Re: [114attendees] [114all] Consultation on COVID management for IETF 115 London

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that we do online-only. I was pointing out
that if we are /not/ doing online-only, then necessarily we have accepted
as true the conjecture that meeting in person adds significant value. And
that being the case, the metric for what policy to have for in-person
meetings should not be "how many people will be infected with this policy"
but rather "how many people will come with this policy." I believe that
Joel made the same point earlier, so I'm just reiterating that.

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:00 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 5:41 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> It’s also worth noting that when I am at home, I have a great deal of
>> control over the risks I take. When I’m at IETF, I’m at the mercy of the
>> IETF’s mitigation strategy. For some, that strategy will seem like more
>> than what they do at home. For others, perhaps less.
>>
>> A better question might be, how many people who would attend the meeting
>> were the policy different, as compared to how many attend it with the
>> current policy.
>>
>> If we think in person attendance is beneficial, this is really the only
>> question that matters. If we don’t think it’s important, we should go back
>> to online-only.
>>
>>
>
> Folks,
>
> Online-only will not happen.
>
> Let's stop discussing that.
>
>
> Behcet
>
>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 18:35 Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> That comparison seems a reasonable question.
>>>
>>> I am not a statistician or an epidemiologist, so I may have gotten the
>>> comparatives wrong.
>>>
>>> Looking at the data for Pennsylvania as reported by the New York Times,
>>> they report for a week 25 cases per 100,000 people.  The highest County
>>> reports 60 cases per 100,000.  Rounding our rate to 2.5 percent, and our
>>> attendance to 500 just to keep things simple, our experience would be a
>>> rate of 500 cases per 100,000 people per week.  So yes, attending the IETF
>>> meeting does seem to be related to a significant increase in risk even with
>>> the rules we had in place.
>>>
>>> If I have misunderstood the data, I hope  someone who knows more will
>>> correct me.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Joel
>>> On 8/15/2022 3:39 PM, Margaret Cullen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Do we have any idea how the percentage of IETF attendees infected with
>>> COVID during the IETF week compares to the percentage who would have been
>>> infected if they stayed home?
>>>
>>> Margaret
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 12, 2022, at 6:07 PM, Mike Bishop <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> And this, in my opinion, is the primary goal. It is a useful secondary
>>> goal to minimize excess exposure to CoVID among participants relative to
>>> the exposure we would have had without an IETF meeting. But the primary
>>> goal of the IETF's precautions is to ensure enough attendees are willing to
>>> take the risk of coming to ensure a successful meeting.
>>>
>>> The recommendations as stated strike an excellent balance between
>>> comforting the nervous, reducing transmission where possible, and
>>> minimizing burden on attendees.
>>>
>>> Sent from Nine <http://www.9folders.com/>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Eric Orth <ericorth=[e-mail]>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2022 2:25 PM
>>> *To:* [e-mail]
>>> *Subject:* Re: [114attendees] [114all] Consultation on COVID management
>>> for IETF 115 London
>>>
>>> Scientifically beneficial or not (I'm not going to get into that
>>> debate), the proposals Jay has outlined would go a long way towards making
>>> me feel comfortable attending an international conference, so I support
>>> those proposals.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 5:03 PM Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 to Marc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *114attendees <[e-mail]> on behalf of Marc
>>>> Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Date: *Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 0:00
>>>> *To: *Ross Finlayson <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
>>>> [e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [114attendees] [114all] Consultation on COVID
>>>> management for IETF 115 London
>>>>
>>>> We should do better than that.  Except for the couple of first days of
>>>> IETF 114, the policy was stronger than what was recommended locally and
>>>> that's the reason why I will go to London.  FTR I support everything Jay
>>>> proposed.
>>>>
>>>> On 8/12/22 13:34, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> > I think that the IETF (and IETFers) should avoid straying into areas
>>>> outside their areas of expertise, and just follow whatever policy is
>>>> recommended by the locality where each meeting is held.
>>>> >
>>>> >        Ross.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Marc Petit-Huguenin
>>>> Email: [e-mail]
>>>> Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
>>>> Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
>>>> --
>>>> 114attendees mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees
>>>>
>>> --
>>> 114attendees mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 114attendees mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees
>>>
>> --
>> 114attendees mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees
>>
>