Subject: [113attendees] IETF 113 Update: 2022-02-10

From: Greg Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:31:04 -0500

Hello,

As promised, here is a brief update about the IETF 113 meeting (19-25 March 2022):

# IETF 113 hotel reservations

The reservation link for the Hilton Vienna Park meeting hotel is now available directly from the IETF 113 webpage:

https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/hotel/

# Pre-meeting site visit report

A short informal report from the pre-meeting venue visit with information about the experience in Vienna is now available:

https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf113-venue-visit-report

# Meeting Schedule update

The IESG has announced the schedule for 21-25 March:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/113all/Ibfc66Xwoi3aZQnQFwOhTlrzqGg/

Further details about sessions and events on 19-20 March should be available shortly

# FAQ

The FAQ has been updated to include additional information about the meeting schedule and hotel reservations:

https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/faq/

The FAQ will be updated as additional information is available.

As always, questions about IETF 113 are welcome at [email-masked].

- Greg

--
Greg Wood
IETF LLC
+1-703-625-3917

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 19:48:58 -0500

> https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf113-venue-visit-report

from the report:
  } purposes, coffee break service to ensure everyone can still get their
  } cookies (and healthy snacks for those who opt out of cookie-mania), how to
  } hold a welcome reception that allows for socialization but follows the
  } regulations in place, and many more.

since our faces will be covered with masks, I wonder about having our
faces/avatars printed on something to help.

{At some point, some people were trying to get transparent masks so that
those who lip read would not be disadvantaged, but I can't really see how it
would be both cheap, and filter while also being transparent.  More of us lip
read in noisy places than many are aware of.}

I like to use my old ARIN badge holder, and I guess I will find a good head
shot photo, print and laminate it and attach it to my badge holder.
Might as well put a copy of my vaccination Canada QR code on the back too.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:39:30 +0200

Michael,

transparent masks have been shown to be ineffective.  Surgical masks do
well FFP2 masks are better (and may be required in terms of Austrian
Law.

Perhaps one should have a camera and photo printer at registration and
then one can put the photo on the back of the badge?

el

On 2022-02-11 02:48 , Michael Richardson wrote:
>      > A short informal report from the pre-meeting venue visit with
>      > information about the experience in Vienna is now available:
> 
> {At some point, some people were trying to get transparent masks so
> that those who lip read would not be disadvantaged, but I can't really
> see how it would be both cheap, and filter while also being
> transparent.  More of us lip read in noisy places than many are aware
> of.}
> 
> I like to use my old ARIN badge holder, and I guess I will find a good
> head shot photo, print and laminate it and attach it to my badge
> holder.  Might as well put a copy of my vaccination Canada QR code on
> the back too.

-- 
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Managing Director
Namibian Network Information Center (Pty) Ltd.
PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht 10007 Namibia
If this email is signed with GPG, Sect 20 Act No 4 of 2019 may apply

---

From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:58:46 +0000

Or attach the photo to the mask 😊

Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: 113attendees <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 2:40 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [113attendees] IETF 113 Update: 2022-02-10

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Michael,

transparent masks have been shown to be ineffective.  Surgical masks do well FFP2 masks are better (and may be required in terms of Austrian Law.

Perhaps one should have a camera and photo printer at registration and then one can put the photo on the back of the badge?

el

On 2022-02-11 02:48 , Michael Richardson wrote:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf113-venue-vi
> sit-report__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TNe3LissLuAnxWV-pas3qz7ALCd40oARE5Qp1wX7I1F
> 7AnRcEYALsocW1JojKKVZ$
>
>
> from the report:

--
113attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TNe3LissLuAnxWV-pas3qz7ALCd40oARE5Qp1wX7I1F7AnRcEYALsocW1GYIk1_1$

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:35:35 +0100 (CET)

> Il 11/02/2022 00:31 Greg Wood <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 

I have a question, I could not find the answer and I think it could affect others as well.

The IETF 113 FAQs mention that the IETF, at a certain point in time, could "determine that 113 can no longer be held as a hybrid meeting with participants onsite in Vienna" and switch to a fully virtual meeting.

This could happen due to new restrictions being imposed by the Austrian government on travel or on events in general, and this is unpredictable - it could happen two days before the meeting and no one could do anything about it.

However, in theory this could also happen because the IETF (LLC? staff?) decides that something is going wrong with the process; for example, not enough onsite registrations, or widespread unavailability of chairs for working group meetings, or whatever.

Is there a final "go/no go" date for this latter type of meeting cancellation? (perhaps in the past already?)

I mean, is there a date after which I can be sure that unless some real "force majeure" event happens the meeting will be held in person, and make my bookings with a bit more certainty?

Thanks,

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email-masked] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:03:40 +0100

Le 16/02/2022 à 11:35, Vittorio Bertola a écrit :
> The IETF 113 FAQs mention that the IETF, at a certain point in time, 
> could "determine that 113 can no longer be held as a hybrid meeting 
> with participants onsite in Vienna" and switch to a fully virtual 
> meeting.
> 
> This could happen due to new restrictions being imposed by the 
> Austrian government on travel or on events in general, and this is 
> unpredictable

The more we approach the meeting date, the more predictable are the
covid-related matters.

The shapes of waves follow a certain tendency.  The wave in Austria
might be at a mid low at end of March.  But it is important to know the
waves of each visitor's country, not just Austria.

Covid measures and restrictions (vaccine mandates, QR codes, PCR
mandates and more): the direction of covid measures countries take
follow certain tendencies.  Denmark, UK, Croatia ease covid restrictions
including QR codes; Italy seems to strengthen the QR codes use.  China,
HK, Taiwan, SKorea maintain or strengthen restrictions; Australia, NZ
are newly opening.  Canada eases restrictions.

France is on the direction of easying the restrictions.

Austria seems to continue keeping restrictions in place, but it might be
they open more by end of March.  It is not known.

