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

[Marco Davids <[e-mail]>]

Please do! 👍🏼

--
Marco
(Verstuurd vanaf mijn telefoon)


> Op 16 aug. 2022 om 17:36 heeft Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 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
>>>>>> 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
> -- 
> 114attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees