We are currently at vaccine 1.0 and the booster is 1.1
It is very likely that we are going to need to be at vaccine 2.0 before we can call this pandemic over.
One reason for that is that the very first vaccines to come out in China and Russia were of the 'killed virus' type and developed in an incredible hurry. Sinovax is reasonably effective in stopping people dying. It is ineffective at stopping infection or transmission.
After Delta, the best of the mRNA vaccines is just about good enough to stop the pandemic if we get to 100% vaccinated but only just if at all. Boosters are going to help, maybe. But help means 'stop another 200,000 people dying in the US', not 'end the suffering'.
So what has to happen is 1) design a revised vaccine that is sufficiently effective against delta and 2) build out the ability to manufacture and deliver it globally so we can stamp the infection out.
And that is going to have to be an international effort so that everyone has buy in and everyone can use the result.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 1:44 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/20/2021 12:33 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
I do not mind where it is, just that I think it should be someplace that has not had a 17month blanket travel band and no sign of lifting it.
Canada would be fine.Stuart - here's the reality. For most (all?) locations, there will be restrictions. Canada for example, has a limited list of approved vaccines (https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/foreign-sept7-vaccine). Sinovac is not on that list. E.g. most PRC citizens would not be admitted to China at this time.
There's a nifty wizard that Canada provides (https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/wizard-start) that can tell give you an indication of whether you might be admitted or not.
Other locations allow you to come in if vaccinated, but if your country is not on their "green" list, you may have as much as a 14 day quarantine before you can move about freely.
Going back to what Joel said, things will change between now and when we're supposed to be in the US for an IETF. I would be surprised if anyone has a clue at this point as to the final direction of the change by the time we have to decide.
Later, Mike
- Stewart
On 20 Sep 2021, at 17:23, Clint Chaplin <clint.chaplin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And Canada also has a system to register conferences such that attendees get different treatment upon entry to the country.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:10 AM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Agree with Phillip, but I would add one more thing. Stewart's
> note includes "country that is open to International
> participation in technical standards meetings". I'd would be
> happy --or at least amused-- to see a counterexample, but,
> AFAICT, the number of countries who have imposed travel
> restrictions -- regardless of when, for how long, and with
> various details-- but have said "except for technical standards
> meetings, whose attendees are exempt from the rules" is zero.
Actually, for the upcoming Broadband World Forum in Amsterdam in October it's possible for attendees to get an exemption from the quarantine requirement (which is the most onerous part of a travel restriction -- vaccines and tests are less onerous except for people from places where vaccines and tests are difficult to come by). BBWF isn't a "technical standards meeting"; but the exemption is possible to request for all business-related conferences which I would expect might include "technical standards meetings".
Barbara
> I think Brian Carpenter's note of some weeks ago is key.
> Restating it from a different perspective. Until either a very
> large fraction of the worldwide population has been vaccinated
> with a vaccine that is highly effective in preventing infection
> and transmission and not just against serious illness,
> hospitalization, and death (likely many years at the rate things
> are going) or almost all of those who have not developed nature
> immunity have died off (likely even longer), we are going to
> have countries with significant exit or reentry restrictions and
> companies with travel restrictions of their own. Maybe
> predictability will improve to the point that we get months of
> notice about who is going to impose (or drop) which restrictions
> and when rather than the "little or no notice" Phillip mentions,
> but the odds of getting enough notice to plan meetings well are
> about zero.
>
> Net result: Unless we really want to have never ending
> discussions about how one country or company is more protective,
> infected, or reasonable than another (and likely to remain so
> some months or years off) or about which groups of participants
> are more important than others, it seems to me that there are
> only three realistic questions:
>
> (1) Do we plan on all-remote meetings for the indefinite future
> or is it possible, operationally and economically, to plan
> "hybrid" meetings with significant numbers of people remote,
> meetings whose physical locations can be cancelled or moved on
> relatively short notice? As others have pointed out, big parts
> of the latter question are financial and I hope the LLC (really
> Jay) will tell us rather than having those of us who are not
> expert and who do not have access to key data debate the topics
> at length.
>
> (2) Would there be significant enough value in cluster meetings
> that are f2f on a national or regional level with the clusters
> participating remotely in global IETF meetings to justify
> sorting out the many challenges -- technical, logistical, and
> financial -- associated with such arrangements (and noting that
> some countries and companies have imposed in-country travel
> restrictions, not just international ones)?
>
> (3) Do we really need to have these discussions on a per-meeting
> basis or can we consider the time they take away from
> substantive technical work that might make the Internet better?
> Can we cut the frequency down and increase our overall technical
> productivity? And, if the answers are "less often would be
> fine", can we determine the frequency (or delegate that
> determination) and then start treating any threads that bring
> the issues up on the interim without introducing new and
> significant information and circumstances as disruptive?
>
> thanks,
> john
>
>
> --On Monday, September 20, 2021 08:55 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
> <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I don't think there is any value to be had in the game of
> > guessing which country will be more or less open to visitors
> > in nine months time.
> >
> > Any country can shut down with little or no notice. And it is
> > not just stopping people in that is the issue, it is people
> > unable to get back home. There are still people who have been
> > unable to get home from the 2020 lockdowns.
> >
> > US regulations have much wider impact than the US. Corporate
> > travel restrictions tend to be at least as restrictive as the
> > US. It is highly unlikely that we can have a productive
> > meeting anywhere on the planet while US travel restrictions
> > are in place.
> >
> > The people of a certain ideological faith spend a lot of time
> > jabbering enthusiastically about 'regulatory arbitrage'. In
> > practice, regulation tends to spread far beyond the sovereign
> > territory it theoretically applies to. The device you are
> > reading this on is almost certainly RoHS certified (or
> > pretends to be) despite the fact that this is only a legal
> > requirement in the EU.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 1:16 AM Stewart Bryant
> > <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> I know that it is a long way out, but there seems to be a
> >> significant body of opinion that the US will not open up to
> >> travel by the residents of a significant number of IETF
> >> participants until the end of 2022.
> >>
> >> Under these circumstances should we not be moving IETF 114
> >> from the USA to a country that is open to International
> >> participation in technical standards meetings?
> >>
> >> Moving a meeting is no small undertaking, and the sooner we
> >> take steps to move to a less restrictive country, the higher
> >> the chance that we will have a face to face rather than
> >> virtual meeting.
> >>
> >> - Stewart
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
--
Clint Chaplin
Senior Principal Standards Engineer
Samsung Research America