There are less chances that Austria strengthens restrictions by end of
March, and more chances that Austria eases restrictions by end of March.

It is possible that by end of March the mask mandates and daily PCR
testing mandates in Vienna are removed.  It is also possible that they
are kept.

> - it could happen two days before the meeting and no one could do
> anything about it.
> 
> However, in theory this could also happen because the IETF (LLC? 
> staff?) decides that something is going wrong with the process; for 
> example, not enough onsite registrations, or widespread 
> unavailability of chairs for working group meetings, or whatever.

I agree, that is also a possibility.

> Is there a final "go/no go" date for this latter type of meeting 
> cancellation? (perhaps in the past already?)

I wonder the same?

> I mean, is there a date after which I can be sure that unless some 
> real "force majeure" event happens the meeting will be held in 
> person, and make my bookings with a bit more certainty?

I agree with the question.  It would be expected to have such a date.
It would be advantageous to have such a date.

For my part, I do not condition my participation to such a date, because
I largely already made up my mind.

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:47:59 +0100

also, one additional point.

Despite an innocent effort to try to make a sense of it, there are many 
things that clearly dont make sense.  For example, in Denmark the waves 
are all on a rise yet the restrictions are eased.  There are reasons 
that escape me.

That means that indeed many things can change any time, and it is not 
easy to predict.

Alex

Le 16/02/2022 à 12:03, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>> example, not enough onsite registrations, or widespread unavailability 
>> of chairs for working group meetings, or whatever.
> 
>> real "force majeure" event happens the meeting will be held in person, 
>> and make my bookings with a bit more certainty?
>

---

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:55:05 +0100

Alexandre,

> > Austria seems to continue keeping restrictions in place, but it might
> > be they open more by end of March.  It is not known.

We do know now. Almost all Covid-19 related restrictions will fall on March 5. Which means:

- There will be no curfew anymore
- Clubs & other nightlife will open again
- With few exceptions, all 2G/3G rules will end. 
- Travel to Austria is also possible without vaccination (but with a test)
- FFP2 masks will only be required on public transport and amenity stores.

Vienna might impose different rules, though - press conference ongoing.

Best,
Alex

---

From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:35:10 +0100

The austrian federal government has just anounced, that with 5th of
March, virtually all restrictions and limitation in connection with
CoVID will be lifted - except in sensitive areas (presumably Home of the
Elderly, Hospitals).

Free PCR testing will be continued until at least 31st of March,
nevertheless.

https://orf.at/stories/3247635/

So, I guess no 5* Tourist Quarantine Hotel for free any more... :)

Take care nevertheless!

Richard

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 08:44:36 -0800

Hi,

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 2:35 AM, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 

Further, a decision may be needed for each working group.  For example, if the chair(s) and responsible AD are not going to be in Vienna, it might be better to not hold a hybrid w.g. meeting and make it all virtual.

Bob

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:00:57 +0100

Greg, *:

Thanks a lot for the update, but i am disappointed that the FAQ does not explain
the crucial problem wrt to vaccination, even though i did bring up this topic some
weeks ago and asked for it to be documented:

a) Entry into Austria is with WHO approved vaccine. WHich includes for example sinovac
   WHich means its no problem to get into Austria given how the IETF also expects you
   to be WHO vaccinated.

b) Overnight stay in a Vienna Hotel requires EMA approved vaccination. This has not
   changed with the updated rules from Feb 12th, even though it is unclear whether
   that is a voluntary rules by hotels or a city mandate
   (https://coronavirus.wien.gv.at/neue-corona-regeln/).

c) I just called the Hilton and they did not know whether the relaxation for rules
   from March 5th on (as just announced) would include removal of the 2G rule for hotels
   in Vienna. The hotel speculated that it could be converted to 3G for overnight stay.

It would be good to at least make IETF community members with non-EMA approved vaccines
aware of the issue in the FAQ.

Thanks
    Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Campling <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:09:06 +0000

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:45, Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

Having a mixture of hybrid and virtual sessions within the meeting would not be a great way forward.  The meeting FAQs at https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/faq/ already addresses remote participation by chairs.

"Will session chairs be required to participate in person?
No. Onsite participation is not required for anyone, including session chairs. Chairs will be able to use Meetecho to chair their sessions remotely. Training sessions and online guides will be available ahead of the meeting for remote chairs, and advance preparation is highly encouraged. More information will be provided as details are set."

Andrew

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:11:22 -0500

Given that the room needs to be observed / managed, I had assumed that 
at least one chair or their delegate will need to be on site.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:03:31 +0000

A delegate on site would indeed be preferred and it can be decided the week before IETF-113. 

As an AD, I intend to check with all the chairs before and we will try to get a delegate who will be in Vienna. And I am sure that it will be the process for all ADs and for all WGs.

As we all know for 2 years :-(, the situation is always in flux. So, let's plan for the worst but hope for the best.

Situation is not easy, but the IETF community should be able to manage it by being flexible.

Stay safe

-éric

On 16/02/2022, 18:12, "113attendees on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Yours,
    Joel

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:45:50 -0600

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 3:03 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> As an AD, I intend to check with all the chairs before and we will try to
> get a delegate who will be in Vienna. And I am sure that it will be the
> process for all ADs and for all WGs.
>

Yup. For at least one of my WGs, the chairs have already let me know that
they will not be able to make it to Vienna, and asked if I could please sit
in the monkey chair and do the button clickin' and mic wranglin'.
I've done this in the past, and can probably still manage it, but I figured
that it's a good opportunity for some others to experience a small bit of
what chairing is like, and so will either have someone join me, or will
have both chair seats filled with non-chairs....

