Subject: [Manycouches] Sad irony

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 11:25:57 -0500

So now we are entering the re-opening phase and it strikes me that this is
actually the hardest part of the whole process.

Shutting down was an easy decision because it wasn't much of a decision. It
was forced on us. But opening up means having to go to a lot of expense
preparing for a meeting knowing that something like omicron can shoot
through and shut it down.

>From the first discovery of omicron to the omicron surge was 6 weeks.

I am pretty confident that we should be OK for Vienna. But instead of being
a means of financing operations, the in-person meetings are looking like a
liability to me.

If we plan for an in-person meeting and have to cancel, IETF is going to
lose a lot of money. We can't insure. The hotels are probably being forced
to offer flexible terms but those aren't the only costs.

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 22:30:33 +0100

Le 07/01/2022 à 17:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker a écrit :
> So now we are entering the re-opening phase and it strikes me that 
> this is actually the hardest part of the whole process.
> 
> Shutting down was an easy decision because it wasn't much of a 
> decision. It was forced on us. But opening up means having to go to
> a lot of expense preparing for a meeting knowing that something like 
> omicron can shoot through and shut it down.
> 
> I am pretty confident that we should be OK for Vienna. But instead
> of being a means of financing operations, the in-person meetings are
>  looking like a liability to me.
> 
> 
> If we plan for an in-person meeting and have to cancel, IETF is
> going to lose a lot of money. We can't insure. The hotels are
> probably being forced to offer flexible terms but those aren't the
> only costs.

Sad irony?  Sad yes, irony I dont know

To me, March is so far away.

I cant see beyond end of this month anyways.

Any plan for March is like plans sur la comète, to take a local
expression.  It is like planning for the leisure of planning, but on a
different planet.

If we want to look at the curves for Austria then we might think that
Austria will not be in a complete low of covid in March.  If one accepts
that and still want to meet, then one can accept anything anyways.

If we look at Austria potential vaccination mandatory situation (all
must vaccinate) startind in February, and the current Djokovic debate in
Australia (he prefers not vaccinate, so he is forced through quaranteen)
then one might wonder what does it mean for Austria in MArch and
potential IETFer not wanting vaccine.

At that point one might think to compare the curves of all incoming
countries to Austria, and then decide on risk factors of one-to-one
meetings.  For example, it might be possible that meeting a China person
in Austria has a lower risk factor than meeting another country's
person.  But why caring about that anyways.

A helping observation: 2 years ago we witnessed on an IETF list a
declaration of a person telling masks are not necessary; now, in the
country of same person they require higher protection masks (FFP2).  At
this speed in a year time they might require the FFP3, which is a
possibility.

To compare, in the country where I live they talk about maybe FFP1
masks, as if we are not the same humans.  Or they sell 'sanitizers'
boxes (for smartphones and keys) next to masks and tests in
hypermarkets, as if they helped kill covid.  In other country they put
the same blue light in theaters as if they killed the virus in the air.

In such context, I am not surprised by _any_ decision.

There is apparent talk about 'herd immunity' vs 'zero covid' strategies
in the world.  They seem to antagonize each other, with negative end
results anyways.

And all these discussions, despite my obsession, are not worth a dime
since we push to meet without _any_ consideration to these aspects anyways.

Personally, my question I keep wondering is whether or not I will assist
at the next IETF meeting remotely.  I already cancelled many invitations
to in-person meetings preferring their online version when available, or
not participating at all if no online version, but participating online
to a meeting that has an in-person component in these circumstances
poses a different kind of question to me.

Alex

> 
> _______________________________________________ Manycouches mailing 
> list [email-masked] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2022 16:33:08 +0100

>  looking like a liability to me.

I wonder what 'a means to finance operations' [in-person meetings are],
really means?

To me that would be a liability if all agreed that the in-person meeting
helped spreading the virus, AND that the 'herd immunity' was not a right
strategy overall.  None seems to be the case.

But it seems that currently more and more signs indicate that everything
should open, let the virus spread, let everyone protect as they could,
and then we'll see.  Signs of this are the UK openings, the Israel
openings, and more.

The strategy 'herd immunity' also relies on a key reasoning: that of the
virus apparent intention to not generate more lethal variants the more
it spreads.  Some say it cant get worse than delta, and omicron is a
proof of that.  The reason invoked for that is that the virus needs
persons to spread, so it has no 'interest' when there are no persons to use.

To me, and I am not a medical person, and the medical persons might know
better, this reasoning of 'herd immunity' relies on key concept - that
of an intelligent virus, as if it were a human.  But it is so difficult
to accept such a small virus is so intelligent.  I personally think that
the way these variants create and spread are completely random events
(like real randomness).  In that sense, the reasoning of 'herd immunity'
might not stand.

But there is hope, and the hope is in more science.  The science should
be used as help.  There should be a structure of a scientific board to
help in making decisions about IETF meetings.  The science should be the
science as we know it in Computer Science, and not the science the
medicine sometimes is not.  Medicine science rarely can tell whether
administering a pill to an ill actually saved; if the person is saved
some times we dont really know why - was it the pill or was it something
else.  In terms of real science, that kind of medicine science is not
science, bus more probabilities.  That science is not using reproducible
experiments.  A science that talks in terms of probabilities is ok for
the position of a smallest particle, but is not ok when predicting human
life.

A proposed scientific board, or panel, would not be bound to financial
interests.

For the financial interest: everything should be put on hold for a few
months: pay all debt, dont engage any spending.  Until this scientific
board gives some advice.

A scientific board or panel could be sub-contracted too, but at a
minimum expense.

Alex