From Heroic Leadership to Collective Heroes

Who are the heroes? A superhero lounges with a cup of coffee, while construction workers work on a building in the background. Do we really need heroes?

Society often glorifies the idea of heroes—individuals who swoop in to save the day and solve seemingly insurmountable problems. We see this dynamic across history, pop culture, and even leadership in our daily lives. But what happens when this fixation on heroism blinds us to the everyday, often invisible, work that prevents those crises from arising in the first place?

Read the rest of this entry »

New Findings: Elevated CO2 Levels Pose a Double Threat of Viral Contagion

A woman wearing a mask surrounded by unmasked people breathing out infectious air and at risk for viral contagionCurrently, no commercial sensors exist that can monitor the concentrations of infectious viruses in the air in real time. However, indoor carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations — easily measurable with inexpensive hand-held devices — provide a good proxy for how much of the air we breathe is being exhaled by other people who may be infected. Now, there’s a new wrinkle. Research published in Nature in April 2024 concludes that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO₂) also help viruses stay alive longer in the air. In other words, high CO2 levels in the air we breathe pose a double threat of viral contagion.

As a summary of the research by Statnews puts it:

“The more CO2 there is, the more virus-friendly the air becomes.”
Megan Molteni, A new discovery about carbon dioxide is challenging decades-old ventilation doctrine

Let’s put these findings in the context of real-world measurements of CO2 in common situations faced by people attending and staffing in-person events.

What CO2 concentrations do conference attendees and staff experience?

Typical outdoor CO2 levels are 300 – 400 parts per million (ppm). In May 2022, I measured air quality readings during a trip to facilitate a conference in Puerto Rico. During that trip, I saw in-flight airplane CO2 concentrations of over 1,000 ppm. During embarking and deplaning I saw peaks of over 2,000 ppm. Ground transportation readings in taxis and coaches were well above 1,000 ppm. The conference center, with high ceilings and lightly occupied, had 500 – 600 ppm readings.

I’ve seen similar readings during numerous subsequent trips.

The prior consensus was that CO2 readings above ~1,000 ppm imply significant exposure to potentially infectious air. From an events perspective, before these latest findings, we classified environments of concern as follows:

Dangerously high CO2 exposures:

  1. Ground transportation—private cars, taxis, coaches, etc., unless windows are open or fresh outdoor air ventilation is available.
  2. Airplanes during embarking and deplaning.

High CO2 exposures:

  1. Airplane flights.
  2. Crowded conference rooms and common areas with poor ventilation.
  3. Hotel rooms with poor ventilation or air flow from nearby rooms.
  4. Indoor restaurants without excellent ventilation.

The double whammy of high CO2 in the air we breathe

We now know that high CO2 levels not only indicate that the air we breathe is more contaminated by other peoples’ exhalations, but also that high concentrations of CO₂ also help infectious viruses stay alive longer in the air.

Here are some key specific findings from the Nature paper:

“In poorly ventilated, occupied, indoor spaces, ambient [CO2(g)] commonly reaches concentrations exceeding 2000 ppm and can reach levels upwards of >5000 ppm in more crowded environments.”

“…a significant increase in SARS-CoV-2 aerostability results from a moderate increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (e.g. 800 ppm)”

“After 40 min, approximately an order of magnitude more viral infectious particles remain viable in the aerosol phase at elevated [CO2(g)] when compared to the loss expected under ambient (well-ventilated) conditions. This increase in the relative abundance of infectious particles is likely to result in increased risk of transmission of the infection.”

Ambient carbon dioxide concentration correlates with SARS-CoV-2 aerostability and infection risk, Allen Haddrell, Henry Oswin, Mara Otero-Fernandez, Joshua F. Robinson, Tristan Cogan, Robert Alexander, Jamie F. S. Mann, Darryl Hill, Adam Finn, Andrew D. Davidson & Jonathan P. Reid, Nature Communications volume 15, Article number: 3487 (2024)

Significantly, the Nature researchers found that CO2 levels of as little as 800 ppm allow the SARS-CoV-2 virus to remain ten times more viable after forty minutes than regular CO2 levels. This happens within 2 minutes of exposure to 800 ppm of CO2.