>
> As we all know for 2 years :-(, the situation is always in flux. So, let's
> plan for the worst but hope for the best.
>

Yup. I'm hoping it can even be a useful experience,
W

>
> Stay safe
>
> -éric
>
>
> On 16/02/2022, 18:12, "113attendees on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" <
> [email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>     >> Further, a decision may be needed for each working group.  For
> example, if the chair(s) and responsible AD are not going to be in Vienna,
> it might be better to not hold a hybrid w.g. meeting and make it all
> virtual.
>     >
>     > Having a mixture of hybrid and virtual sessions within the meeting
> would not be a great way forward.  The meeting FAQs at
> https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/faq/ already addresses remote
> participation by chairs.
>     >
>     > No. Onsite participation is not required for anyone, including
> session chairs. Chairs will be able to use Meetecho to chair their sessions
> remotely. Training sessions and online guides will be available ahead of
> the meeting for remote chairs, and advance preparation is highly
> encouraged. More information will be provided as details are set."
>     >
>     >
>     > Andrew
>     >
>
>     --

-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra

---

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 08:00:05 +0100

Hello,

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 3:03 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
A delegate on site would indeed be preferred and it can be decided the week before IETF-113.

Yup. For at least one of my WGs, the chairs have already let me know that they will not be able to make it to Vienna, and asked if I could please sit in the monkey chair and do the button clickin' and mic wranglin'.
I've done this in the past, and can probably still manage it, but I figured that it's a good opportunity for some others to experience a small bit of what chairing is like, and so will either have someone join me, or will have both chair seats filled with non-chairs....

[AM] I’ve been a WG chair long time ago, and can volunteer to fill the monkey chair in groups shall there be need.

Best,
Alex

---

From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:34:20 +0100

On 16/02/2022 11:35, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> I mean, is there a date after which I can be sure that unless some real
> "force majeure" event happens the meeting will be held in person, and make my
> bookings with a bit more certainty?

I'm also interested if someone from IETF meeting organization team could answer
this question...

Cheers, Jan Zorz

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:05:36 +0000

> I'm also interested if someone from IETF meeting organization team could answer

If the IETF has someone with that degree of foresight, could they please tell me the winning numbers for the national lottery this weekend? :-)

To be less glib, nobody can say for certainty when or if the physical meeting will get cancelled. Health and travel regulations could change at any moment. Or a new variant of COVID19 erupts out of nowhere, etc, etc. Even after some hypothetical go/no go date,

If force majeure kicks in, I would expect reasonable hotels and airlines to offer full refunds one way or another. Like they did when our physical meeting in Vancouver moved on-line at the last minute. If they don't refund your money, you should be covered by your travel insurance. Most insurers will pay out provided your government's advice at the time of booking said travel would be OK. [But if you picked a cheapskate insurer with too much small print, you chose poorly.] And of course, we can be sure the IETF would do the Right Thing when it comes to refunding meeting fees.

It's really simple. If someone thinks the risks of a physical meeting are too great or they doubt they'd get their money back if IETF113 goes on-line only, stay home and take part remotely. If not, see you in Vienna!

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:08:59 +0000

>    To be less glib, nobody can say for certainty when or if the physical meeting will get cancelled. Health and travel regulations could change at any moment. Or a new variant of COVID19 erupts out…

Yes they can.  As stated when the meeting was first announced, the IESG can cancel if they decide attendance is insufficient, and Jay mentioned that our insurance will be sufficient.

---

From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:18:23 +0100

On 17/02/2022 19:05, Jim Reid wrote:
> It's really simple. If someone thinks the risks of a physical meeting are too
> great or they doubt they'd get their money back if IETF113 goes on-line only,
> stay home and take part remotely. If not, see you in Vienna!

I hope to see you in Vienna ;)

Cheers, Jan

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:20:50 +0000

> On 17 Feb 2022, at 18:08, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

>> I mean, is there a date after which I can be sure that unless some real "force majeure" event happens the meeting will be held in person, and make my bookings with a bit more certainty?

You answered the first one (about an IETF-decided call off). I answered the second. Which was about someone else making the decision for the IETF leadership/secretariat.

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:57:52 +1300

Hi Jan

> On 18/02/2022, at 6:34 AM, Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

The LLC does not intend to cancel other than for a force majeure event and the IESG are aiming to make a final decision next week on the viability with the projected numbers.

So far the numbers are

	• 234 onsite registrations, 528 remote, 762 total
	• 112 out of 157 issued fee waivers used
	• Hackathon: 81 onsite, 21 remote

If the registrations continue to grow proportionately then we would see ~400 onsite registrations, but if we have a bunch of people holding off before booking then we could reach 500 under the right conditions.

The good news that may encourage people to book, as others have already noted, is that the rules in Austria change from 5 March.  We are hoping to hear early next week how those changes will affect our meeting and will share that information when we have it.

kind regards
Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:34:07 +0100

On 17. Feb 2022, at 19:57, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The good news that may encourage people to book, as others have already noted, is that the rules in Austria change from 5 March.  

Good news?  I’m not so sure.

It seems the previous carefully designed science-based prevention regimes are being thrown to a populistic bonfire of “freedom day” paroles.

This mass delusion may make traveling and meeting in person way too dangerous again.

I’m registered for onsite, and I don’t have all the data yet, but at the moment everything looks like I’ll have to reconsider.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:46:07 -0800

+1

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:53:36 +1300

> On 18/02/2022, at 10:35 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

While there is indeed considerable political pressure to open up, my reading is that these decisions are still being made on a rational basis. It appears clear that omicron waves in a well vaccinated society are relatively fast, burn themselves out and result in relatively few deaths or serious injuries with the majority having mild symptoms at the most.  Austria’s omicron wave started on approximately 1 Jan and peaked on approximately 2 Feb. 

On the basis of that risk assessment and taking into account that I am in a risk group because of my medical history, I am participating in person . (The meeting would function just as well without me).  Of course each of our circumstances and personal risk assessments are different so we all make our own decisions here and I respect anyone who chooses not to travel for theirs. 

