6 ms·
> Why not? Your question seems to have nothing to do with what you quoted. The context for that was the case where, given what we know about the transmission p
by jsnell 7y ago
> Why not?
Your question seems to have nothing to do with what you quoted. The context for that was the case where, given what we know about the transmission parameters of the virus, it was plausible that the employee had infected others. And in that case, of course the company has no choice in the matter. Those people get isolated, no matter what.
What you seem to want to discuss is a totally different case. One where the authorities don't think there's sufficient risk to isolate anyone, but the company shuts down the office anyway. Correct?
Surely there's some kind of a threshold that comes into play in that case. There must be scenarios where transmission is so unlikely that you think there's no point in shutting down the office. One in thousand? One in a million? One in a trillion?
- Johnny555 7y agoWhat you seem to want to discuss is a totally different case. One where the authorities don't think there's sufficient risk to isolate anyone, but the company shuts down the office anyway. Correct? Correct. I'm surprised there was any confusion. Google is well placed to shut down an office with little cost, if it were a manufacturing plant it may be a different situation since telling everyone to work from home means that no work gets done. But Google is well equipped to support teleworkers, so there's little cost to them. The authorities are still learning about the disease so even if something is deemed low risk today, it may be determined to have been a much higher risk tomorrow.
- mercer 7y agoWhy would Google voluntarily do such a thing when profit is their main motive, though? Short-term, probably, practically speaking.