“When compared to a typical atmospheric [CO2(g)] (~500 ppm), increasing the [CO2(g)] to just 800 ppm results in a significant increase in viral aerostability after 2 min … No significant difference in infectivity is observed between 800 ppm and 6500 ppm. It is notable that, according to the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), 800 ppm [CO2(g)] has been identified as the level below which a room is determined to be well-ventilated.”

Based on these and other findings, in March 2024, fifty scientists published in Science a call for mandating indoor air quality for public buildings, with a suggested limit of 800 ppm (or 350 ppm over outdoor levels).

As the Statnews report concludes:

“With the recent spread of H5N1 bird flu into many mammal species, including dairy cattle and farmworkers who care for them, and the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, understanding the complex interplay between viruses, human bodies, and the environments where they eat, sleep, and breathe, is only growing more urgent.”

What is now clear is that meeting environments previously seen as somewhat risky for viral contagion are much more dangerous than was previously thought.

Problems, effects, and causes

problems, effects, and causes. An illustration of London's Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament partially submerged by rising waters. The caption reads "Everybody talks about the climate, but nobody does anything about it."We spend a lot of time talking about problems, effects, and causes.

But, sadly, we talk mainly about the effects of problems rather than focus on their causes.

If you ask people what are the most pressing problems in the world today they’ll mention things like the climate emergency, multiple wars, and (well, certainly in 2020) pandemics. We all want someone to “solve” these problems. But when we talk about such problems in this way, we are focusing on effects not causes.

The climate emergency

“Everybody talks about the weather climate, but nobody does anything about it.”

We talk incessantly about the effects of the unusual weather we’ve been having the last few years and decades.

But global warming creating a climate emergency has causes. And we know what they are. The massive generation of greenhouse gases generated over the last 200 years by the burning of fossil fuels. It’s time to stop focusing on the effects of human activity and focus on the causes, and what we have to do to change them.

Wars

problems, effects, and causes. An illustration from the back of a person standing alone in a street that stretches away to the horizon. They are facing an inferno in front of them and surrounded by devastated buildingsSimilarly, we read every day about the multiple horrific wars raging around our planet. Sometimes, they’ve been going on so long, they’ve become part of our mental wallpaper.

These wars are not the outcome of a chance event we can only wring our hands at. They are the creations of corrupt and/or mentally ill human beings (e.g. Putin, Netanyahu) driven by their internal demons to wreak havoc on the world. Or the culmination of decades of mistrust and abuse by one culture against another (e.g., Israel versus Hamas).

We rightly wring our hands over the devastating effects of wars, and try not to think about their causes.

Pandemics

And while pandemics are not directly caused by human actions, their severity and duration are. In the 6 year of the COVID pandemic, the virus continues to kill thousands every week and inflict severe long-term illnesses on millions. And we already know the causes, and methods (e.g., 1, 2) to mitigate this suffering. Yet there’s no question that we could do a much better job in reducing the loss of life and its quality.

Effects versus causes

Human beings respond in these ways for complicated reasons.

Extricating ourselves from these messes is very difficult.

But as long as we concentrate on problems that we define as effects, instead of exploring, understanding, and acting on the causes, we will continue to live in a world that contains far more misery than there needs to be.

Standards for safer events

Illustration of The Public Health Pledge, creating standards for safer eventsAs I write this, we are entering the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic which has been responsible for millions of deaths and long-term disabilities. Many more people are going to die and contract Long COVID. In addition, most current events are still dangerous to attend for people with disabilities and certain chronic illnesses. Under the circumstances, it’s shocking that the meeting industry has developed no widely-accepted standards for safer events.

But recently I learned about an effort to create and communicate simple, flexible standards for safer events: The Public Health Pledge.

“We’re starting our day full of hope!

Sometimes it feels lonely being COVID-conscious in a world that’s desperate to forget anything has changed.

But you are not alone. Far more people are concerned about COVID than let on. Sometimes they don’t speak up because of social pressure or fear of retaliation from an employer.

Together, by speaking up and taking the pledge, we make it easier for others to use their voice and chip away at a broken status quo.”
The Public Health Pledge, February 1, 2023 Mastodon toot

Started by Josh Simmons, an advocate for free and open-source software and a community organizer, The Public Health Pledge is both:

  • A public pledge by those involved in attending and organizing meetings to commit to meetings that have robust health and safety policies; and
  • An ongoing effort to define an “Event Badging Standard”: a set of simple but meaningful grades for health and safety protocols in place at any event to share with attendees.