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley 
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:50:58 +0100

Please bookmark this page, and consult when your personal go/no-go
decision point comes close.

https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/COVID-Prognose-Konsortium-2022.html

For the upcoming week, the prognosis (including simulations that include
the expected lower rate of compliance after the press statements by the
government) are trending downward.

The ciritical data point is ICU utilization (3rd graph "Intensivpflege")
- and knowning that the conversion rate from Infection to ICU is
dramatically lower with Omicron BA.1 / BA.2; What I understand is, that
a plateau at high level is expected for the next 2 weeks (just before
the opening), while the BA.2 subvariant becomes more dominant and BA.1
wanes. The expectation is, that thereafter, the numbers will start
declining a little bit faster.

(Free PCR testing will still be available, while the IETF is running.
But political debates have started if this is reasonable to continue
when the healthcare system starts to recover and return back to normal
levels - with an nudge for those who believed that testing is just as
good as getting vaccinated, to finally get their shots).

Hope to see a decent number of you around soon :)

Take care,
    Richard

---

From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:41:11 +0200

Jay,

Your approach is the correct one from a medical perspective and the
same I am taking.

I took the additional step of separating my flight to Europe from the
flight (ticket) to Vienna, the former with Ethiopian Airlines who are
very experienced with Covid and have given us no trouble when we had to
reschedule some visitors doe to Omicron.  The latter is with Austrian
Airlines and so cheap that if the meeting was cancelled and the airline
were to prove difficult (which I doubt) I could absorb the loss.

That said, one must indeed differentiate between the pure transmission
rate which in Austria is quite, and in Namibia and New Zealand for
example is low (but rising in the latter), the hospital utilization rate,
the ICU utilization rate and of course the death rate.

The death rate in countries with developed health care systems is
fortunately quite low due to a multitude of factors including the
experience we have gained over the last two years, and easy accessibility
to care.

The rolling 7 day (new infection) incidence averaged per 100000 is the
traditional way of looking at, and comparing it.  The Johns Hopkins
University publishes a continuously updated data set which is widely used
and I have a little R script which produces the enclosed images (for
some countries I am interested in).

For planning purposes the hospital utilization and ICU rates are better
figures and this is what is now being used more commonly like in
Austria.

In addition there is indeed the pressure by the populace who are fed up
with the intrusions into what they perceive as personal freedom and who
believe their health care systems can take care of them if they get it,
in particular vaccination breakthroughs which are perceived as usually
being mild.

I can understand to a (very) small extend the former, but most certainly
do not agree with it, and leave aside whether the latter is true
(probably) and at what cost.

Now, what does that mean for travelers?

There still is high transmission in Austria, so the risk of contracting
Covid is a reality.

That is what needs to be considered when traveling back to a country
where health care is less developed/available.  Never mind that the
airlines may deny boarding of infected passengers, so one should cater
for that, as well.

I, myself, will continue to abide strictly by masking, disinfection, and
social distancing.  And I assume/propose that the ground rules of the
meeting reflect that, such as checker board seating, temperature taking
at the entrance and requiring the (correct) wearing of masks.

I, myself, will not do daily testing, unless of course asked to do so by
the organizers, but as I want to see how the Everybody Gargles process
works (it is free, after all), I'll do it on the day of arrival and
(perhaps) the morning of departure.

greetings, el

On 2022-02-17 23:53 , Jay Daley wrote:
>>> The good news that may encourage people to book, as others have
>>> already noted, is that the rules in Austria change from 5 March.
>>
>> It seems the previous carefully designed science-based prevention
>> regimes are being thrown to a populistic bonfire of “freedom day”
>> paroles.
>>
>> I’m registered for onsite, and I don’t have all the data yet, but at
>> the moment everything looks like I’ll have to reconsider.
>>
> 
> While there is indeed considerable political pressure to open up, my
> reading is that these decisions are still being made on a rational
> basis.  It appears clear that omicron waves in a well vaccinated
> society are relatively fast, burn themselves out and result in
> relatively few deaths or serious injuries with the majority having
> mild symptoms at the most.  Austria’s omicron wave started on
> approximately 1 Jan and peaked on approximately 2 Feb.
> 
> On the basis of that risk assessment and taking into account that I am
> in a risk group because of my medical history, I am participating in
> person .  (The meeting would function just as well without me).  Of
> course each of our circumstances and personal risk assessments are
> different so we all make our own decisions here and I respect anyone
> who chooses not to travel for theirs.
> 
> Jay
>

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:37:22 +0100 (CET)

> Il 17/02/2022 19:57 Jay Daley <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 

Thanks, this is the answer I was looking for. So I know that, if that final decision will happen as scheduled, after the end of this month the physical part of the meeting could still be cancelled in the uncontrollable case of a new surge in cases in March, but not in the controllable case of the IESG changing their mind on whether to hold a hybrid meeting.

Regarding whether to travel or not given the ubiquitous easing of restrictions, this is of course another personal decision. The rationale now is that it is relatively easy to catch this variant of the virus and maybe to be subject to quarantine and travel disruption, but there is no pressure on hospitals and if you are fully vaccinated, not elderly and not suffering from specific conditions the risk of developing severe illness is extremely low, comparable to the sanitary risk that we always accepted when travelling to many parts of the world.

Personally, I just checked in on a TRN-MUC-SFO flight for tomorrow, first intercontinental trip in two years, and I am stockpiling FFP2 masks and crossing my fingers. All in all, caution is good, but life is never under our full control.

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:08:19 +0100

Thanks for the message to all,

Le 18/02/2022 à 07:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
[...]

> For planning purposes the hospital utilization and ICU rates are
> better figures and this is what is now being used more commonly like
> in Austria.

In France they just said that it is the ICU numbers (not
hospitalisations, not cases; ICU==Intensive Care Unit, aka 'réa') that
would dictate when to remove masks and related measures.  They propose a
threshold of 1000-2000 ICU; this threshold is facing the current state
of 3000ish ICUs, which was around 3500ish in last month, for France
population 65m.  When the 3500 becomes 1000-2000 then masks would be
removed.

