you mean the pandemic that completely upended the entire global economy and society?

the one that made entire industries basically vanish? the one that no one was prepared for?

like, I been 100% remote since 2015 for orgs that were already equipped for that, and life went on just fine when COVID hit. Jr. Devs at orgs that weren't equipped for remote definitely suffered, in the same way that not having winter tiers or chains would screw you when a sudden blizzard hits Texas.

> in the same way that not having winter tiers or chains would screw you when a sudden blizzard hits Texas.

Doesn't this just prove the point, though? You seem to be saying it takes additional resources and time to make WFH work as effectively as normal, in-office work. Many workplaces are resource-constrained and may not be able to implement those practices.

How do those resources compare to the cost of maintaining offices, the costs to workers of commutes and being more or less forced into expensive and crowded urban centers, and the environmental cost of the commute and the property maintenance?

So professional work during a worldwide pandemic with all the hardship that entailed suffered...from working remotely? I don't buy that.

I know plenty who said the reverse. Uh oh!

Why is it surprising that different people could have different reactions to WFH? Some people liked it. Other people hated it.

The original claim that’s being supported is:

> the well-known fact that junior employees and productivity both take a hit with full-time remote work

Not “some people were less productive, others were more productive,” which is obviously the actual truth.