Re: [Ietf108planning] Assessment criteria for decision on in-person/virtual IETF 108

Thanks Rich

That phrase was added to cover that possibility even though, as you say, it looks extremely remote at this point in time. 

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director

(Sent from a mobile device that insists on putting the signature at the top *sigh*)

> On 18/04/2020, at 1:55 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
> 
> Jay, Alissa, Colin, everybody:
> 
> 
>> A requirement to prove COVID-19 immunity, vaccination or [...]
> 
> It's not clear that "COVID-19 immunity" exists or how long it will last.
> It's plausible, of course, but given that we are now seeing reports
> of recovered/discharged patients being re-admitted in South Korea
> with a second COVID-19 infection, it's an open question.
> 
> A vaccine is likely 12 to 18 months off unless someone gets lucky and
> not only manages to develop an effective one, but one whose side effects
> are minor and only affect a small percentage of those to who it's administered.
> There will then remain the problem of manufacturing, distributing,
> and administering an enormous number of doses -- a problem made more
> difficult in some countries (like the US) by anti-science cultists.
> 
> In addition, a lack of massive, reliable testing means that there is
> a fundamental measurement problem in some countries (again, like the US):
> we simply don't know many people are infected but asymptomatic.
> Of course there are epdemiological methods/models to estimate this and
> they're probably somewhere close to the truth, but even if they are,
> those models don't inform individual choices.
> 
> Finally: this particular virus appears to be remarkably contagious.
> Epidemiologists use the parameter R0 to denote the average number
> of people infected by one infected person, and for seasonal flu it's
> around 1.3.  The expected number of people infected two hops out
> is 1.3^2, or about 1.7; three hops out it's 1.3^3, or about 2.2.
> And so on.  Early estimates of the value of R0 for COVID-19 were
> around 2.5, but emerging research suggests that it could be much
> higher.  This (early release) paper from scientists at Los Alamos
> via the CDC suggests a median value for R0 of 5.7.  Two hops out,
> that's 32.5; three hops out, it's 185.  Here's the paper:
> 
>    Early Release - High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
>    Volume 26, Number 7 July 2020 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
>    https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article
> 
> Of course like so many bits of research, this has been rushed out
> without full/lengthy peer review.  It could be wrong.  The authors
> themselves assign a 95% CI of 3.8 to 8.9, which is a pretty wide range,
> especially for a value involved in an exponential calculation.
> But even if they're wrong about their estimate of R0 and we use
> their lower bound of 3.8: 1.3^10 is about 13.8, while 3.8^10 is
> about 630,000.
> 
> The implication here is that a single individual -- perhaps asymptomatic
> and unaware that they're infected -- could be responsible for a very
> large outbreak.  That individual could even be someone who repeatedly
> tested negative before traveling to the conference, but picked it up
> along the way.  I suggest factoring this risk into the decision
> process -- although frankly I'm at a loss as to how to quantify it.
> 
> ---rsk
> 
> -- 
> Ietf108planning mailing list
> Ietf108planning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning
> 