However, I would take this proposal of ICU threshold carefully.

In the recent past they also said that the threshold whould be the case
number to trigger measures.  The threshold proposed was around 4000
cases to trigger a whole new level of measures.  But when that number
peaked 30000 it was way too much, and at 500.000 all initial plan was
negated.  By the initial logic we would have had to be in complete
lockdown, but no.

Probably this idea of threshold of ICU should be factored by the variant
identifier, i.e. the threshold is ICU 1234 dominated by variant BA.2.

[...]

> There still is high transmission in Austria, so the risk of
> contracting Covid is a reality.

Yes, it is not because we cry victory that victory there is.  Crying
victory might attract victory, but.

Additionally,

It is good to consider not only Austria, but the countries where people
come from.

If each traveller is safely isolated during travel, but less isolated
during the IETF meeting, then it is necessary to consider the IETF
meeting as a place of sum of places where people come from.  The waves
of originating countries are crossbreeding at Vienna.

> airlines may deny boarding of infected passengers, so one should
> cater for that, as well.
> 
> 
> I, myself, will continue to abide strictly by masking, disinfection,
> and social distancing.  And I assume/propose that the ground rules of
> the meeting reflect that, such as checker board seating, temperature
> taking at the entrance and requiring the (correct) wearing of masks.
> 
> I, myself, will not do daily testing, unless of course asked to do so
> by the organizers, but as I want to see how the Everybody Gargles
> process works (it is free, after all), I'll do it on the day of
> arrival and (perhaps) the morning of departure.

I think too that these kinds of mechanical protections are best.

But I wonder what about vaccinating?

It might be that not only PCR and distancing to be no longer required at
Vienna by end of March, but the vaccination neither.

The EMA press conf of yesterday (17 february) still does not say
something affirmative about 4th dose for the general public.

But it says (https://youtu.be/W9HPf0PJda0?t=144) that EMA considers, not
decided yet, reducing the time from 2nd dose to 3rd dose to 3 month.

If the time from 2nd dose to 3rd dose is 3 month, then I the non-medical
person, suppose the same 3 month would be between 3rd dose and 4th dose
too.  Is this supposition appropriate?

My 3rd dose was in December 2021, so the 4th would need to be in March,
prior to Vienna.

In that EMA press conference (https://youtu.be/W9HPf0PJda0?t=211) it is
said:
- 2nd booster? not enough information, need more info to understand
effect of current vaccination, the impact of 4th dose where it was applied.
- EMA talks about a 'preprint' with Israel results that could be a
starting point to analyse.  I dont know which paper.

But I heard of another recent medrxiv paper which seems to be saying 4th
dose is good
(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.15.22270948v1).  There
is also a video from Israel as early as January, which says 4th dose is
good - https://youtu.be/71viRng-k8g
But today it is also told that Israel removes 'pass' requirements, so no
more vaccination requirement in Israel, presumably.

I dont know what to think about vaccination.

Alex

>>> On 18/02/2022, at 10:35 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
>>> wrote: On 17.  Feb 2022, at 19:57, Jay Daley
>>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The good news that may encourage people to book, as others
>>>> have already noted, is that the rules in Austria change from 5
>>>> March.
>>> 
>>> It seems the previous carefully designed science-based
>>> prevention regimes are being thrown to a populistic bonfire of
>>> “freedom day” paroles.
>>> 
>>> I’m registered for onsite, and I don’t have all the data yet, but
>>> at the moment everything looks like I’ll have to reconsider.
>>> 
>> 
>> While there is indeed considerable political pressure to open up,
>> my reading is that these decisions are still being made on a
>> rational basis.  It appears clear that omicron waves in a well
>> vaccinated society are relatively fast, burn themselves out and
>> result in relatively few deaths or serious injuries with the
>> majority having mild symptoms at the most.  Austria’s omicron wave
>> started on approximately 1 Jan and peaked on approximately 2 Feb.
>> 
>> On the basis of that risk assessment and taking into account that I
>> am in a risk group because of my medical history, I am
>> participating in person .  (The meeting would function just as well
>> without me).  Of course each of our circumstances and personal risk
>> assessments are different so we all make our own decisions here and
>> I respect anyone who chooses not to travel for theirs.
>> 
>> Jay
>> 
> 
>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:51:39 +0100

Thanks for the note about the R script.

I would like to say a few things about it, if permitted on this list.

I think you mean the R mathematics package, and not the R like in R_0 of 
epidemics.  I think I saw R on my windows.

For the R mathematics package, I wonder whether they have a freely 
available function to interpolate very simply, maybe too naïvely, but 
still a valuable try when nothing else might be available.

This could be used to predict the next peak of a wave.

For example, given the sequence of distances between Austrian peaks 8, 
4, 8, 3 (from outbreak.info), what is the next distance until the next peak?

That potential R interpolation function, applied to that Austrian data, 
could be valuable help in predicting more precisely than the current 
predictions that can be visible at 
https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/COVID-Prognose-Konsortium-2022.html#februar-2022

The ICU Intensivpflege graph gives today a prognosis for March 2nd, as 
illustrated by the small gray areas at the right of the graph:
Kapazitätsvorschau Intensivpflege - 15.02.2022

But a prediction by applying an R interpolation function on the sequence 
8,4,8,3 would give a prediction of when the next peak would appear in 
the next several months.

Probably this would predict that the next peak would be in 7 months time 
(I dont know?), which means peak in August 2022.  August is much far 
away than March.

This kind of prognosis does not tell the details of the wave shape, but 
just its peak.  But it is known that these are waves, not arbitrary shapes.

