I’m understanding the TLDR to be “EAG organizers should be more deliberate about COVID precautions.” Correct me if I’m wrong.
I think that’s a great idea! I estimate that 70-95% of EAG-SF participants did not wear a mask consistently during the conference. Conclusion: at the next EAG, people are again going to accept high COVID risk as the default, unless EAG organizers set different policies.
From my read it’s more like: Try to be more hardcore about it, because that has some value of information, e.g., about how well current techniques work.
Organizational response like upper-room UV isn’t about how participants act. I think Josh is pushing for the organizers to try to do things to keep people safe, regardless of mask wearing. (And that has other benefits as well, as a proof-of-concept.)
Yes, David and Nuno’s interpretation was my intended meaning. Sorry to be unclear. The goal here is to implement (presumably impermanent) built environment controls that make the air safe regardless of individual behavior.
To be fair, if we tried to do this and it seemed impossible to accomplish a meaningful goal without source control (masking) that would also be useful info to discover.
Agreed, I meant “COVID precautions” more broadly. 2nd paragraph was just to illustrate that this won’t happen by default, although for things like upper-room UV that was already clear.
That is true, but I also do think that the symbolic value of doing it is very high. If you’re a community that believes that the government should do [policy] it is not only good PR but also makes you understand your beliefs better if you also pursue that policy (to the extent that you can scale it down)
I’m understanding the TLDR to be “EAG organizers should be more deliberate about COVID precautions.” Correct me if I’m wrong.
I think that’s a great idea! I estimate that 70-95% of EAG-SF participants did not wear a mask consistently during the conference. Conclusion: at the next EAG, people are again going to accept high COVID risk as the default, unless EAG organizers set different policies.
From my read it’s more like: Try to be more hardcore about it, because that has some value of information, e.g., about how well current techniques work.
Organizational response like upper-room UV isn’t about how participants act. I think Josh is pushing for the organizers to try to do things to keep people safe, regardless of mask wearing. (And that has other benefits as well, as a proof-of-concept.)
Yes, David and Nuno’s interpretation was my intended meaning. Sorry to be unclear. The goal here is to implement (presumably impermanent) built environment controls that make the air safe regardless of individual behavior.
To be fair, if we tried to do this and it seemed impossible to accomplish a meaningful goal without source control (masking) that would also be useful info to discover.
Agreed, I meant “COVID precautions” more broadly. 2nd paragraph was just to illustrate that this won’t happen by default, although for things like upper-room UV that was already clear.
That is true, but I also do think that the symbolic value of doing it is very high. If you’re a community that believes that the government should do [policy] it is not only good PR but also makes you understand your beliefs better if you also pursue that policy (to the extent that you can scale it down)