The Public Health Pledge

The Public Health Pledge is short and simple.

The Public Health Pledge I am committed to diversity and inclusion, including people with disabilities, chronic illness, and caregivers, therefore I pledge to only participate in or organize events that have robust Health and Safety policies. Events with in-person gatherings must meet these criteria: 1. The event has a Health and Safety policy, and if the policy changes it is only strengthened – never weakened – between the event’s announcement and the event itself. 2. The event actively communicates this policy by including it on their website, in the registration flow, and speaker proposal process, discussing the policy regularly during events, and including it everywhere important announcements are shared. 3. The event’s policy includes active measures designed to minimize the number of participants who are infected with transmissible diseases like COVID-19, as well as mitigate transmission between participants. standards for safer events

Notice that the active measures used at an event are not specified in the Public Health Pledge. That’s the purpose of the other part of this initiative, the development of an Event Badging Standard.

The Event Badging Standard

The prototype Event Badging Standard includes six badges. Each badge represents a key health and safety category, and has a set of three possible grades that “indicate the quality of the protocols in place”:

  • A “Robust Policy” grade indicates that the event’s policies represent good practice as understood at the time this standard was written, and will be enforced.
  • An “Efforts Made” grade indicates that efforts are being made by the organizers, but there are factors that may increase risk for some attendees.
  • A “No Policy” grade indicates that meaningful policies have not been implemented.

The current categories include grading criteria for masks, vaccines, testing, ventilation, and alternatives, forming The Event Badging Standard. (The Alternatives badge covers policies for refunds, exchanges, and remote attendance.) I encourage you to view the details of what qualifies as robust, efforts made, and no policy in each category.

This is an evolving standard, and feedback is welcomed. Here’s mine!

My feedback on the current [version 2023-01] Event Badging Standard

I like these standards. And we need ’em.

But the elephant in the room is the mask exception for “attendees who are actively eating or drinking”.

Yes, this exception could be “robust” when outdoors or with excellent ventilation/filtering in place.

But in practice, event social activities are when most airborne infection occurs.

(Also, dancing while wearing masks, is rare in my experience, so I wonder if “robust” would apply to many events with an evening social with music.)

I would define “robust” masking as meaning:

  • EITHER making outdoor eating and drinking available
  • OR providing assurances of indoor air quality to ASHRAE recommendations (or international equivalents).

I have offered both options at in-person events I’ve designed/facilitated during the last three years. Many participants thanked me for doing this.

One small addition: having CO2 meters in key rooms and briefly explaining their readings at the event’s start helps with this kind of transparency. [Note: Belgium now requires CO2 meters in all public spaces.] Perhaps add this to the ventilation grade?

I sent this feedback to Josh. He immediately thanked me and added these ideas to the notes for the next revision.

Why the meeting industry needs health and safety event badge standards

We’ve been (rightly) fixated on COVID as a serious threat to human health and safety since 2020.

But a new variant or a new pandemic can appear at any time. Consider, for example, H5N1 avian flu, which has killed over half the people who contracted it. The disastrous impact of the COVID pandemic would pale into insignificance if an H5N1 variant gained the ability to infect via airborne transmission.

Besides the health impact of pandemics on all of us, I believe that the vast majority of event professionals these days want to create events that are inclusive and welcoming of diversity. If you do, Gina Häußge explains succinctly why we must make our meetings safe places for all attendees.

“For the record, I’m of the opinion that we can’t call our events inclusive and welcoming of diversity when we exclude people with disabilities or chronic illnesses (or their caregivers), who can’t risk getting infected by an airborne pathogen that is still in a pandemic state, even though the collective consciousness has decided to mimic ostriches, put their heads in the sand and pretend it’s 2019.”
Gina Häußge,  February 1, 2023, Mastodon toot

At a minimum, we owe our attendees clear information about the safety protocols we have in place at every event. Published event badge standards provide this information for attendees. What they decide is up to them. But at least such standards give them the information they need to make an informed decision.

To conclude: things you can do

Do you want to support safe meetings? Then add your name to the Public Health Pledge! (I have!)