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:51:50 +0100

Alex

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 13:31:34 -0500

Alex,

I won't repeat my previous comment about being able to
accurately produce the future.  Translating them into more
statistical terms, those are issues about predictive models
given unpredictable issues that can introduce near-step
functions (e.g., appearance of new variants with new properties)
and exogenous variates that are not part of the model.  But, if
you are working with R to try to build a predictive model, two
suggestions:

(1) You probably do not want to interpolate.  Think about some
sort of regression or other curve-fitting procedure, perhaps
with moving averages.  You would need to figure out whether you
have enough data to make that meaningful.

(2) Once you have a predictive model with which you are happy,
please try doing some predictions of accuracy (not just
projected values), probably using a retrospective sensitivity
testing approach.   In other words, set the most recent data
aside, repeat the analysis, and then see how well the model
would have predicted those recent data.

I can't speak for others, but I look forward to a report on what
you discover.

   john

p.s. there is a famous story about the use of a System Dynamics
model to predict, based on 19th Century data, the traffic in
Paris would be almost completely paralyzed by the middle of the
20th.   You might find it informative vis-a-vis the type of
projections you are trying to make.

--On Friday, February 18, 2022 18:51 +0100 Alexandre Petrescu
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think you mean the R mathematics package, and not the R like
> in R_0 of epidemics.  I think I saw R on my windows.
> 
> For the R mathematics package, I wonder whether they have a
> freely available function to interpolate very simply, maybe
> too naïvely, but still a valuable try when nothing else might
> be available.
> 
> For example, given the sequence of distances between Austrian
> peaks 8, 4, 8, 3 (from outbreak.info), what is the next
> distance until the next peak?
> 
> That potential R interpolation function, applied to that
> Austrian data, could be valuable help in predicting more
> precisely than the current predictions that can be visible at
> https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus
> /COVID-Prognose-Konsortium-2022.html#februar-2022
> 
> The ICU Intensivpflege graph gives today a prognosis for March
> 2nd, as illustrated by the small gray areas at the right of
> the graph:
> But a prediction by applying an R interpolation function on
> the sequence 8,4,8,3 would give a prediction of when the next
> peak would appear in the next several months.
> 
> Probably this would predict that the next peak would be in 7
> months time (I dont know?), which means peak in August 2022. 
> August is much far away than March.
> 
> This kind of prognosis does not tell the details of the wave
> shape, but just its peak.  But it is known that these are
> waves, not arbitrary shapes.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> Your approach is the correct one from a medical perspective
>> and the same I am taking.
>> 
>> I took the additional step of separating my flight to Europe
>> from the flight (ticket) to Vienna, the former with Ethiopian
>> Airlines who are very experienced with Covid and have given
>> us no trouble when we had to reschedule some visitors doe to
>> Omicron.  The latter is with Austrian Airlines and so cheap
>> that if the meeting was cancelled and the airline were to
>> prove difficult (which I doubt) I could absorb the loss.
>> 
>> 
>> That said, one must indeed differentiate between the pure
>> transmission rate which in Austria is quite, and in Namibia
>> and New Zealand for example is low (but rising in the
>> latter), the hospital utilization rate, the ICU utilization
>> rate and of course the death rate.
>> 
>> The death rate in countries with developed health care
>> systems is fortunately quite low due to a multitude of
>> factors including the experience we have gained over the last
>> two years, and easy accessibility to care.
>> 
>> The rolling 7 day (new infection) incidence averaged per
>> 100000 is the traditional way of looking at, and comparing
>> it.  The Johns Hopkins University publishes a continuously
>> updated data set which is widely used and I have a little R
>> script which produces the enclosed images (for some countries
>> I am interested in).
>> 
>> For planning purposes the hospital utilization and ICU rates
>> are better figures and this is what is now being used more
>> commonly like in Austria.
>> 
>> In addition there is indeed the pressure by the populace who
>> are fed up with the intrusions into what they perceive as
>> personal freedom and who believe their health care systems
>> can take care of them if they get it, in particular
>> vaccination breakthroughs which are perceived as usually
>> being mild.
>> 
>> I can understand to a (very) small extend the former, but
>> most certainly do not agree with it, and leave aside whether
>> the latter is true (probably) and at what cost.
>> 
>> 
>> That is what needs to be considered when traveling back to a
>> country where health care is less developed/available. 
>> Never mind that the airlines may deny boarding of infected
>> passengers, so one should cater for that, as well.
>> 
>> 
>> I, myself, will continue to abide strictly by masking,
>> disinfection, and social distancing.  And I assume/propose
>> that the ground rules of the meeting reflect that, such as
>> checker board seating, temperature taking at the entrance and
>> requiring the (correct) wearing of masks.
>> 
>> I, myself, will not do daily testing, unless of course asked
>> to do so by the organizers, but as I want to see how the
>> Everybody Gargles process works (it is free, after all), I'll
>> do it on the day of arrival and (perhaps) the morning of
>> departure.
>> 
>> greetings, el
>> 
>>>>> have already noted, is that the rules in Austria change
>>>>> from 5 March.
>>>> 
>>>> Good news?  I'm not so sure.
>>>> 
>>>> prevention regimes are being thrown to a populistic bonfire
>>>> of "freedom day" paroles.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm registered for onsite, and I don't have all the
>>>> data yet, but at the moment everything looks like I'll
>>>> have to reconsider.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> While there is indeed considerable political pressure to
>>> open up, my reading is that these decisions are still being
>>> made on a rational basis.  It appears clear that omicron
>>> waves in a well vaccinated society are relatively fast, burn
>>> themselves out and result in relatively few deaths or
>>> serious injuries with the majority having mild symptoms at
>>> the most.  Austria's omicron wave started on
>>> On the basis of that risk assessment and taking into account
>>> that I am in a risk group because of my medical history, I
>>> am participating in person .  (The meeting would function
>>> just as well without me). Of course each of our
>>> circumstances and personal risk assessments are different so
>>> we all make our own decisions here and I respect anyone who
>>> chooses not to travel for theirs.
>>> 
>>> Jay
>>> 
>>

---

From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:35:05 +0100

It is important to note, that the public health measures are not
designed to cater for a specific individual. Just to make the burden on
the healthcare system low enough, that it does not collapse entirely.

