--On Saturday, September 4, 2021 11:49 -0700 Michael Speer
<michael.speer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Wow! Guys we are in a global pandemic! Common sense says
> take the least amount of risk possible for everyone concerned.
> Things are now worse globally, so why meet in person and
> spread the disease even further?
Michael,
Two answers, of which the first is more important to the recent
thread:
(1) This thread (or subthread) started in response to concerns
from Jordi (at least as I understood him) that current policies
overemphasized the advice from the US CDC relative to agencies
in other countries that might be giving different advice.
Whether that other advice was more or less restrictive is
probably not very important to the discussion. I mentioned the
insurance policy problem only to point out that changing
locations between countries would probably make no difference.
(2) If we were seriously risk adverse, to the point of taking
"the least amount of risk possible for everyone concerned", and
there were consensus about being that risk adverse, then, at
least in retrospect, all of the time and energy that has gone
into fine-tuning when we will go back to (almost?) fully f2f
meeting has been wasted as would be any time about meetings with
significant numbers of people f2f and significant numbers remote
("hybrid"). Instead, a reasonable rule would be "no even
partially f2f meetings until COVID-19 and all present and future
variants are eradicated". I tend to agree with Brian about very
long (several years if not decades) time estimates for that.
>From the observation that we are still poking the tiger, I
gather there is not community consensus about being that risk
adverse, even if I might personally share your view.
john