And if you have an event where you want to use the Event Badging Standard, here’s a guide to signing and promoting the pledge.

Finally, promote awareness of events that offer Event Badging information using the hashtag #PHPledge.

Your stakeholders, especially your attendees, will thank you!

Veterans Day, masking, thoughts and prayers, and the ways the establishment deflects criticism

An illustration of how the establishment deflects criticism. A group of well-dressed powerful men point towards a graphic of a person wearing a mask and an airplane dropping bombs on a building while ignoring two other graphics depicting society's role to protect its citizens from pandemics and a well-designed building with good ventilation.

November 2022: Three recent events made me notice the ways our society’s establishment deflects criticism.

Veterans Day

Growing up in England taught me little about U.S. history, so it was only this year I learned that Veterans Day, first observed in 1919, was originally known as Armistice Day. (It’s still called this in France, while other countries call it Remembrance Day).

An armistice is an agreement to stop fighting a war. As President Woodrow Wilson said on the first Armistice Day, held at the end of World War I:

“…the victory of arms foretells the enduring conquests which can be made in peace when nations act justly and in furtherance of the common interests of men.”

World War I led to wide agreement in the “developed” world that war should be avoided if at all possible. A hundred years ago, the creation of Armistice Day provided an annual reminder of a goal most people still support today.

It’s great that we have a day to honor veterans. But what struck me when I learned about the name change in 1954 from Armistice Day to Veterans Day is that it deflected citizen attention from reinforcing the goal of ending war. The establishment eliminated Armistice Day—a day commemorating the end of war—and changed the focus to a day to honor military veterans.

While most people decry war, there is a powerful minority that profits from its continuation. Though you might think that waging war is just “human nature”, there’s evidence that war is a relatively recent phenomenon. And war deaths worldwide have declined significantly since World War II.

I was three years old when politicians eliminated Armistice Day from our cultural vocabulary, and I don’t know the circumstances. But it’s easy to see the act as a cynical repression by the establishment of the concept that ending war is a noble and worthy goal for humanity.

Because I think we would all like an invite to the party after the war.

Wearing masks

I’ve written frequently about the effects of the COVID pandemic. Currently, many people are acting as if the pandemic no longer exists. Even though it’s still killing hundreds of people every day in the U.S. (Not to mention the ~10% who are now suffering from long covid. Which you really, really don’t want to get.)

When authorities bother to suggest precautions against the spread of COVID, they restrict any advice to wearing masks when indoors with others.

Wearing masks is an important prevention strategy that reduces personal risk and one’s risk of infecting others. But when many people eschew masking, COVID is going to be with us for a long time. Many more people will die and become disabled.

What authorities never mention is a far more effective prevention strategy that would, if comprehensively implemented, essentially wipe out COVID and other airborne diseases.

I’m talking, of course, about improving indoor air quality in buildings. Especially public buildings.

We have known for a hundred years the importance of providing fresh indoor air, and the necessary technology is widely available. Making our buildings safe by requiring adequate air changes/hour plus virus filtering provides permanent protection against viral epidemics. Not just COVID and flu, but past and future pandemics too.

Emphasizing individual masking while avoiding any society-wide attempts to improve building air quality is another example of how the establishment deflects responsibility for disease prevention away from our institutions and onto individuals.

Thoughts and prayers

This week there were two major horrific mass shootings in the U.S. Five people were killed and 17 injured at Club Q in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Six people were killed and four wounded at a Walmart store in Chesapeake, Virginia. By the time you read this, there will be more mass shootings; there are about two every day, though most barely make the news anymore. The number of mass shootings has doubled in the last three years.

After especially violent crimes like these, many who continue to resist any meaningful restrictions on the fetish of gun ownership in this country trot out the phrase “thoughts and prayers”. Of course, these platitudes do nothing to change the civilian slaughter rate, some 21,000 people (not including gun suicides) in 2021.

Politically powerful groups, heavily funded by the gun industry, repeatedly mouth “thoughts and prayers” but do nothing to change the daily carnage that easily available guns cause. These elites deflect our populace from thinking about whether the U.S. might be able to reduce gun violence and deaths by such systemic changes as keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, requiring background checks for all gun sales, and banning assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. All things that are done in other developed countries, with significant results.