This is also one of the reasons, why in the past a vaccination with even
as low an effectivity as 40% was deemed dramatically better, than not
vaccinating at all (vaccination against CoVID is typically at the very
high end of effectiveness when it comes to vaccines and "wetware").

It appears, that many (westerly) countries have now achieved a state,
where the risk or a systemic overload of the public healthcare system is
no longer a dramatic threat - at least during the warmer months in the
northern hemisphere, and pending any new (more aggressive / more deadly)
variant.

I am personally more worried about those regions, where widespread
vaccination was not yet possible, or where draconic measures keep the
exposure level (thus the build-up of natural immunity) low. But more for
the reason that I personally, as a boostered individual may be a carrier
(vector) of the virus without knowing/symptoms, and transmitting it in
these regions causing detrimental health to so far unexposed persons.
(Compare transmissible deceases after explorers from - traditionally -
europe came to visit other parts of the globe)

Having that said, at least in western europe / northern america, it
becomes a matter of personal choice - just like with nearly all other
viridae which are endemic in the human population, and cause more or
less severe symptoms of a cold or flu - if one wants to get vaccinated
or not. Those who choose not to get vacciated via well-tested, fully
understood immuno-response medication will contract the virus in
circulation. With all the benefits (no time spent waiting in line for
the shot, no needle, no violation of the personal sphere of the skin)
and drawbacks (dramatically higher risk of "side-"effects like loss of
taste and smell, fatigue syndrome, heart inflammation, long-term
neurological issues if initial indications of Covid hiding in the
central nervous system like Herpes turn out to be correct in 5-25
years). There are in the order of 20 different types of viridae in
endemic circulation, which all typically cause only mild flu-like
symptoms, but every once in a while, turn out to be deadly for an
individuum.

The only other choice would be the voluntary non-participation in all
direct human contact - "social" distancing for the entire rest of that
individuals life. Which, by the way, would not only protect with extreme
high success rate against Covid, but virtually all other transmissible
deseases. (But not exposing the immune system to any pathogens regularly
will probably have its own risks)

In that light - take care!

Richard

---

From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:46:10 +0100

> https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/COVID-Prognose-Konsortium-2022.html#februar-2022

That is very unlikely, that you get to better predictions using
simplistic models. The ones published above are done like weather
simulations, with agent (single individual) behavior modelling, feedback
loops and ensemble forecasting. The sum total of all these various runs
are accumuated and contribut to the confidence intervals depicted.

Human behavior is probably at least as complex as weather patterns, thus
the limited time range (only 7 days, with a population of 9 mio in austria).

> (I dont know?), which means peak in August 2022.  August is much far

Do not forget that these peaks were all driven by different variants of
the virus, and when/how fast a new, more evolutionary fit subtype
emerges, is a stochasic process - which can not be modelled on an
individual basis.

It is not impossible for Covid to become more contageous but even less
problematic (like the two other endemic coronaviridae types, which cause
seasonal flu symptoms - mostly), which is the more probable outcome.

Or more deadly (CoVID is said to share a lot of lineage with MERS/SARS
coronavirus, which had a 10% and 30% mortality. The worst case would be
a type that is as contageous as Omicron, but as fatal as MERS at 30%
after 14 days, such that infected individuals have had plenty of time to
spread it around before becoming sick)

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:49:33 -0500

> https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/COVID-Prognose-Konsortium-2022.html

Thank you. Google translated for me.
I looked at the graphs, and I see a yellow label: "Now casting"
Do you understand what this means?

    > good as getting vaccinated, to finally get their shots).

The Austrian level of testing is leaps above what has been available in
Ottawa.   I wish that the debate here was between whether to continue testing
for 2 months or 4 months, rather than whether the entire thing was a hoax.

In Ottawa, we have:
   https://613covid.ca/wastewater/

where we have some researchers from OttawaU.

An irony is that we have really only a single wastewater treatment plant,
it's regularly overloaded (dumping raw sewage!). Many in the community
have over decades criticized having a single non-redundant facility, and
pumping waste water 60km across the region.  We've had significant floods
caused by failures of the pumps.

But, having it all in one place has made it easy to look for the COVID
signal.

---

From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 23:00:27 +0100

> Do you understand what this means?

If understand Nowcasting correctly, it takes into consideration the
fuzzyness of the most recent datapoints, and tries to arrive at a more
accurate value than what is in the pure raw datapoints.

One of the issues is, that the timestamp of when new data becomes
available to statistical analysis, and from when that data was actually
sampled, is more uncertain for most recent new datapoints, but much more
certain once the data has been in the database for some time.

As an example, look at the graph "verteilung neuer Fälle über die
letzten Tage" here https://orf.at/corona/daten/oesterreich

The daily bar graphs get adjusted, once more detailed information
becomes available to individual cases (or cases are validated ,
cross-checked, duplicates removed etc).  So, sampling this now, there
are shifts up to 3 weeks in the past, where individual cases are removed
or shifted around (forward/back, e.g. false positive tests etc). Not by
much (typically much less than 1% on a daily basis need correction), but
when you model quickly escalating, exponential growth functions, that
matters.

Nowcasting tries to give the "correct" current values, based on data
coming in with some statistical randomness and uncertainty.

Another site which discusses this in more detail, for the R-value can be
found here (in austrian german :) https://epimath.at/

 > The Austrian level of testing is leaps above what has been available
 > in Ottawa.   I wish that the debate here was between whether to
 > continue testing for 2 months or 4 months, rather than whether the
 > entire thing was a hoax.

Austria has it's fair share of "hoax claimers" too. But more
problematic, our former government declared, that testing is just as
good as getting vaccinated. And also declared the pandemic over last
summer... With the expected results in vaccination rates and compliance
by the populance to less popular measures...

