-
Chris Anderson: So our first speaker
gave a TED Talk at TEDGlobal
-
I think seven years ago.
-
His name is Professor Uri Alon,
-
at the Weizmann Institute of Science.
-
Now, he and his colleagues there
have come up with a powerful idea
-
that addresses this key question:
-
How on earth do we get back to work
-
without creating a second surge
of the infection?
-
Uri Alon, welcome to TED.
-
Uri Alon: Thank you.
Nice to be here again.
-
CA: It's great to see you again.
-
So, I guess the key to your idea
-
is this obsession with
the reproduction number R, R-naught.
-
If that number is less than one,
-
then fewer than one person
is infected by a typical person,
-
and eventually, the epidemic fades away.
-
People are worried that
as we come back to work,
-
R will shoot up above one again.
-
You have a suggestion
for how we might avoid that.
-
What is that suggestion?
-
UA: Exactly.
-
So, we are suggesting a strategy
-
that's based on a weak spot
based on the biology of the virus,
-
which is a cycle of work and lockdown.
-
It exploits the vulnerability of the virus
in that, when a person gets infected,
-
they're not infectious
for about three days.
-
So you don't infect others
for the first three days,
-
and after another two days,
on average, you get symptoms.
-
So we're proposing a strategy
which is four days of work
-
and then 10 days of lockdown,
-
and the next two weeks, again:
four days of work, 10 days of lockdown.
-
And that way, if a person
gets infected at work,
-
they reach their peak infectiousness
during lockdown, and that way,
-
they avoid infecting many others.
-
This restricts the viral transmission.
-
Also, just working four days
out of two weeks
-
restricts the amount of time
the virus gets to see many other people,
-
and that's a very powerful effect.
-
So everybody works on the same four days,
-
kids go to school on the same four days,
-
with all the measures
of social distancing and masks, etc,
-
and then there's a lockdown period.
-
CA: So if you take
the worst-case scenario,
-
where you come to work on a Monday morning
at the start of your four days,
-
and you're infected on the subway,
say, on the way to work,
-
the theory here is that even
by the end of that four days,
-
you're not really starting
to infect your coworkers?
-
UA: That's correct.
-
So you're infected on the subway,
-
and so for the first three days or so,
you're in your latent period,
-
you don't infect your coworkers,
-
you reach your peak
infectiousness at home,
-
there will be secondary
infections at home,
-
and people with symptoms
can self-quarantine,
-
and over the long run, you have
a reproduction number less than one,
-
so the epidemic,
if you continue these cycles,
-
will go away.
-
CA: I mean, is it frustrating
-
at the thought that people
are going to say,
-
"Wait -- I don't want
to infect people at home,
-
I'd rather infect people
at work than at home."
-
What's the response to that?
-
UA: Yes, absolutely.
-
So we have to consider the alternatives.
-
If you open up the economy
and there's a second wave,
-
you'll get all those infections anyway
during the lockdown that happens,
-
along with the devastating effects
on the economy, etc.
-
And so, in the long run,
-
if you do a cyclic strategy like this
-
but with a reproduction
number that's less than one,
-
you avoid, at least with these
mathematical models and considerations,
-
the much larger number of infections
you'd get if there's a second wave.
-
CA: Right. You're serving the needs
of your family by -- sorry, go on.
-
UA: Even people who are infected
don't infect everyone at home.
-
The attack rates are 10 to 30 percent,
according to several studies.
-
CA: Right.
-
But the hope is that you're
serving the needs of your family
-
by engaging in a strategy
where very few of your fellow workers
-
are going to be infectious anyway,
-
so that's the plan, but um --
-
UA: That's right.
-
CA: Tell me this, though --
because four days out of 14,
-
someone's going to say, "Well, great idea,
-
but that implies, like,
a 70 percent loss of productivity
-
in the economy,
-
so that can't possibly work."
-
I think you think that
the productivity loss
-
need not be anything like that much.
-
UA: That's right,
-
and of course, most people
don't work weekends,
-
so it's four days out of
the 10 work days in the two weeks,
-
and once you have
a predictable schedule
-
of four days at work,
-
you can work longer hours,
-
you can design shifts
and get higher productivity
-
by prioritizing in those four days
-
much more than 40 percent of the workdays.
-
CA: Yes, so talk through
how that could work.
-
I mean, let's imagine,
first of all, manufacturing,
-
which is currently shut down.