Instead, the establishment relentlessly promotes the idea that Americans should take individual responsibility to protect themselves and their loved ones by buying guns of their own. The gun industry makes money, and the cycle of gun violence continues.

There are many more examples

There are many more examples of how our society’s establishment deflects criticism by emphasizing personal responsibility rather than systemic solutions to problems. These are just three that came up for me this week. If you would like to add your own examples, feel free to do so in the comments below.

No, I do not hate in-person meetings

A screenshot of a tweet sent by Adrian Segar:
"No pre- or during- #COVID testing for your meetings. No post-meeting infection follow-up. Attendees signing waivers that bind them forever not to sue if they contract #coronavirus.
@OCCC — how can you honestly claim you are #MeetingSafely? How could you possibly know?I’d like to be clear that I don’t hate in-person meetings, despite what some have been posting recently on a Facebook group for meeting professionals:

“Often wondered why so many on this feed hate live events.”

“It is my opinion that this group does not support any in-person meetings or gatherings of any kind…”

” I am sad to see so many industry giants verbally destroying our industry – apparently with glee.”

Let’s explore what’s causing opinions and feelings like this in the meeting industry.

The tension in the meeting industry

As I’ve said before, the pandemic’s impact on lives and businesses has been devastating, especially for the meeting industry. COVID-19 has virtually eliminated in-person meetings: our industry’s bread and butter. Many meeting professionals have lost their jobs, and are understandably desperate for our industry to recover. We are all looking for ways for in-person meetings to return.

Unfortunately, I and many others believe there is a strong case to make against currently holding in-person meetings. Ethically, despite the massive personal and financial consequences, we should not be submitting people to often-unadvertised, dangerous, and life-threatening conditions so we can go back to work.

I’ve been posting bits and pieces of the case against currently holding in-person meetings on various online platforms and decided it was time to bring everything together in one (long for me) post. I hope many meeting industry professionals will read this and respond. As always, all points of view are welcome, especially those that can share how to mitigate any of the following concerns.

The strong case against holding in-person meetings right now

Here are four important reasons why I think we shouldn’t be holding “large” in-person meetings right now. (Obviously, “large” is a moving target. Checking Georgia Tech’s COVID-19 Event Risk Assessment Planning Tool as I write this, a national US event with 500 people is extremely likely (>95%) to have one or more COVID-19-positive individuals present.)

1) Posted safety protocols are not followed

Seven months ago, I explained why, in my opinion, in-person meetings do not make sense in a COVID-19 environment. I assumed that in-person meetings could, in principle, be held safely if everyone:

  • meticulously observed social distancing and masking;
  • could safely travel to and from events;
  • be housed safely; move around event venues while safely maintaining social distancing; and
  • eat and drink safely.

Even if one could meet these difficult conditions, I questioned the value of such in-person meetings. Why? Because meetings are fundamentally about connection around relevant content. And it’s impossible to connect well with people wearing face masks who are six or more feet apart!

In addition, there’s ample evidence that some people won’t follow declared safety protocols. Since I wrote that post, we have heard reports and seen examples of in-person meetings where attendees and staff are not reliably social distancing, and/or aren’t wearing masks properly or at all.

Orlando, Florida, OCCC Together Again Expo, July 2020

This is most likely to happen during socials and meals, where attendees have to temporarily remove masks. It’s understandably hard for people to resist our lifetime habit of moving close to socialize.

2) We perform hygiene theater—but please don’t ask us about our ventilation systems

Many venues trumpet their comprehensive COVID-19 cleaning protocols. Extensive cleaning was prudent during the early pandemic months when we didn’t know much about how the virus spread. But we now know that extensive cleaning is hygiene theater (1, 2); the primary transmission vector for COVID-19 is airborne.

A recent editorial in the leading scientific journal Nature begins: “Catching the virus from surfaces is rare” and goes on to say “efforts to prevent spread should focus on improving ventilation or installing rigorously tested air purifiers”.

I haven’t heard of any venues that have publicly explained how their ventilation systems minimize or eliminate the chance of airborne COVID-19 transmission!

