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

Given this recent report in Science magazine, 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1841 <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1841>

it seems that the proposed policy may not adequately reflect the underlying science about the behavior of the dominant variants of Covid with respect to the likely efficacy of that policy. It's not at all clear what the policy is trying to accomplish.

It's one thing to attempt to prevent transmission in general,  it's another to attempt to prevent infection or reinfection by any given individual, and yet another to attempt to minimize severe symptoms by any given individual given infection or reinfection,  and yet another to merely assuage the fears of the attendees, and finally, yet another to comply with local jurisdictional legal requirements.

For example, according to the article above, immune imprinting resulting from prior infection on vaccinated, and/or boosted individuals can increase reinfection rates of escape mutant variants such as omicron.

"That previous SARS-CoV-2 infection history can imprint such a profound, negative impact on subsequent protective immunity is an unexpected consequence of COVID-19. "

Likewise, the following article shows that primary infection alone without vaccination provides highly effective protection against severe symptoms of all known variants. 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.06.22277306v1.full-text <https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.06.22277306v1.full-text>

"Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3% (95% CI: 94.9- 98.6%), irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning. Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those ≥50 years of age."

An article in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01914-6 <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01914-6> about the Quatar study above concludes:

"Regardless of the extrapolations, the data indicate that naturally acquired immunity is hardy — something that is not always championed."

The science of Covid and hence science-based Covid policy is much more complex than the policy recommendations here exhibit.

It is difficult to comment for or against the policy without clear policy goals as per my original question.

> On 12 Aug 2022, at 07:20 , IETF Executive Director <exec-director@ietf.org <mailto:exec-director@ietf.org>> wrote:
> 
> The IETF Administration LLC and IESG are considering what COVID management to implement for IETF 115 London and now seek community feedback on our proposed way forward.
> 
> First, some data:
> - For IETF 113 Vienna we had 9 reported cases from 314 onsite participants (2.9%)
> - For IETF 114 Philadelphia we had 16 reported cases and 2 people who were ill but tested negative, from 622 onsite participants (2.6% at 16, 2.9% at 18)
> 
> 
> We propose to continue with COVID management restrictions for IETF 115 London and to base these on those in place for IETF 114, with some notable tightening as follows:
> 
> 1.  Vaccines
> We propose to continue to require vaccines, continue with a self-declaration at registration and no other form of checking, and to amend the language to include boosters as follows:
> 	"I confirm that I am fully vaccinated and boosted with a vaccine from the WHO Emergency Use List."
> 
> We propose to continue with the following guidance on what that means:
> 	"As the definition of fully vaccinated and boosted varies between countries, please answer this based on the guidance of your national health protection agency or equivalent body."
> 
> 
> 2.  Masks
> We propose the following set of rules regarding masks:
> 
> - Masks must be worn in both meeting rooms and common areas set aside for our exclusive use.  This is a tightening from IETF 114 where masks could be removed in common areas.
> 
> - Masks can be removed for eating and drinking but that should not be an excuse to leave them off for long periods.  Previously no guidance was provided on leaving a mask off for a long period.
> 
> - Active speakers in sessions who are at the front of the room presenting or speaking in the mic queue, can remove their mask while speaking if they need to remove the mask to be understood.  This restriction to being understood is a tightening of the rule from IETF 114.
> 
> - Exemption certificates will not be honoured.  This is the same as for IETF 114.
> 
> - Masks must be FFP2 or equivalent and we will continue to make those freely available.  This is the same as for IETF 114, however at that meeting there were multiple examples of people wearing surgical or even less effective masks and little action was taken.  We propose for IETF 115 that a group of senior LLC/Secretariat staff will manage this by offering those wearing such masks, FFP2 masks as replacements.
> 
> - Finally, we note that we are in active negotiations with the venue for their staff to wear masks when in our exclusive use areas.
> 
> 
> 3.  Testing
> We propose to continue with voluntary testing and to make rapid antigen tests freely available to onsite participants.
> 
> 
> Please provide feedback on this proposal either to the public list admin-discuss@ietf, or directly to me at exec-director@ietf.org <mailto:exec-director@ietf.org>, before 29th August 2022.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> exec-director@ietf.org <mailto:exec-director@ietf.org>
> 
> -- 
> 114all mailing list
> 114all@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114all