Re: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107 Vancouver

[Joseph Potvin <[e-mail]>]

+1  In my assessment, IETF107 presents a rare but valuable opportunity for
the most Internet-knowledgeable community there is, to competently
demonstrate to the world how to calmly but rapidly shift a large
in-person+online conference to a successful Plan B full-online conference.
Any weaknesses in performance would be worth addressing as guidance (and as
practical utilities) for other international events that are otherwise
facing outright cancellation. What better community than this to illustrate
how to minimize the negative impacts?

"Precaution ... simply urges that time and space be found to get things
right ... the crux of precaution lies in the rigour of taking similar care
in avoiding the scientific error of mistakenly assuming safety, to avoiding
mistakenly assuming harm." (The Guardian: "Why the precautionary principle
matters" https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/08/
precautionary-principle-science-policy ) This article is helpful because it
clearly distinguishes "risk" from "uncertainty". Regular flu has known risk
factors. Several key characteristics of COVID-19 remain uncertain.

At minimum, prompt work towards a Plan B also provides a way "to
pressure-test preparedness and emergency response plans" (Emergency
Preparedness Partnerships
https://emergencypreparednesspartnerships.com/a-blast-from-the-past-influenza/
)

Business continuity plans prioritize resilience, not rigidity.

Joseph Potvin
Executive Director, Xalgorithms Foundation
Mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]
https://www.xalgorithms.org


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:21 AM Andrew Alston <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Personally, I think that holding this meeting is a risky move – and I’m
> not sure it’s a responsible one.
>
>
>
> Yes – it can be argued that the individuals who are travelling to the
> meeting are taking the risk knowingly and be it on their heads – the
> problem is – it goes far beyond those individuals.  Multiple
> multi-nationals are shutting down offices in various places, there are
> corporate travel bans going into effect (and the current statement says
> that if you register and want a refund, it has to be a government imposed
> travel ban)
>
>
>
> Right now from my perspective – we’ve been lucky over here in Africa where
> it hasn’t arrived yet – but – if it does – there is no real infrastructure
> to deal with something like this – and it could be absolutely disastrous –
> and so – I certainly don’t want to be anywhere near anyone that has been in
> a large conference, with people all over the world, when the virus can be
> carried without any symptoms – transmitted – and you can be all the way
> back home again before you even know you have it.
>
>
>
> So – I question if holding a meeting like this at this point in time –
> rather than using the technology we have available and going entirely
> remote – is really a responsible choice.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ietf <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Phillip Hallam-Baker
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 26 February 2020 16:56
> *To:* Davey Song <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]>; IETF Announcement List <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107
> Vancouver
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:42 AM Davey Song <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> What I can do to help the situation as a Chinese IETFer,  is to cancel all
> travel and stay at home....
>
>
>
> Thanks to the Internet, I can participate IETF remotely. Good luck!
>
>
>
> Davey
>
>
>
> Exactly. The point I am not seeing raised here is whether it is a good
> idea to hold an international meeting and potentially spread the virus
> further. This is not just about us.
>
>
>
> This may not turn out to be a re-run of SARS. A large amount of the
> infrastructure that existed to deal with pandemics has been shuttered
> since. The way our political elites manage risk is to observe when disaster
> has been avoided and conclude that this shows the controls intended to
> mitigate those risks were unnecessary.
>
>
>
> A question that we may well have to consider is the possibility that
> Madrid is cancelled by government fiat. We are currently in the complacency
> phase, what will follow if matters continue is panic.
>