-
Is the implication here
that a manufacturer could set up
-
two, possibly even three
shifts of four days,
-
maybe 35 hours or something of work
over those four days
-
and still get a lot of productivity,
-
basically, having the lines
almost running continuously that way?
-
UA: Exactly.
-
So this is a staggered
version of this idea,
-
where you take the population,
divide it into two groups or three groups.
-
Let's say one group works four days
and then 10 days of lockdown.
-
Then the other group kicks in.
-
This idea was proposed by colleagues
at Bar-Ilan University.
-
Then you get added benefit
that during workdays there's less density.
-
There's two groups.
-
There's half the density
and less transmission.
-
And you can keep production lines
working almost continuously like that
-
using this staggered idea.
-
CA: And applying it to thinking
about offices coming back --
-
I mean, it seems to me that,
as we've already seen,
-
there's a lot of productivity
that can happen when you're at home,
-
so you could picture on this idea
of people doing one set of things
-
during the four days when they're,
say, back at the office,
-
doing the exposure to each other,
sparking off each other,
-
the discussions, the brainstorming,
all that good stuff,
-
while at home, they're then
doing all the things
-
that we've been doing
the last few weeks,
-
kind of working solo.
-
How much have you thought about that,
-
whether it's possible, effectively,
to divide work into different types
-
and actually use a strategy like this
-
to maintain almost full
or even better productivity?
-
UA: I agree -- for many sectors,
people work at home very effectively,
-
and we've heard from several industries
-
that productivity actually
went up during lockdown
-
and people working at home.
-
So if you have a schedule, cyclic ____???
[cyclic exit strategy]
-
you can restrict the amount,
-
or you can plan the work
where you need to be together
-
in a very effective way
-
avoiding a lot of time lost,
-
if the person's work
can be more effective at home
-
and more effective at work
and get high productivity.
-
I should say that some sectors
really need to adjust,
-
like hotels, tourism, dining.
-
In several industries, this will require
more thought and adjusting.
-
But other industries are almost
built for ideas like this.
-
Maybe it's even something
you can consider after the epidemic,
-
because productivity can be
at least as high.
-
CA: I mean, I read this and I started
thinking about our own organization, TED,
-
and how, in many ways, you could argue
that could work really well.
-
I mean, for one thing,
-
there's this question
about extroverts and introverts.
-
Some introverts, if they were honest,
-
might say that this pandemic
has been manna from heaven for them.
-
They've found work less stressful.
-
They've been able to focus and so forth.
-
With this sort of four days on,
four days off type strategy,
-
perhaps you can imagine a work world
-
that's optimized for both
introverts and extroverts?
-
UA: Absolutely.
-
I mean, I feel it also.
-
Me and my partner,
with different personalities,
-
we both teach in universities,
-
and teaching through this [?]
-
has [helped me] become
productive in certain ways.
-
So I agree completely,
-
and I think harnessing the creativity
of people at workplaces,
-
we're only at the beginning
of what these kinds of mixtures can offer.
-
CA: But for people who are
on the front line,
-
again, if you're delivering
goods and so forth
-
and you can't do that virtually,
-
is there any thought about
-
how a four days on
and then isolation strategy,
-
how that off time could be used
-
to nonetheless contribute
to that person's work
-
through some form of training?
-
Or is it more just that people would work
very intensely through the four days,
-
and maybe people still aren't quite
earning their full pay in this scenario,
-
but it's better than complete lockdown,
-
and it's better than going back to work
and seeing another surge?
-
UA: That's right.
-
So on a society level,
-
it's better than opening up
and seeing another surge,
-
which would require complete lockdown.
-
For people like hospital shifts,
-
some hospitals adopted
this kind of program
-
so we can protect shifts and avoid mixing.
-
It also creates a lot
of simplicity and clarity.
-
So you understand when you're working,
-
and you have some confidence because
this is based on scientific modeling
-
about the effectiveness of this plan.
-
It's also equitable in the sense
that everybody gets to go to work,
-
[but only?] [in only?][not only?]
certain sectors.
-
It's transparent, etc.
-
[Cross talk]
-
CA: And is it something
that is best implemented
-
by individual companies?
-
Or is it actually much better
implemented a city at a time
-
or even a nation at a time?
-
UA: We think it can work [?].
-
So at certain companies,
it's very natural to adopt,
-
or at hospitals, schools, etc.
-
It can also work at the level
of a town or a region,
-
and then we would advise
trying it out for something like a month,
-
seeing whether cases rise.
-
In that case, you can dial down
the number of workdays.
