|
I agree with Steve that placing responsibility on the individual is not 'throwing our hands up in the air' and doing nothing. Nor am I endorsing doing nothing.
We do what needs to be done, which will be determined by entities outside 802 and will vary based on the destination. We should not do what is redundant, such as trying to get proof of vaccination as a requirement to register, as this will have been a requirement
to get to the meeting. We do not take a political position nor attempt to decide which "authority" is right regarding appropriate "social distance" nor enforce our own arbitrary definitions.
We always remind attendees that our meetings are to be conducted in compliance with applicable laws. We can remind attendees of their duty to so comply with local mandates such as masks, distances, and so on. That is not nothing. But it is the extent of 802
authority.
FWIW
Ben
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> on behalf of Steve Shellhammer <sshellha@QTI.QUALCOMM.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:27 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety
Clint
I do not think allowing people to make their own personal decisions qualifies as “throwing our hands up in the air.”
Regards,
Steve
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
On Behalf Of Clint Powell
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:24 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety
While I don’t disagree that it’s a personal choice, and many of the measures would be hard to enable, I think simply throwing our hands up in the air (if things have not significantly improved) is also irresponsible
to our fellow members and mankind in general. As leaders in a global IEEE organization we should be setting the standard, which in my mind does not equate to removing the bar. I think some balance between the two extremes can surely be obtained that addresses
concerns of members (and their countries guidelines) from all corners of the world.
BR,
Clint
In addition to the pragmatic points made by James, I would add that this is largely a political discussion which, while highly entertaining, is proposing public policy that is way out of scope of 802. Various governments
are and will continue to set rules for travel and public gatherings. All attendees will be aware of the constraints and expectations if they are travelling to our events. Ultimately each person will have to decide independently, and/or with the "help" of
our governments or employers, when we achieve an acceptable level of risk. I happen to agree with Dan's point that personal safety is a personal responsibility, and abdicating that responsibility to others is generally unwise, but that is a personal view
based on my own experiences. You may choose to put your all your trust in others to protect you - when you do so you have made a choice.
Currently proof of vaccination or recent recovery from "COVID" AND a negative test within a certain period (typically 3 days prior to travel) is required to travel into or out of many if not most countries. It is
highly unlikely such requirements will not be applied to every potential attendee. Requiring our meeting planners to collect personal medical information on attendees is redundant. It may also violate privacy laws in some places.
Currently "mask wearing" is required for indoor public gatherings most places where we are likely to hold a session. Masks will be removed to drink beverages and eat meals and snacks. In many places masks are not required outdoors. Despite the logical inconsistencies,
most governments have deemed it so. Few have to my knowledge queried 802 for input on making such policies.
Social distancing is also required by most jurisdictions when in public (and some places private) gatherings. As noted, there are various definitions of "distant". Wherever we happen to be, each person is responsible for abiding by the requirements or guidelines
established for that location. The venue will be required to provide for such distancing by capacity limits, markings, signage and so on, and may (or may not) be responsible for enforcement. Again something we will live with which is out of scope of 802.
I could go on...y'all know I could...but enough to make the point. We could choose to develop our own arbitrary policies we argue are better than whatever is in place where we go, and then have the impossible task of enforcing behaviors that are pragmatically
out of our control. Though the idea of an EC member running around during meetings and breaks with a measuring stick checking "social distancing" is highly amusing (for me), it seems neither practical nor beneficial.
FWIW...please continue to debate.
All
I oppose implementing those requirements for the following reasons:
1) Face covering mandate
a) There is plenty of data from the US as well as studies that
indicate that these make little to no difference.
b) The type of face covering worn and how it is fitted can change by
7 to 1 or more the effectiveness in preventing droplets (which assumes
that this measurement is capable of predicting spreading of this virus).
Are we going to adopt a requirement for a specific face covering that
will make it difficult to hear each other? How will we police it? Do
we want to?
2) Vaccine requirement
a) As Bob Grow mentioned, requiring our meeting planners to validate
vaccine data from multiple countries and in various languages isn't
practical
b) The requirement ignores the data and history of vaccines in
dismissing immunity from previous infections.
c) We would have to determine which vaccinations we accept or don't
accept.
d) We can expect the moving of goal posts such that booster shots may
be required to be considered "fully vaccinated".
e) No religious or medical exemptions and I don't think we could
review them anyway.
3) Daily temperature checks
a) There isn't any data that says that this is effective.
b) Non-contact thermometers are not very accurate
c) The current theory is that the virus can spread from asymptomatic
people, i.e., no fever, so even accurate temperature screening is
unlikely to be effective.
4) Social distancing
a) So,which distance to we choose? 1 m (WHO recommendation), the US
has 1.83 m (6 ft) and apparently Germany and Austria use 1.5 m.
b) Are we going to hire people to enforce this?
c) Note that the recommendations are for prolonged face-to-face
contact (> 10 minutes as I recall), so we wouldn't need this everywhere.