 >     https://613covid.ca/wastewater/

Yes, all major wastewater treatment plants in austria do get sampled
daily for the virus load too (and this will be one larger cornerstone
once the restrictions are lifted, to detect the onset of another wave
early).

> caused by failures of the pumps.

If you are interested in the fresh water and sewage water engineering in
vienna, there is quite some story behind that.

The very quick summary: Vienna is (to the best of my knowledge) the only
major (>1 mio) city, where Tap Water is prestine mountain well water.
And about 70% of the city is provided with this spring water by pure
gravity flow from the mountains, via 3 pipelines (aqueducts).

The city of Vienna is one of the largest land-owners in styria and
lower-austria (wooded mountainous regions) from where the water is
collected.

You can do a sightseeing tour in the larger sewage canals of the city,
including the location where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Man
was shot. Since 1753 there have been laws enacted, that houses had to
dispose of wastewater in city-wide sewage canals, but as compliance was
not that great, the spring-water pipelines were also built to address
repeated cholera outbreaks.

If you are on the cheap, the Stadtpark - next door to the hotel - is
partially built on top of the river Wien. About 2 Metro stations
upstream (towards Hütteldorf; the metro runs literally next to the river
canal) you can enter that canal, and ride bike in it and see some of the
former overflow canals (no longer in function) for rainwater overspill.
Just get out of there when heavy rains are forcast (yellow warning
lights indicate, when a flood is to be expected though, to evacuate that
entrenchement).

(The modern city name Wien does not originate from the roman fort
Vindobona (Wine at the river Danube), but from an archaic german name of
these small river tributaries to the Danube.

However, speaking of Wine, there are Winemakers (Winzer) within the city
limits, and as the patches where wine can be grown diverge from spot to
spot regarding what sort of grapes can be grown, there exists a variety
of "Field blend" Wines ("Gemischter Satz").

---

From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:41:20 +0100

On 18/02/2022 11:37, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Thanks, this is the answer I was looking for. So I know that, if that final
> decision will happen as scheduled, after the end of this month the physical
> part of the meeting could still be cancelled in the uncontrollable case of a
> new surge in cases in March, but not in the controllable case of the IESG
> changing their mind on whether to hold a hybrid meeting.

on another note - here in Slovenia (neighours of Austria) our gov't lifted
pretty much all restrictions re RVT :)

https://www.gov.si/en/topics/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/

"As of 21 February 2022, the RVT rule will no longer be required except in
healthcare and social care institutions and in prisons.

Measures that are still in place to contain the spread of COVID-19 infections:

hygienic measures: sanitising, keeping social distance
wear a face mask in closed public spaces and on public transport,
wearing face mask in school.

As of 19 February 2022, restrictions due to Covid-19 no longer apply when
entering Slovenia. This means that:

the RVT (recovered/vaccinated/tested) condition no longer has to be met at the
border and travellers will no longer be ordered to quarantine at home."

Similar thing is going on also in other European countries and we cautiously
expect/hope that Austria will not be an island ;)

No covid restriction/measure is currently effective and stops Omicron from
spreading, so why even bother :)

Cheers, Jan

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 15:21:15 +0100

I agree most countries give up on measures.   I give up maintaining a list.

> spreading, so why even bother :)

There might be an answer to that question - long covid.

But it is difficult to understand it for myself.

Alex

---

From: Eberhard W Lisse <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:25:41 +0200

Without wishing to start a debate, the combination of Mask, Disinfection,
Distancing and Vaccination/Booster is reasonably effective and easy to do.

el

On 21/02/2022 15:41, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
[...]
[...]

---

From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:32:07 +0100

If only humanity would take this stance against other infecteous
deceases which have a very long term health effect, apart from the acute
infection, such as

Herpes (Shingles)

Epstein-Barr-Virus (MS)

HPV - Cancer

:
:

Life is risk.

Simply having been socially distanced for the last ~2 years has had a
detrimental effect on the immune system vs. "normal" flu-sympton viridae...

---

From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:53:25 +0100

> Distancing and Vaccination/Booster is reasonably effective and easy to do.

agreed.

In theory it would work, but if just 20% of people is doing that in reality -
then the restrictions doesn't matter anymore.

Cheers, Jan

---

From: Petr Špaček <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 17:16:03 +0100

> then the restrictions doesn't matter anymore.

Pretty please stop discussing epidemiology on this list.

IETF is not a group of epidemiology experts.

If someone on this is interested in effects of non-compliance on spread 
of Covid-19 then please go to scientific sources and read how 
non-compliance is incorporated in epidemiology models and how it affects 
model predictions.

-- 
Petr Špaček

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 15:07:32 +0100

Le 21/02/2022 à 17:16, Petr Špaček a écrit :
> If someone on this is interested in effects of non-compliance on 
> spread of Covid-19 then please go to scientific sources and read how 
> non-compliance is incorporated in epidemiology models and how it 
> affects model predictions.

I would go look there if you give me a pointer?

But, I have some doubt about current epidemiology models because never 
have they faced such a large scale.

For example, as far as I know in my non-professional knowledge, there is 
no spread model for the normal flu, which indeed affects large populations.

Alex

---

From: Petr Špaček <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:03:01 +0100

> no spread model for the normal flu, which indeed affects large populations.

Responded off-list so we can stop discussing it here. Please.

-- 
Petr Špaček

---

From: Alexandre PETRESCU <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:16:32 +0100

--
Alexandre Petrescu
[email-masked], tél 0169089223

Le 23/02/2022 à 16:03, Petr Špaček a écrit :
>> But, I have some doubt about current epidemiology models because 
>> never have they faced such a large scale.
>>
>> For example, as far as I know in my non-professional knowledge, there 
>> is no spread model for the normal flu, which indeed affects large 
>> populations.
>

Thank you for the private response.

Alex