, others who do have serious concerns and/or have been swayed by misinformation. The fact that states and municipalities are resorting to crazy incentives like cash lotteries and even stuff like trucks and guns for people to get vaccinated really illustrates how bad it is.
I read that something like 3-4% of the US might be immunocompromised, easily an order of magnitude higher than I would have initially guessed, which means that if you have a staff of 20, it’s possible that vaccines might not be effective when administered to one of them.
It’s not just antivaxxers who are at risk from in-person meetings.
> I read that something like 3-4% of the US might be immunocompromised, easily an order of magnitude higher than I would have initially guessed
Wow, agreed, I would not have guessed that high a percentage.
> It’s not just antivaxxers who are at risk from in-person meetings.
Right, and I explicitly said that I would hope people with medical conditions would decline these kinds of in-person meetings if they weren't comfortable with them just yet.
Herd immunity is not a fixed vaccination percentage pulled from Anthony Fauci’s latest media appearance. It’s the immunity level at which cases stabilize and begin to decline. It is defined by observation.
Cases are at all-time lows in the most vaccinated locations, and are dropping rapidly nationwide.
No, it's the level at which people not eligible for vaccination are no longer at risk because most of their peers are incapable of spreading the disease. The political aspects are just some stuff some people made up.
Some of the stuff companies do truly baffles me. It's only the beginning of June, you can't really assume your whole team is fully vaccinated. Why would you bring everyone in for lunch and then send them home? All downside and near-zero upside. It'd be another matter if it was a full day event where you did some meetings or seminars in addition to the meal, but are you really going to make people commute in, eat, and go home?