At least no one recommended wiping down tables and chairs (although I
would advise people not to lick tables or chairs in any event).
Note that depending on the location, we would have these rules in the
meeting, but then could go to breakfast, lunch or dinner together with
none of these requirements in place. So enforcing them in the halls
seems to me to be quite silly.
We may have individuals in high risk categories who may want to take
additional precautions or even not attend. But for those of us in low
risk categories, i.e., where the risk is no more than the seasonal flu,
there is no reason to add these requirements.
James Gilb
On 10/7/21 11:55 AM, Harkins, Daniel wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> I think you are misstating them as well. People younger than 12 are not restricted from drowning, that statistic cuts through all age groups. But those under 12 are not able to be vaccinated (yet). Furthermore, I don't know why you're applying the vaccination
percentage (which includes the almost 20% of the population that cannot be vaccinated) to deaths by drowning. The statistic is odds of dying. Of course, I'm sure there would be people attributing a vaccinated, COVID+ person who died from drowning as a COVID
death and not a drowning death.
>
> But that illustrates a misuse of the chart. Everyone's gonna die. The chart was saying the odds of your eventual cause of death being X is Y. It's a lifetime odd. So it's not really useful for our discussion and I probably shouldn't have included it. That
said, I do believe it does highlight the poor personal risk management that people are engaging in with COVID, which was my point in bringing it up. And I do maintain that we all have traditionally engaged in activities that carry more risk than being in the
room with 100 unmasked people at a F2F IEEE 802 meeting. And we probably will again, e.g. when we next get into a motor vehicle. The safetyism surrounding "zero covid" is irrational and emotional.
>
> Dan.
>
> --
> "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
> escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius
>
> On 10/7/21, 9:43 AM, "Roger Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org<mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org>> wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> You are still misstating the statistics. For example, the NSC chart says that the "Odds of Dying" from drowning is 1 in 1128. That means that, among 1128 people who died, 1 drowned. But you can't meaningfully compare that to 1 in 42K and say that drowning
is much more likely than breakthrough COVID death, because the denominators are completely different. To illustrate, "In the US, an average of 3,500 to 4,000 people drown per year<https://www.stopdrowningnow.org/drowning-statistics/>."
Let's presume that, in 2021, 55% of those will be unvaccinated. So about 2000 vaccinated people will die in the US in 2021 from drowning, but 4333 of them have already died due to COVID.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger
> On Oct 6, 2021, 9:20 PM -0600, Harkins, Daniel <daniel.harkins@hpe.com>, wrote:
>
>
> OK, I will withdraw my comment about the probability of being struck by lightning being equal to me being killed by COVID provided that you agree that 42K means that it's still an order of magnitude less likely than choking on food or dying from sunstroke.
Since I have engaged with you socially in different IEEE meetings I know that you are not an obsessive over death by sunstroke or death by choking (we had a nice, normal meal together in Korea if memory serves).
>
> So join me in saying that COVID should not be a reason to not meet face-to-face (since choking on food was not a reason to avoid face-to-face meetings before). If you're vaccinated you shouldn't care about the vaccination status of your fellow attendees
(be more concerned about chewing each bite 11 times) and if you're not vaccinated you're just putting yourself at risk. Now, let's meet!
>
> Dan.
>
> --
> "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
> escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius
>
> On 10/6/21, 7:55 PM, "***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** on behalf of Roger Marks" <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> on behalf of r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG<mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG>>
wrote:
>
> 57% (183,000,000) of the US population is vaccinated. So, to be fair to lightning, we should normalize to only vaccinated people; maybe only 6 of the 11. So maybe a better comparison of the ratio is 4333/6 instead of 4333/11. That’s bigger!
>
> The attachment, per its label, is from a political advocacy group, and the statistics are displayed accordingly. Why else would someone create a chart in which “deaths by cause in a fixed period of time, divided by population” is compared to “deaths by cause
divided by all deaths per lifetime”?
>
> Also, 183,000,000/4333=42K, not 137K.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger
> On Oct 6, 2021, 8:24 PM -0600, Harkins, Daniel <daniel.harkins@hpe.com>, wrote:
>
> The "odds of dying" according to the NSC (see the attached):
>
>
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>
> Those 4333 are of how many vaccinated?
>
> Dan.
>
> --
> "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
> escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius
>
> On 10/6/21, 6:58 PM, "Roger Marks" <r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG<mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG>> wrote:
>
> I'd like to put into perspective the comments I've seen comparing the odds of death from breakthrough COVID to that from lightning. Let's take a look at a sample population: the US.
>
> As of September 27, 4333 fully vaccinated people were reported dead in the US from COVID<https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html>
[excluding 893 who died with COVID but not necessarily from COVID]. Virtually all of these were in 2021.
> As of September 8, 11 people were reported dead from lightning in the US during 2021<https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-fatalities>.
