--On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 15:36 +0100 Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> … Much is unknown about how the COVID-19 spreads. Current >>> knowledge is largely based on what is known about similar >>> coronaviruses. … > > Right, it approaches a 'I dont know'. > > A better of that would be to ask to not look at them central > organisation holding the Truth, but go ask at the local > 'pharmacy' (emergency medical store? 'apotheke'?). > > For my part I went yesterday to 'pharmacy' asking for other > things non related to this situation. > > A person next to me asked for masks. The person behind the > counter replied 'what do you all people have, do you > synchronise to plan something?'; he replied 'I dont know, I > have kids, I worry'. For my part, I understand there are many > around me who want to buy masks. > > That kind of local data is of huge importance. It is real, > actual, first hand and non tweaked. It is not the result of > some committee deliberation. I don't understand your reasoning here. It seems to me that the very anecdotal local data you cite demonstrates two things: (1) That one is a local pharmacist or other worker at the local pharmacy does not demonstrate that he or she is any of (i) a subject matter expert on COVID-19 or its global impact, (ii) a qualified and skilled immunologist, or (iii) a qualified and skilled epidemiologist. In the latter two cases, that they are following the reliable reports and literature carefully, not just believing whatever they read in the daily papers or on the Internet. (ii) Knowing that there are many around you who want to buy masks, or even many people globally who want to buy masks, is a measure of the level of local panic about COVID-19, not a measure of the spread, infectiousness, danger, or other measures about the virus and its epidemic properties. It does not tell us much about the level of local panic anywhere else and, even if it did, the IETF should not be making decisions about how to handle a specific meeting over global panic levels (even though individuals might). All in all, I think the policy Jay described is reasonable and probably the best that can be done. I think there is one strategic and economic (not health-related) issue that I fear has not received careful enough consideration but I suppose we will just have to see how that unfolds (and I'm not going to discuss it further unless Jay or members of the LLC Board ask). best, john
