Összefoglaló. Jelen írásban a biztonság három dimenziójának (egészség, munka, emberi kapcsolatok) összefüggésében a home office pozitív és negatív jellemzőit vizsgáljuk meg a pandémiás időszakban. Tanulmányunk egy 2020 májusában, reprezentatív mintán lekérdezett felmérés adataira épül, mely a vírushelyzetre vonatkozó kérdéseket és egy kapcsolati naplót tartalmazott. Az eredmények alapján a home office-ban dolgozók kevésbé voltak kitéve a fertőzésveszélynek: kevesebb időt töltöttek saját otthonukon kívül és tömegközlekedést is kevésbé használtak. Másrészt az otthonról dolgozók átlagosan kevesebb emberrel is találkoztak személyesen. A találkozásokban mutatkozó különbséget ugyanakkor kifejezetten a munkatársi kapcsolatok magyarázzák, míg a családi és baráti kapcsolataik megvédték az otthonról dolgozókat a társas izoláció veszélyétől. Summary. The emergence of the Covid-19 virus in spring 2020 has significantly transformed the daily lives of the population. One of the major changes affecting the world of work is that many people have been able to work remotely from home. In this paper, we focus on the home office phenomenon with regard to the three dimensions of security (health, work and human relations) and examine its positive and negative impacts in the context of human relations during the pandemic. It is assumed that home office is more secure against the virus, as those working from home may choose not to leave their homes at all and thus protect themselves from the virus by being physically isolated. On the other hand, it is also assumed that home office workers encounter fewer people than non-home office workers and are therefore more vulnerable to social isolation. In our study, we compare the characteristics of these two groups using descriptive statistics based on data from a national representative sample of 1,001 people contacted by telephone in May 2020. The survey included questions on the pandemic situation on the one hand, and a so-called contact diary on the other hand, in which respondents were asked to name all persons (and their characteristics) with whom they had spoken on that day beyond saying hello. First, the results show that home office workers were indeed less exposed to the risk of infection, as they spent significantly less time away from home, used public transport less, and none of them were abroad. Second, our data also show that there is a significant difference in the number of face-to-face encounters between home and non-home workers. Home office workers met on average two people face-to-face on the day of the survey, while non-home office workers met on average five people. While no significant difference was found in the number of relatives – whether or not they lived under the same roof as the respondent – between home office workers and those who went to work, the number of encounters with non-relatives was significantly higher among non-home office workers. The difference was mainly due to workplace contacts. This suggests that those working from home were protected from the risk of social isolation by their emotionally and physically close relationships. These results further support the finding that, in a crisis situation, the security provided by family ties is particularly valued and strong bonds are essential for the individual.