Mac - I apologize for responding in irritation. It wasn't proportionate. I guess I would just like to share that the information you shared doesn't contradict our position. I'm happy to discuss offline, since it's not a great use of the forum to do it here, I think.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 5:56 PM Laura Alexander <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mac, > > My understanding of transmission risk is based on information from > mainstream epidemiologists, not surveys. As a scientist not working in > epidemiology, I'm curious for expert information and seek it out. Believe > it or not, I still think our position is appropriate and responsible. I'm > aware of these studies and the information you shared, but thank you for > mentioning them. I'm happy to continue this conversation offline, but I'd > hope you refrain from making assumptions in the future about what people > understand. > > Laura > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 3:27 PM Walker Sloan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> "Our understanding on transmission risks..." Surveys reflect >> preferences, not science. >> >> Science: In Nov '22, per the CDC, bivalent boosted people had 1/3rd the >> chance of testing positive. This means that requiring bivalent boosters >> will dramatically cut the number of positives dancing in your hall. >> >> See attachment. Light green box at the bottom. >> >> With XBB.1.5 this number has yet to be determine. But odds are there >> will be a good effect. >> >> Do vaxes prevent Covid? No, but the odds of Covid producing a bad >> outcome in vaxed and boosted people go WAY down: Testing positive, >> transmitting, hospitalization, death -- WAY down. >> >> Holding dances for unvaxed people not only endangers them, but ALSO the >> folks they go home to and go to work with. >> >> Holding unvaxed or vax-optional dances prolongs the pandemic. >> Regardless of surveys or understandings. >> >> Mac Sloan >> >> On 23/01/07 2:07 PM, Laura Alexander wrote: >> > Arden contra (in Delaware) has a policy that's very similar to >> > Montelier's, and for the same reasons. We surveyed this fall and >> dropped >> > our vaccine requirement, and we'll survey our community again this >> > month. Without a significant change to our understanding on >> transmission >> > risk difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, we won't >> > consider re-excluding unvaccinated people. If it's not safe enough to >> > dance for community conditions and hospitals, we'll postpone dances. >> > >> > Whole policy: >> > >> > - vaccines strongly encouraged >> > - masks required >> > - hall with excellent ventilation >> > - contact tracing with mandatory info collection, system run by a >> > responsible person outside the community, announced at the dance and in >> > a follow-up email >> > - announcement that if anyone feels sick after the dance, we expect >> them >> > to get tested ASAP >> > - rapid tests available to those without access >> > >> > Thankfully we haven't had any known transmission yet since restarting >> in >> > March 2022. We average around 40 attendees per dance. >> > >> > I agree with Julian, I hope every local area has a space that's >> > taking all precautions available, and it also makes sense to me to have >> > mask-optional dances if there is no foreseeable change to covid risk. >> > >> > Thanks for the thread, everyone - it's useful to see what other dances >> > are doing. >> > Laura Alexander >> > >> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 12:13 AM Walker Sloan via Organizers >> > <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Another pebble in the pond -- >> > >> > * Current booster verified >> > * N95, KN95, KF94 required >> > * Request cases to be reported back to the organizers >> > * Emails collected to report cases anonymously to the community >> > * Max venue ventilation -- cold drafts this time of year in the >> North >> > >> > NONE of these is sufficient to prevent Covid. ALL of them help >> reduce >> > transmission. >> > >> > None of us organizers volunteered to be public health officials. >> And >> > certainly not protocol cops. But it makes sense for us to STACK THE >> > ODDS as high as possible in favor of COMMUNITY health. >> > >> > Maximizing community safety takes precedence over individual >> preference. >> > >> > That's the most responsible way to organize a dance. Not just for >> the >> > benefit of our dancers, but also for the greater community in which >> all >> > of our dancers live. >> > >> > Mac Sloan >> > Thursday Night Dance, Concord Scout House, MA >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Walker Sloan >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > On 23/01/06 11:18 PM, Julian Blechner via Organizers wrote: >> > > Question for anyone with the "you will alienate someone" or >> > "everyone >> > > has a different level of risk" mindset: >> > > In other areas of life, do you consider someone's personal >> > preference >> > > (like not wearing a mask) the same as someone's health needs >> (like >> > > having a health condition, or a family member who does)? >> > > >> > > Like, how is this "both sides have a preference" narrative any >> > different >> > > from able-bodied people being like "Oh, well, I just don't like >> > > handicapped ramps, I prefer steps"? >> > > I'm not asking to be mean or rude. I genuinely would love an >> > explanation. >> > > >> > > I think there actually _is_ a way to please most people, and not >> > just >> > > disregard people with medical conditions (or family with them). >> > > That is - making sure no area's dances are all mask-optional. >> > > There's a big difference between an area having _some_ >> mask-optional >> > > dances, sure, but if they're _all_ mask-optional. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Julian Blechner >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 5:56 PM John and/or Jan Bloom via >> Organizers >> > > <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > <mailto:[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > As Alan said, whatever you do you will alienate someone. >> > > >> > > What I did with the Brunswick ECD was to ask all of the >> dancers >> > > - would you dance if masks were required >> > > - would you dance if masks were optional >> > > and so on. >> > > >> > > Then I picked the rules that maximized the number of dancers. >> > > >> > > I realize that this is harder for Contra, where you have a >> lot of >> > > dancers that you can't ask, including potential future >> dancers. >> > > But in my case it seemed like the right way to do it. >> > > >> > > John Bloom >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Organizers mailing list -- [email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > <mailto:[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > > To unsubscribe send an email to >> > > [email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > <mailto:[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Organizers mailing list -- [email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > To unsubscribe send an email to >> > [email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Organizers mailing list -- [email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> >> > To unsubscribe send an email to >> > [email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > >
_______________________________________________ Organizers mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
