Working From Home and Covid‐19: Where Could Residents Move to?

As a protective measure during the Covid‐19 pandemic, in Spring 2020, a high number of employees began relocating their workplace to their homes, many for the first time. Recent surveys suggest that the share of those working from home (WFH) will remain higher than before the pandemic in the long term too—with correspondingly fewer commuting journeys. Workplaces are still often concentrated in inner cities, into which workers commute from more outlying areas. However, classical geographical economic theory suggests that a reduced need for commuting might lead to a reorientation of residential preferences amongst employees towards even fewer urban areas, as households trade off the disamenity of commuting against lower housing costs and more living space. This article investigates how such consequences could unfold in space. The Munich Metropolitan Region is characterised by a high share of knowledge‐based jobs suitable for WFH and thus serves as our case study. We collect data at the municipality level for relevant aspects of residential location choices and develop an index for the potential of additional residential demand through increased WFH for each municipality in the Munich Metropolitan Region. Crucially, a municipality’s potential depends on the number of commuting days per week. Keeping the weekly commuting time budget constant, an increase in WFH, or a reduction in commuting days allows a longer commuting time per trip. We visualise our results and sensitivities with maps. We observe a gradual yet discontinuous decay of potentials from the region’s core to the fringes with an increase in WFH days. © 2022 by the author(s);licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal).

COVID-19: using chest CT of major trauma patients to monitor and evaluate the second wave in London and the development of routine monitoring in practice.

AIM: To follow-up previous work evaluating incidental findings of COVID-19 signs on computed tomography (CT) images of major trauma patients to include the second wave prior to any major effects from vaccines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included all patients admitted following major trauma between 1 January 2020 and 28 February 2021 with CT including the lungs (n=1776). Major trauma patients admitted pre-COVID-19 from alternate months from January 2019 to November 2019 comprised a control group (n=837). The assessing radiologists were blinded to the time period and used double reading in consensus to determine if the patient had signs of COVID-19. Lung appearances were classified as no evidence of COVID-19, minor signs, or major signs. RESULTS: The method successfully tracked the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in London. The estimated population affected by the disease based on those with major signs was similar to estimates of the proportion of the population in London with antibodies (around 30% by end February 2021) and the total of major and minor signs produced a much higher figure of 68%, which may include all those with both antibody and just T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental findings on CT from major trauma patients may provide a novel and sensitive way of tracking the virus. It is recommended that all major trauma units include a simple question on signs of COVID-19 to provide an early warning system for further waves.

Intermediate follow up of radiological interstitial changes for COVID-19 patients over the first year post discharge: a longitudinal study

P132 Table 1Follow up symptoms and radiological findings at first and second assessment post discharge. Analysed by Wilcoxon Rank Sum, median (range) First timepoint Second timepoint P value Clinic assessment (months post discharge) 1.5 (1–3) 9 (6–12) CT scan (months post discharge) 2.5 (1–4) 8 (6–12) MRC score 3 (2–4) 1 (1–3) <0.0001 CAT score 12 (7–18) 6 (4–14) 0.002 Numbers of CT performed 81 35 Numbers of CTs performed for isolated ground glass abnormalities (PCVCT1+2) 47 13 Numbers of CTs performed for fibrosis plus ground glass changes (PCVCT3) 34 22 ConclusionThose patients found to have PCVCT3 changes on initial CT should receive long term follow up as a proportion (approximately 9%) of them may develop progressive fibrotic changes. However this is likely to only represent less than 1% of all COVID-19 patients discharged from hospital. Longer term follow up is needed to determine the ongoing trajectory of these interstitial changes. These patients may potentially benefit from clinical trials in the future for the use of antifibrotics.ReferencesHuang C, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397:220–32.BSTI. BSTI Post-COVID-19 CT Report Codes. BSTI 22-May-2020.