--On Friday, April 17, 2020 16:48 +0000 Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Also consider that may IETF participants are members of high > risk populations. Until remote participation offers all the > benefits as in-person participation, holding an in-person > meeting during or soon after a pandemic puts those folks at a > decided disadvantage. So, following up on this a little bit and from the perspective of a member of a couple of high-risk populations, if the venue and locale are assessed as safe, but my getting there requires sitting on an airplane within a couple of meters of one or more people who are not clearly virus-free (not just, e.g., able to pass a walk-through temperature screening) [1] then (i) I'm putting my life at risk by going and (ii) as Ron sort of suggests, holding the meeting f2f puts me (and those in similar positions and those who, even while being at lower risk of serious problems given infection, are not in a position to risk infection [2], creates not only a disadvantage but would constitute discriminatory behavior. That also relates to the comments about in-country medical facilities: in addition to whatever concerns exist about the quality of facilities in various countries, different countries have different policies about treating visitors to those countries. Some consider that an obligation of their national health systems; others have policies that make access either impossible or very expensive for at least some travelers from selected places. Many companies carry insurance that will protect their traveling employees and even provide for medical evacuation expenses if needed, but many don't. And those policies are fairly expensive for individuals or very small companies, at least unless bundled with other arrangements. If the evaluation criteria are going to include the quality of medical care if needed (and I think they should), then they should also include the accessibility of such care and a judgment of whether the IETF should either purchase or require such insurance for those whose companies don't provide it.[3] [4] I'll save two other concerned for additional notes, one after I review the report on the survey from IETF 106 again. Say safe and well, everyone. john [1] Note that the reliability of screening tests (even intrusive ones) during the period between infection (and potentially being infectious to others) is still unknown as the the interval between recovering (i.e., showing neither symptoms nor positive results from tests) and being able to be re-infected. Maybe that may be known by May or June but, right now, both are uncertain. [2[ That goes to the recent comments about the risks and consequences of having to self-quarantine on return for, e.g., fear of infecting families. If we had tests that were highly reliable (and available) and that would detect the disease before it became infectious, things might be different, but that is beyond today's state of the art and knowledge. [3] If people continue to travel during this period, and a non-trivial number of those who travel get sick, bring the disease home, or both, it is probably a safe bet that those policies are either going to get a lot more expensive or acquire exceptions for various types of travel or risks. That could, in turn, induce even more restrictive corporate travel policies. I'm uncertain, after reviewing the criteria, if the risks are going to be adequately considered of large numbers of people not being able to attend because either they won't travel without travel medical insurance that has become prohibitively expensive or because their companies won't let them for reasons related to that expense. [4] As I was writing this, my talent (or affliction) for thinking about things that could go wrong identified another interesting question: suppose, after going through this assessment process (with or without improvements) the IETF leadership concludes that holding IETF 108 was safe, schedules the meeting, and invited people to come. Suppose it then turned out to be not-so-safe and a significant number of attendees were infected, some with serious or even life-threatening symptoms. Would the IETF LLC, having decided and announced that it was safe to attend the meeting, have any liability to those individuals, their families, and/or their companies? Might we be seeing "come at your own risk" statements in the IETF 109 registration forms? Requirements for legally-binding releases? And how might such provisions affect either corporate travel policies or insurance provisions?
