Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

G'day James

It seems we agree that the goal is to promote (not guarantee) the safety of all participants at IEEE 802 meetings, and those they may come in contact with, at the meeting and afterwards. Excellent, we can work with that. I also generally agree with you that we ideally would:

Define how safety is to be quantitatively measured.
Define what quantitative level of safety is safe enough.
Get agreement on this measurement and the passing number.

Of course, as you probably realise, this is a very difficult, if not impossible, set of tasks. We would probably need a standard for that, which will take 3-5 years to finish! 😊

The situation today is that as a result of COVID, there have been about 16 million excess deaths globally, including about 900k excess deaths in the US (source: The Economist). The world is a less safe place than it was two years ago. Fortunately, the situation is improving and safety of large IEEE 802 style meetings is also likely to become more acceptable to an increasing number of people over time. Indeed, rather than executing the three step process above, I suspect the key to deciding conditions have improved sufficiently to holding an IEEE 802 meeting is understanding the comfort level of those that would normally attend.

Ideally, we would have consensus that is it is sufficiently safe to hold a meeting (ie no sustained and substantive opposition). However, knowing consensus will be difficult to establish for a subject that has become as much political as it is about safety, I would suggest a super majority (of, say, voting members) might be a suitable proxy. My preference would be a 90% super majority for a safety issue, but 75% might also be reasonable based on its history as a consensus threshold in IEEE 802.

Three questions might be appropriate to determine if, and under what conditions, a meeting could be held:

Would you be comfortable attending an IEEE 802 meeting in March 2022 in Florida at which participants were:

not required to be vaccinated
not required to wear a mask indoors?

Would you be comfortable attending an IEEE 802 meeting in March 2022 in Florida at which participants were:

required to be vaccinated
not required to wear a mask indoors?

Would you be comfortable attending an IEEE 802 meeting in March 2022 in Florida at which participants were:

required to be vaccinated
required to wear a mask indoors?

Today, I would personally answer no, no, yes today but I could imagine changing my answer in the future to no, yes, yes or even yes, yes, yes as the situation improves. How would you answer?

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: James P. K. Gilb <Gilb_IEEE@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2021 3:39 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles) <amyles@cisco.com>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety

Andrew

I want to take issue with one of your comments:

"which means IEEE 802 achieves its goal of a safe meeting with high probability"

We have never had, and never will have a "safe" meeting. It has never been the goal of IEEE 802 to have "a safe meeting". All meetings and travel involve some level of risk, hence no meeting is "safe".

Now, if you want to say safe enough, some acceptable level of safety, or as you say earlier "The real goal is to promote (not guarantee) the safety of all participants at IEEE 802 meetings, and those they may come in contact with, at the meeting and afterwards", then you must:

1) Define how safety is to be quantitatively measured.

2) Define what quantitative level of safety is safe enough.

3) Get agreement on this measurement and the passing number.

Perhaps you have in mind a way to quantify meeting safety. Perhaps you even have a target number for that measure of meeting safety. If so, perhaps you could share that with us.

Otherwise, we are just sharing personal opinions, which is fine. But as Ben says, I think those are best done with appropriate beverages and are not relevant to IEEE 802 making policies.

BTW: I do not agree that your suggestion as I don't think it is required to meet my level of "safe enough". But then, that is just my personal opinion as I don't know how to measure meeting safety in a manner suitable for all potential attendees of a face to face meeting.

Instead, I think we should simply defer to local rules.

James Gilb

On 10/17/21 6:59 PM, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:

> G’day Ben

> Let’s suppose the IEEE 802 decides to hold the IEEE 802 plenary in Florida in March 2022 (which I suspect is at least possible, if not probable). Also assume that the planned US entry requirements (from 8 Nov) remain the same for participants from outside the US, ie full vaccination with a WHO approved vaccine (exceptions have apparently not yet been determined but it is reported there are likely to be none for over 18s) AND a negative test within three days.

> This means that if I attend the IEEE 802 plenary in Florida in March 2022 then you will know with certainty that I have been tested within the last three days (and passed) and am fully vaccinated. Similarly, if I register to attend but don’t turn up then this is a pretty good indication that I failed the COVID test. According to the logic of your e-mail, this is an egregious violation of my privacy that has been enabled by IEEE 802 scheduling a meeting in Florida. On this basis, the IEEE 802 should not schedule any F2F meeting in any country (including the US) that requires vaccination and/or testing. The Florida meeting should be immediately cancelled.

> Of course, this is silly (and would probably result in remote-only meetings for a very long time). The real goal is to promote (not guarantee) the safety of all participants at IEEE 802 meetings, and those they may come in contact with, at the meeting and afterwards. This goal can be achieved by requiring all those attending an IEEE 802 meeting to be vaccinated, just like the requirement on those who cross international borders. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. 😊 The goal could also be achieved by mandated pre-meeting testing as well.

> There is no need to require participants to provide medical records (which is sensitive for many people) or for anyone to review those records (which is challenging given the diversity of record types). Instead, a more pragmatic approach is to require all participants to affirm/declare that they meet the full vaccination (and testing) requirements. It is possible that some could lie but that would be an ethical violation for the individual, which has its own consequences. I suspect very few would lie, which means IEEE 802 achieves its goal of a safe meeting with high probability, with any privacy violations (if you believe they even exist) extremely limited and also uniform across all attendees (local and international).