-
Or, if cases are declining quickly,
you can add workdays
-
and therefore adapt to the climate
and the location where a person is.
-
So it's quite adaptable.
-
CA: But by aligning work schedules
with schools, for example,
-
that suddenly allows parents
to go back to work
-
on the days that their kids are at school,
and you'd have to try --
-
UA: Absolutely.
-
CA: I mean, is the best
instantiation of this
-
that countries literally divide households
-
into different A and B categories,
or something like that,
-
so that that kind
of alignment could happen?
-
UA: Exactly.
-
So you can align different
households, Group A and Group B,
-
and then the children go to school,
the parents go to work
-
in a synchronized way,
-
and the other group,
let's say, the alternating weeks.
-
A certain amount of people
need to work all the time.
-
Maybe teachers are, like, essential
workers and need to work throughout.
-
Just like during lockdown situations,
-
a certain fraction of the population
still works throughout.
-
But a region that does this
should be protected, in a sense,
-
because it has a replication
number of less than one,
-
so imported infections
also can't spread very much.
-
CA: And here is the aforementioned
David Biello. David.
-
David Biello: Yes. Hello, everybody.
-
Uri, as you can imagine,
there are lot of questions
-
from the audience,
-
and we have a first one
-
kind of about those workers
who have been marked as essential.
-
Can you comment on how this would impact
the health care professionals and others
-
who may not have time
or the flexibility to quarantine
-
in the way you suggest.
-
UA: That's great.
-
I want to say that
there's essential workers,
-
there's people with low income,
that just can't adhere to lockdown
-
because they have to make a living.
-
And studies show that mobility
[among] people in the low-income sectors
-
is larger during lockdown.
-
And also, in developing countries,
people just have to go out of the house.
-
You can't enforce lockdown.
-
So this four-10 kind of strategy can
actually make lockdown easier to bear
-
for people who can still
make a living during those days,
-
or at least make their own choices
-
about what fraction to work
and what fraction to stay in lockdown.
-
Some countries can't get
R less than one even with lockdown,
-
because of this adherence problem
[in formal sectors] [because of informal sectors,] etc.
-
We believe that a four-10 cycle
might make it easier to do lockdown
-
and maybe get our infection
level less than one.
-
That affects billions
of people in the world.
-
I hope I answered your question.
-
DB: I think so,
-
and we have another question, I believe,
-
if that can be queued up,
-
which is:
-
Any chance you can do the math
-
and quantify the increased risk
of this four-10 cycle?
-
UA: So the increased risk,
we're saying in our scientific paper,
-
we did all the sensitivity analyses, etc,
-
and the question is, it's comparing
increased risk comparing to what?
-
So, to the economy:
-
it's possible there will be a second wave.
-
I mean, I hope there won't be,
but it certainly is possible,
-
and in that case, it's clear
that a second wave and another lockdown
-
will have worse consequences on health
-
than a cycle of four-10.
-
And so it's really a question of
what you're comparing to.
-
DB: Sure.
-
Well, thank you so much
for sharing this idea, Uri.
-
CA: Indeed.
-
David, stay on.
-
But just before you go,
-
have any governments
expressed interest in exploring this?
-
Do you see people considering
actually implementing this
-
as national policy?
-
UA: Yes, we're in touch
with several European countries
-
and countries in South America
and Israel, of course.
-
Austria has adopted a similar program
for their school system,
-
which is five school days every two weeks.
-
And several companies and hospitals, etc.
-
And so we're very interested
to see how this will play out.
-
CA: Well, I love the basic start point
-
of starting by looking
at the enemy's weakness.
-
And you've got this four-day period
-
where it's not necessarily
that dangerous after an infection,
-
if you could figure out
a way to work then.
-
I assume that testing would actually
enhance this idea as well a lot, right?
-
To test people before they come back --
-
UA: It's not predicated on testing.
-
You don't have to have
testing for this idea,
-
so that can apply to regions
without a lot of testing.
-
If you do have testing, it could help you
use testing in a more effective way
-
by concentrating testing on people
at the end of their 10 lockdown days,
-
just as they're about to go to work;
-
that could make
each test more impactful
-
in terms of reducing
their reproduction number.
-
CA: Indeed, instead of having
to test the whole population
-
every three or four days,
-
it's just once every two weeks.
-
That's a much more imaginable goal.
-
UA: Sure.
-
CA: Yeah.
-
Well, Uri Alon, thank you so much
for spending this time.