Careful Dan – the attached figure is NOT according the NSC. It was compiled by the Heritage Foundation (which is a policy group with an agenda), partly by using data at that link – for the non-COVID deaths. The NSC link says pretty much
up front. I’m not saying it is wrong or right – just the source is not the NSC, and it is one with self-acknowledge, and known bias (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/heritage-foundation).
I may actually agree with them on many points, but I understand the bias they come from. I’m not going to debate how they produced the result, frankly, I don’t have the time – and, mass population statistics aren’t terribly relevant when you are planning
a specific gathering.
Also, it really isn’t what we do well.
Oh, and I hold a dim view of epidemiologists and public health officials prognosticating on the future of networking technology as well….
But seriously. It’s been a long day of reviewing drafts, standards development meetings, and meeting with clients on technical issues of networking – where our expertise lies.
However, as leaders of 802, if we don’t track and follow industry-standard practices when we go back to F2F meetings we risk not being responsible to our participants. We already know we are not in a situation where we are first out of
the gate. The bar is set, and there is data to support it - even if it is a bit unclear. Fortunately, we have time before our first face-to-face meetings to see if it gets clearer.
-george
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
On Behalf Of Harkins, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 7:24 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] F2F meeting safety
The "odds of dying" according to the NSC (see the attached):
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> 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 [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.
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:
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 on behalf of 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)
… which suggests strong protection following natural infection is short-lived
Andrew
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <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
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> On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:20 PM
To: 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> 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
Andrew Myles
Manager, Enterprise Standards
amyles@cisco.com
Phone: +61 2 8446 1010
Mobile: +61 418 656587Cisco Systems Limited
The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
St Leonards 2065
AUSTRALIA
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
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
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