> Andrew

> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****

> <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> On Behalf Of ben@blindcreek.com

> Sent: Friday, 15 October 2021 6:36 AM

> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

> Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety

> Either is a violation of privacy. Were it any other medical condition, the idea of requiring disclosure of confidential patient records to an SDO would be acknowledged as inappropriate and unacceptable to many if not most attendees.

> However we seem to have accepted a completely different standard in the case of this particular virus. That is a political determination. I won't debate politics on this reflector because I think this is an inappropriate use of the reflectors. I will restate however that governments around the world are setting requirements with which our attendees must comply, and we should neither debate those requirements nor take the role of enforcement for local laws and regulations .

> Proof of negative test is required to travel into or out of every country I checked including the US, Canada, Japan, UK and at least one EU member state. [I looked at their government sites for requirements]. Also proof of vaccination is required by most. Thus it would be both redundant for 802 to police either.

> Further, the citizens of a particular nation may debate with their government justifications for excepting COVID from normal privacy protections, but that is out of scope of 802. We are not a government and do not have the authority of a government. Requiring disclosure of medical history is very risky, and should we exclude anyone who chooses not to disclose based on privacy concerns, we would be exposed to bad things (loss of accreditation or worse).

> So I remain steadfast that 802 NOT take any such verification as a requirement to attend meetings. Completely unneccessary risk.

> FWIW

> Ben

> ________________________________

> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****

> <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>> on behalf of

> Clint Powell <cpowell@IEEE.ORG<mailto:cpowell@IEEE.ORG>>

> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:59 AM

> To:

> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

> <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

> >

> Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety

> Steve,

> Agree, and you make a good point regarding vaccinated being tested.

> BR,

> Clint

> From: Steve Shellhammer

> <sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com<mailto:sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com>>

> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:51 AM

> To: cpowell@IEEE.ORG<mailto:cpowell@IEEE.ORG>;

> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

> Subject: RE: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety

> Clint,

> Thanks for the clarification. I think I would be okay with requiring a recent Covid test since that does not required proof of vaccination, and is not too onerous.

> It is not clear that those who are vaccinated would

> not need such a proof since recent studies have shown that those who

> are vaccinated are just as likely to pass on the virus as those who

> are not. But now we are getting into the (political) science. 😊

> Regards,

> Steve

> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****

> <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>> On Behalf Of

> Clint Powell

> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:35 AM

> 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.

> Steve,

> I was referring to 802 essentially having no requirements or protocols in place. I think that for those traveling from outside the US (given a US mtg.) the concern of them carrying the virus to the meeting is significantly decreased due to the measures in place to be able to travel internationally. The concern is with those travelling from with-in the US, where the measures in place for travel are not as high (no requirement of a negative test result or being vaccinated), thereby putting at risk all those (including their family, friends, community) travelling internationally that have to meet a higher bar. Family, friends, community that can’t be vaccinated, or those with underlying health conditions that even if vaccinated would not tolerate catching the virus - this actually applies to those travelling domestically as well. Additionally, how many people in 802 have an underlying health condition, that they do not know about, that if they caught the virus would cause them immense suffering, life long health complications, or even death. I would submit 1 is even too many, especially since we could/should take measures in helping to reduce that chance.

> As the 802 leadership it is our responsibility to help ensure the safety of our members, family, friends, etc. as best we can.

> BR,

> Clint

> From: Steve Shellhammer

> <sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com<mailto:sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com>>

> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:28 AM

> To: cpowell@IEEE.ORG<mailto:cpowell@IEEE.ORG>;

> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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

> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****

> <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>> On Behalf Of

> ben@BLINDCREEK.COM<mailto:ben@BLINDCREEK.COM>

> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 8:57 AM

> To:

> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

> Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety

> 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.

> Ben

> ________________________________

> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****

> <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>> on behalf of

> James P. K. Gilb

> <000008e8b69871c2-dmarc-request@ieee.org<mailto:000008e8b69871c2-dmarc

> -request@ieee.org>>

> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 8:25 PM

> To:

> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

> <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

> >

> Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety

> 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<mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org%3cmailto: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/>.<https://www.stopdrowningnow.org/drowning-statistics/%3e.>" 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<mailto: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<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org%3cmailto: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<mailto: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/o

>> dds-of-dying/<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-de

>> ath-overview/odds-of-dying/><https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries

>> /preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/%3chttps:/injuryfacts.nsc.o

>> rg/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/%3e>

>> 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<mailto:r.b.marks@IEEE.ORG%3cmailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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-confer

>> s-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital<https://www

>> .science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-grea

>> ter-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital><https://www.science.o

>> rg/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immuni

>> ty-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital%3chttps:/www.science.org/content

>> /article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine

>> -vaccination-remains-vital%3e>

>> 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<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org%3cmailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>> on behalf of 00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@ieee.org<mailto:00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@ieee.org<mailto:00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@ieee.org%3cmailto: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<mailto:STDS-802-S

>> EC@ieee.org%3cmailto: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<

>> mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG%3cmailto: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<mailto:STDS-802-S

>> EC@ieee.org%3cmailto: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<

>> mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG%3cmailto: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<mailto:00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@ieee.org%3cmailto: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-ameri

>> ca/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/>

>> ________________________________