Re: COVID [was: Re: DebConf 25 Daily announcements - 2025.07.15 - Daytrip information && DebConf Day 2]

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Julien Plissonneau Duquène writes ("Re: COVID [was: Re: DebConf 25 Daily announcements - 2025.07.15 - Daytrip information && DebConf Day 2]"):
> My take on this is that if a similar policy is reconducted I probably 
> won't attend again

The current policy, extremely weak as it is, was a part of my decision
to take the risk to attend this DebConf.

Other events I have been to, including eg the 2023 UK national
bisexual convention (BiCon), have had much stronger policies and
managed a nearly-zero case rate without seriously impeding the event,
(despite for example a play party taking place at BiCon 2023).

Partly this kind of good outcome will be due to the generally good
attitude of the attendees, who take care of their community by
prioritising the health of their friends and allies, over their own
comfort or convenience.

Covid policy is a tradeoff.  I think as a matter of values, Debconf's
policy ought to favour attendees who take covid (and other infections)
seriously, and those who have friends or relatives at home who are
extra vulnerable would be at serious risk if an infection brought
back.  (For example, my primary partner has MS.)

In general Debconf policy it ought to favour attendees who are
pro-social and willing to make some compromises for our collective
health and for the accessibility of the conference to those for whom
covid risk is a serious impediment to any kind of in-person
conference.

I hope the next Debconf will have a stronger, not weaker, policy.

For example, we should expect attendees to do daily tests.  This has a
relatively low financial cost.  Positive tests come after
infectiousness starts, but with a long conference like Debconf they
can help reduce the continued transmission risk from asymptomatic
cases.

We should expect attendees with cold-like symptoms to mask, at the
very least, regardless of test status.

At registration, attendees should be reminded of the policy and their
responisbility, and asked to explicitly confirm that they will follow
the policy.

We could ask attendees to show evidence of a negative pre-travel test
at Registration (and failing that, registration would have tests
on-hand).  Announcing such a policy in advance can discourage
symptomatic people from travelling to the conference and giving
everyone "con crud".

We should ensure that all rooms have good ventilation, and deploy CO2
monitoring.  Ideally venues with rooms that will go over 1000ppm
should probably be avoided, but I understand that choice of venue is
always a compromise.  At the very least we should monitor the CO2 in
each room and have a public announcement *in the room* if it gets too
high so that vulnerable people can leave.  (High levels of CO2 are
also terrible for cognition.)

Finally, that Western governments have largely dedided to falsely
pretend the pandemic is over should be no guide to our own behaviour.
Governments have also decided to do almost nothing about the climate
emergency.  I could go on with more examples of governments doing bad
things that make the electorate feel better.  This is one of those.

Ian.
(quite cross)

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.  

Pronouns: they/he.  If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.