With the cost of medical treatment bloated in many countries to ridicules numbers ($^$) That only insurance could save from bankruptcy, Assurance companies would dictate how people would be leaving. It would probably finish for everybody to be locked in his apartment with an app on his smartphone for an application to visit the supermarket because any exit is full of additional risks. And every risk materialization without assurance would be effectively the death. One follows what assurance companies told or one does not have any medical help at all. Economy distortion in the direction of the medical mafia is the root cause. Not fixable at the IETF level. Assurance companies would only accept the decrease of the risk level, no any increase, even the smallest one. The covid-19 mutation is faster than many "acute respiratory diseases" that were not stopped by vaccination for 50 years. Everybody failed to develop a vaccination for fast-mutating viruses, many developed countries were active. Especially strong efforts were in USSR between 1975 and 1985 - failed too. The vaccine was always against the old strain of the virus. Hence, Covid-19 is with us forever. No vaccination would help to eradicate infection. (mitigation of illness itself as a result of vaccination is questionable) Hence, the additional risk would never be eliminated. Hence, physical meetings would never be permitted by insurance companies of many countries. And I do understand them looking at some medical bills on the internet. Let's assume that the meeting is supposed in San Francisco. Who on this list is ready to accept the risk to visit it without insurance and face local medical prices personally? The only way to have a physical meeting is to choose the country where people could pay by themselves for medical incidents or be protected by the local insurance company against the local medical system. Of course, the local medical system should not be extremely terrible. It is the competition of medical systems to choose from. I am not sure which particular country has the best price/performance. It is possible to investigate. National terrorism in some countries (2 weeks prison on return) could distract a big part of the community anyway. How many virtual meetings should happen before IETF would start changing rules? For example, the NomCom nomination is still based only on physical meetings statistics that would probably never happen again. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Speer Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 1:14 AM To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> Cc: IETF list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: IETF 112 will be a fully online meeting John, I agree with much you said, but with the times we are living in, we should be expect that some planning will be wasted. That said, I agree with your second point that future planning should possibly be done with virtual meetings being the norm for now. To say the least this is not optimal, but common sense says that might be the most prudent thing to do. Cheers, Michael > On Sep 4, 2021, at 1:32 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --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 >