>
> I don't mean to diminish the risk of lightning. Where I live, people take precautions against it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger
> On Oct 6, 2021, 7:28 PM -0600, George Zimmerman <george@cmephyconsulting.com>, wrote:
> All –
> I know how much we like to debate stuff outside our fields – it’s interesting, makes us feel smart, and an issue like this can impact our actual lives.
> I guess today is the day we all pretend to be immunologists and public health professionals. Personally, I read the direct literature, and often. The headlines and summary papers are usually just a guide to go look these things up. With this, and particularly
on this issue, what I can say is see that the data is complex, nuanced, and relatively varied – as there are a lot of variables at play. Odd how real science in medicine is pretty much like real science in engineering.
>
> What anyone can see is that if you want to find sound bites, you can, but the answer of whether you have durable immunity due to infection is not clear. One can also see (as John D points out) that false positives or even the ability to track whether someone
actually had covid is problematic. And I’m sure we could find more observations.
>
> But instead, I decided to get a data point on from the SMEs, as we’d say. I decided to ask some folks I know who work for large hospitals in settings where the people really ought to know the science what the policies were, and why. One is chief resident
in surgery at UCSF, and the other a professor of clinical pharmacy working in both Los Angeles County hospitals and University of California Irvine.
> In both cases, proof of vaccination is a job requirement to be on site. Prior infection is not a substitute. The reasons for this include all the above.
>
> The plan below would err on the side of safety. What I see being debated is whether that level of safety is needed. I suggest that if & when we go back to face-to-face meetings we should take what are then considered the proper safety precautions. As of
today, the plan below seems to fit.
> -george
>
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> On Behalf Of Harkins, Daniel
> Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 5:08 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> To quote your link:
>
> "Townsend and his team analyzed known reinfection and immunological data from the close viral relatives of
> SARS-CoV-2 that cause 'common colds' — along with immunological data from SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East
> Respiratory Syndrome. Leveraging evolutionary principles, the team was able to model the risk of COVID-19
> reinfection over time."
>
> So they made a model. Models tend to suffer from the bias of their makers and some of them are just garbage (e.g. the Imperial College one). Better to pay attention to studies that actually worked with people who had the virus and recovered. Like this one.
Here's a study of COVID that shows the opposite of what the model you referred to does:
>
>
https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital<https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital>
>
> Dan.
>
> --
> "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
> escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius
>
> On 10/6/21, 4:51 PM, "***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** on behalf of Andrew Myles (amyles)" <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> on behalf of
00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@ieee.org<mailto:00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@ieee.org>> wrote:
>
> G’day Steve,
>
> I agree that that we should follow the science …
>
>
> A study reported in The Lancet Microbe reports, “Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less. Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated. Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against
subsequent infections.” (see summary<https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/930359>)
>
> … which suggests strong protection following natural infection is short-lived
>
> Andrew
>
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Shellhammer
> Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2021 10:35 AM
> To:
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety
>
> Can’t support a non-scientific plan like this. Suggesting that a person previously infected must get vaccinated is non-scientific. I will stop there.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>> On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
> Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:20 PM
> To:
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety
>
>
> WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
> Thanks Andrew,
> I agree it is a good plan that we could mimic.
> Jon
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
> IEEE 802 Executive Secretary Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
> office: 801-492-4023 10871 North 5750 West
> cell: 801-376-6435 Highland, UT 84003
>
> A Job is only necessary to eat!
> A Family is necessary to be happy!!
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:07 PM Andrew Myles (amyles) <00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@ieee.org<mailto:00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@ieee.org>> wrote:
> G’day all
>
> A Cisco colleague recently attended his first F2F conference for some time (it was actually a hybrid meeting, but the on-line component was mainly broadcast rather than interactive). It was sponsored by the Linux Foundation.
>
> The experience was apparently not perfect, with my colleague reporting that some sessions were too full for his comfort, but generally pretty good. The most important aspect was that the Linux Foundation took COVID safety very seriously, including imposing:
>
> A mask mandate
>
> A vaccine requirement (with no exceptions for previous infection, etc)
>
> Daily temperature checks
>
> A social distancing code, with wristbands
> See
https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-north-america/attend/health-and-safety/#in-person-attendance-requirements for details
>
> This is the sort of thing that is going to be required for F2F activities to be provided in safety and comfort, at least in the near future. The Linux Foundation has done an excellent job at showing what is possible. This might be a good example for IEEE
802 to follow …
>
> Andrew Myles
> Manager, Cisco Standards
> [http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/logo05.jpg]
> Andrew Myles
> Manager, Enterprise Standards
> amyles@cisco.com<mailto:amyles@cisco.com>
> Phone: +61 2 8446 1010
> Mobile: +61 418 656587
> Cisco Systems Limited
> The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
> St Leonards 2065
> AUSTRALIA
> Cisco.com<http://www.cisco.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
|
