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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 4/16/2020 9:10 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
>>
>> 24 hours is either too short or too long and I'm not sure which. It's 
>> unclear to me that there's any useful data that would inform the need 
>> for self-isolation for such a short period of time. Conversely, we're 
>> coming back from 7 or so days in a crowd which might suggest a longer 
>> period.  I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure 
>> 24 hours isn't it.  Is there guidance (WHO or otherwise) suggesting 
>> this period or another value?
>
> This isn’t a health/science based duration, it’s our view on the 
> maximum length of time that we think is acceptable for participants to 
> endure.  As you say, given the current guidance it is unlikely that 
> any self-isolation requirements would be less than 14, but agreeing 
> this now may be useful for future unknown situations.
>
I think either you need to remove the bullet (making it a 
non-consideration), or remove the 24 hour period from at least the 
arrival side - i.e. "Any form of self-isolation requirement of any 
length".   My guess is the latter is the appropriate way to go.

For the departure side - I can tolerate a requirement to go home and 
stay there for 7-14 days much better than I can tolerate a requirement 
to self-isolate far from home for any period.   For arrival, if you can 
get buy in from the hotel(s) that we'll be able to self-isolate there 
and that they are prepared to provide room service for the entire hotel 
for at least the period you specify (e.g. 24 hours)  for widely varying 
dietary requirements... it might be viable.

Later, Mike