Panels, in order to assess the effectiveness of the work-from-home system to reduce the spread of COVID-19, particularly in the absence of disclosed data, we have to analyse whether work-from-home is much better than work-from-office.

We are aware that the COVID-19 can be directly and indirectly transmitted in the BPK office area. However, the risk of exposure to COVID-19 has been assessed by the BPK board of management.

According to BPK Circular Letters, the risk for exposure to COVID-19 was high from March until May 2020, when BPK implemented a full work-from-home system.  Further, from June 2020 onwards, the risk for exposure to COVID-19 in the BPK office area was considered to be moderate which is presented by 75% of the work-from-home policy.

However, based on recent empirical evidence that, whether we are in the family or in the office, and even whether we are in the western part or the eastern part of the globe, no-one in nowhere is immune to COVID-19. Therefore, this risk for COVID-19 exposure is always there, whether we are the home-workers or the office-workers of BPK.

On side opposition, we do not consider a work-from-home system as an effective way to decrease the spread of COVID-19 in the BPK office area. And for those reasons, we are incredibly proud to oppose.

First, we construct a model, followed by one constructive argument which is how work-from-home and work-from office make no substantial difference in exposure to COVID-19.

‘Work-from-home’ is the arrangement for BPK's employees to work from home based on their current placement. Firstly, work-from-home was compulsory for all BPK employees from March to May 2020. In June 2020, BPK adopted downscale work activities by determining 75% work-from-home.

According to all circular letters, all employees are required to conduct health protocols, for instance, physical distancing, regardless of their working system. However, there is no clear measuring instrument that how to measure 1-metre away and, also, no clear punishment what if the employee does not maintain 1-metre away with others. This can be a loophole in the efficacy of the work-from-home system to decrease the spread of COVID-19.

In our world, the loophole in the design of the work-from-home system is unfortunately exacerbated by low-level people’s self-awareness on health protocols. Please be informed that self-awareness indicates a level of commitment to consistently promote health protocols when either work-from-home or work-from-office.

According to a survey conducted by UNICEF and Nielsen, only 31 percent of Indonesians have simultaneously implemented the “3M” health protocols. The study showed that implementing wearing a mask or maintaining distance only is not sufficient to prevent COVID-19. Consequently, the low-level awareness to comply with the health protocols, as shown by the survey, make no difference, whether we work-from-home or work-from-office.

What is more, a study from The British Infection Association, for instance, presented that the infection risk of household contacts is 10 times higher than other contacts. This evidence implies that even when we work from home, COVID-19 exposure is always there. Besides, a work-from-home arrangement indirectly induces human mobility due to the lax oversight from supervisors. At least, while work-from-office is implemented, the workers are more easily monitored to keep in the office from 8 to 5.

Generally, the number of confirmed cases in Indonesia still continues to rise in 2020.  During those periods, a work-from-home system was implemented at BPK. Therefore, to reduce the COVID-19 cases, does not only shift ‘where’ the employees work, but more importantly to what extent the health protocol is strictly enforced regardless of where they are working.

So, we understand neither the office nor home can keep you away from the spread of COVID-19. For those reasons, we're very proud to oppose.

1. We shouldn't construct the model, instead, we are supposed to build more arguments.

2. I explained too fast. I need to learn how to slow down my speaking pace.

3. I missed mentioning the 'bridging sentence' when my transition (as the 1st speaker) to Winda Octora (as the 2nd speaker).

This debate (KakaNonaTenoon team) could not be possible with the support of Pak Jasier Goerbada, as the head of HR sub-division at the BPK East Nusa Tenggara Regional Office. 

Thanks for reading and talk to you later.

Indah Pasaribu