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

["Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[e-mail]>]

Very good reasons listed, thank you.

 

My feedback: I would factor the meeting policy when considering whether to attend in-person, but at least at the 114th IETF I had overwhelming reasons to participate remotely only, and expect those reasons to stay valid (for me) for at least the next several meetings. 

 

Thus, no change in IETF meeting policy would’ve affected my decision to participate remotely, either this time, or for a few following meetings.

 

Thanks! 

--

V/R,

Uri

 

There are two ways to design a system. One is to make it so simple there are obviously no deficiencies.

The other is to make it so complex there are no obvious deficiencies.

                                                                                                                                     -  C. A. R. Hoare

 

 

From: 114attendees <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 at 18:41
To: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [114attendees] [114all] Consultation on COVID management for IETF 115 London

 

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. 

 

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

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