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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 25 February 2020 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B95D3A12A0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:23:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.668
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.668 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] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qRJJu6pEz0dd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B203F3A129E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 10:23:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 01PIN7go000565; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 19:23:07 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B1E92058D2; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 19:23:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8A42057AA; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 19:23:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.16] ([10.11.240.16]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 01PIN6Oj008632; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 19:23:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107 Vancouver
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <158258721017.24319.9082233711977122647.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <huvor7s4wdpy5cgqtxgx1v4k.1582587718389@email.android.com> <253b29f1-f11f-92da-855c-9ac3b01e76a3@gmail.com> <b4c73db4-dccd-35a5-4c5f-70ca589e36e7@gmail.com> <F8D32DA6-A5EB-4D87-B276-464268E9D47C@tzi.org> <72ba4605-bd94-998d-4454-e52382afba0a@gmail.com> <842B14E23C3A6FE37A22E6C8@PSB>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5bd43cfa-0e8b-43fc-8a19-c7d405af6278@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 19:23:06 +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: <842B14E23C3A6FE37A22E6C8@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/prpS2LWk5HZknQG73KNfZi6cEU8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 18:23:11 -0000

Le 25/02/2020 à 16:58, John C Klensin a écrit :
>
> --On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 15:36 +0100 Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> … Much is unknown about how the COVID-19 spreads. Current
>>>> knowledge is largely based on what is known about similar
>>>> coronaviruses. …
>> Right, it approaches a 'I dont know'.
>>
>> A better of that would be to ask to not look at them central
>> organisation holding the Truth, but go ask at the local
>> 'pharmacy' (emergency medical store? 'apotheke'?).
>>
>> For my part I went yesterday to 'pharmacy' asking for other
>> things non related to this situation.
>>
>> A person next to me asked for masks.  The person behind the
>> counter replied 'what do you all people have, do you
>> synchronise to plan something?'; he replied 'I dont know, I
>> have kids, I worry'.  For my part, I understand there are many
>> around me who want to buy masks.
>>
>> That kind of local data is of huge importance.  It is real,
>> actual, first hand and non tweaked.  It is not the result of
>> some committee deliberation.
> I don't understand your reasoning here.  It seems to me that the
> very anecdotal local data you cite demonstrates two things:


I agree it looks strange.

It is however what I think works right now - that anecdotical data; 
which is the only to rely on.

Later maybe the science will find the necessary rules to apply to all.

>
> (1) That one is a local pharmacist or other worker at the local
> pharmacy does not demonstrate that he or she is any of (i) a
> subject matter expert on COVID-19 or its global impact, (ii) a
> qualified and skilled immunologist, or (iii) a qualified and
> skilled epidemiologist.  In the latter two cases, that they are
> following the reliable reports and literature carefully, not
> just believing whatever they read in the daily papers or on the
> Internet.
>
> (ii) Knowing that there are many around you who want to buy
> masks, or even many people globally who want to buy masks, is a
> measure of the level of local panic about COVID-19, not a
> measure of the spread, infectiousness, danger, or other measures
> about the virus and its epidemic properties.  It does not tell
> us much about the level of local panic anywhere else and, even
> if it did, the IETF should not be making decisions about how to
> handle a specific meeting over global panic levels (even though
> individuals might).
>
> All in all, I think the policy Jay described is reasonable and
> probably the best that can be done.  I think there is one
> strategic and economic (not health-related) issue that I fear
> has not received careful enough consideration but I suppose we
> will just have to see how that unfolds (and I'm not going to
> discuss it further unless Jay or members of the LLC Board ask).


I would like to know .

Alex

>
> best,
>    john
>
>