Here are some things we did to make the event safer [...]
I think this is a complete list of everything that was done, before and after the decision to expand. Is that correct? If so, what’s the subset of things that were done to compensate for expansion?
According to our model of COVID risk, the key factor in risk of infection is how densely packed attendees are. As we doubled the capacity, we also approximately doubled the size of the space available for lunch (and made sure that attendees actually spread out into this space) and other sessions. We did this by reserving a second venue (a good chunk of the Barbican) and adding the marquees for one-on-ones. So I think that although the risk increased a bit, it didn’t increase by that much (substantially less than by 100%).
Yeah, I should have noted that the marquees did increase safety by reducing density, even if they weren’t safer per square meter than the main event. I do think, though, that the impression given was that the marquees would be relativelysafer places to meet for those uncomfortable with the indoor spaces, and I don’t think that was the case. Do you agree? (It’s fine if you agree but also think it wasn’t that important.)
We considered some further measures, like checking that everyone completed tests every day. After assessing the risks and consulting with our advisory board, we decided that the benefits of verifying these (rather than trusting people to carry out tests as we asked) didn’t justify the significant costs.
Seems like if you’re already on the honour system, you might as well ask people to take a test every day?
I think this is a complete list of everything that was done, before and after the decision to expand. Is that correct? If so, what’s the subset of things that were done to compensate for expansion?
Some of the things I listed were added to the COVID Protocol only after the decision to expand. One example of this is that we weren’t planning on requiring tests before we decided to expand. We also decided to closely monitor the number of people who were present in any given room, especially during lunch, when we thought more people would be unmasked. (Very few of the attendees ended up using masks regularly, which we did not expect, so lunch was not as unique as we thought it would be.) I think the most important thing we did to compensate for the expansion, however, was to add the second venue and the marquees (as I mentioned before).
I do think, though, that the impression given was that the marquees would be relatively safer places to meet
We indeed thought that the marquees would be more ventilated than they were. I agree that this is the impression we communicated to attendees.
Seems like if you’re already on the honour system, you might as well ask people to take a test every day?
I’m not sure how this follows, but you can probably make the argument that we should have pushed people to take tests more frequently. I am undecided on this, and we discussed this option. We ended up encouraging people to take frequent tests but not forcing it. (I don’t really know what kind of response to this point you’re looking for.)
On event safety
I think this is a complete list of everything that was done, before and after the decision to expand. Is that correct? If so, what’s the subset of things that were done to compensate for expansion?
Yeah, I should have noted that the marquees did increase safety by reducing density, even if they weren’t safer per square meter than the main event. I do think, though, that the impression given was that the marquees would be relatively safer places to meet for those uncomfortable with the indoor spaces, and I don’t think that was the case. Do you agree? (It’s fine if you agree but also think it wasn’t that important.)
Seems like if you’re already on the honour system, you might as well ask people to take a test every day?
Some of the things I listed were added to the COVID Protocol only after the decision to expand. One example of this is that we weren’t planning on requiring tests before we decided to expand. We also decided to closely monitor the number of people who were present in any given room, especially during lunch, when we thought more people would be unmasked. (Very few of the attendees ended up using masks regularly, which we did not expect, so lunch was not as unique as we thought it would be.) I think the most important thing we did to compensate for the expansion, however, was to add the second venue and the marquees (as I mentioned before).
We indeed thought that the marquees would be more ventilated than they were. I agree that this is the impression we communicated to attendees.
I’m not sure how this follows, but you can probably make the argument that we should have pushed people to take tests more frequently. I am undecided on this, and we discussed this option. We ended up encouraging people to take frequent tests but not forcing it. (I don’t really know what kind of response to this point you’re looking for.)