Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

Alexandre Petrescu <> Thu, 12 March 2020 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD77A3A07B5 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.669
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_PHARMACY=1, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bsuMLhJa1eHO for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4237C3A003B for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02C9lA4r007040 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:47:10 +0100
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 43CC420504D for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:47:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38822205225 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:47:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 02C9l96F014152 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:47:09 +0100
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:47:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:47:16 -0000

Le 12/03/2020 à 07:24, Carsten Bormann a écrit :
> On 2020-03-12, at 03:09, S Moonesamy <> wrote:
>> If a decision about Madrid has to be taken now, would you advise people to go there?
> (1) We don’t know the answer.
> (2) We *know* that we don’t know the answer.
> Number 2 allows us to do some planning.
> Grüße, Carsten

Yes I agree on both points.

Until we get to (2),

I can say that I suspect we have a big problem understanding the 
foundations of the problem of this virus with a crown, which conditions 

It is reflected in terminology.

The issue I have is when the terminology is used in critical 
communications, like official statements to wide audience.

D in COVID is Disease.  In English, the last noun counts.  SMTP is a 
Protocol, not a Transport, neither a Mail.

Despite that, all official statements including from WHO, say 
alternatively "COVID-19 virus" and "COVID-19 disease".

In French it is "Le COVID" as if it were "Le virus" and it is never "La 
COVID" as in "La Maladie".

I suspect this assumption of "COVID" to be more of a virus than a 
disease to come from people assuming VID to be some form of ViruseD or 
some latin association like when latin words use a lot of Ds.  Medical 
speech is associated to latin sound.

On another hand, SARS is a syndrome and a virus in common speech.

H1N1 is a virus only, not a disease.

AIDS is a syndrome and HIV is a virus.  Ever used interchangeably?  I 
dont know.  AIDS being a syndrome like SARS being a syndrome and a virus 
makes think AIDS might be a virus too, but no, AIDS is not a virus.

These misunderstandings is what might be at root of problem too.  We 
cant understand something that we cant communicate effectively.

Another misunderstanding, and root cause of much loss of trust, is the 
discussion on whether or not there was 'mutation', or whether or not 
there will be.  Official statements, and qualified statement from 
inventor of 'friction soap' (liquide hydro alcoholique, earlier 'soap 
without water') say no 'mutation' as of now, even though some websites 
show the contrary.

I suspect the inventor wants it to be non-mutated, because otherwise the 
list of acronyms on the bottle would have to change, and people would be 
afraid this bottle no longer is valid.  That might be true or false, I 
dont know.

But, the inventor also stated the recipe to make the liquid is open 
source and non-patended.  Can be made in pharmacy.  That is a great 
thing to start with.