Why? Because it’s a complicated, and potentially incredibly expensive issue to safely mitigate. And venues are reluctant or unable to do the custom engineering and, perhaps, costly upgrades necessary to ensure that the air everyone breaths onsite is HEPA-filtered fast enough to keep any COVID-positive attendee shedding at a safe level.

Adequate ventilation of indoor spaces where people have removed masks for eating or drinking is barely mentioned in governmental gathering requirements (like this one, dated March 3, 2021, from the State of Nevada). These guidelines assume that whatever ventilation existed pre-COVID is adequate under the circumstances, as long as all parties are socially distanced. We know from research that there are locales — e.g. dining rooms with low ceilings or inadequate ventilation — where this is not a safe practice, since it’s possible for COVID-carrying aerosols to travel far further than 6 feet.

In case you are interested, current recommendations are for MERV 13 filtering throughout the venue. Does your venue offer this?

P.S. I expect there are venues that have done this work. Do you know of venues that have done the engineering to certify a measurable level of safe air on their premises? If so, please share in the comments! We should know about these conscientious organizations.

3) Inadequate or no pre-, during-, or post- COVID testing, and contact tracing

Shockingly, many in-person meetings now taking place require no pretesting of staff or attendees. (News flash: Checking someone’s forehead temperature when they enter a venue will not detect anyone who is infectious for the two days before symptoms appear, or who is asymptomatic.)

Even if everyone in the venue is tested daily, the widely used quick tests are simply too unreliable. From Nature again:

“Deeks says that a December trial at the University of Birmingham is an example of how rapid tests can miss infections. More than 7,000 symptom-free students there took an Innova test; only 2 tested positive. But when the university researchers rechecked 10% of the negative samples using PCR, they found another 6 infected students. Scaling that up across all the samples, the test probably missed 60 infected students.”
—Nature, February 9, 2021, Rapid coronavirus tests: a guide for the perplexed

Finally, I find it upsetting that venues like the OCCC keep claiming that they are #MeetingSafely when they are doing no post-event follow-up! If an attendee contracts COVID-19 at the event, returns home and infects grandma, how would the OCCC ever know?! Under the circumstances, I think it’s misleading, dangerous, and unethical for such a venue to publicly claim that they are providing an #MeetingSafely environment.
hate in-person meetings

4) We’re meeting safely—but you can’t sue us if we’re not

In fact, some in-person meetings quietly acknowledge that they may not be providing a “safe” environment. One meeting venue held an in-person meeting that required waivers that forever bind attendees and their family members, and “heirs, assigns and personal representatives” not to sue if they contract COVID-19.

“I voluntarily assume full responsibility for any risks of loss or personal injury, including serious illness, injury or death, that may be sustained by me or by others who come into contact with me, as a result of my presence in the Facilities, whether caused by the negligence of the AKC or OCCC or otherwise … I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND AGREE THAT IT IS VALID FOREVER. It is my express intent that this Waiver binds; (i) the members of my family and spouse, if I am alive, and (ii) my heirs, assigns and personal representatives, if I am deceased.”
—Extract from the Orlando, Florida, OCCC American Kennel Club National Championship Dog Show, December 2020, Waiver

I’m not sure how you can bind people to a contract who may not know they are a party to it. But, hey, I’m not a lawyer…

So, can we safely and ethically hold in-person meetings right now?

For the reasons shared above, I don’t believe we can safely and ethically hold in-person meetings right now. Consequently, it’s alarming that many venues, and some meeting planners, are promoting in-person meetings in the near future.

Do I hate in-person meetings?

By now it should be clear that I stand with meeting professionals like Cathi Lundgren, who posted the following in our Facebook group discussions:

“I’m not going to be silent when someone holds a meeting in a ballroom with a 100+ people and no masking or social distancing…I own a global meetings company—and we haven’t worked since March but no matter how much I want to get back at it I’m not going to condone behaviors that are not positive for the overall health of our industry.”
Cathi Lundgren, CMP, CAE

And here’s how I replied to the first Facebook commenter quoted at the top of this post:

“For goodness sake. I LOVE in-person events. It’s been heartbreaking for me, like everyone, to have not attended one for a year now. But that doesn’t mean I am going to risk stakeholder, staff, and attendee lives by uncritically supporting in-person meetings that are, sadly, according to current science, still dangerous to attend. When in-person meetings are safe to attend once more — and that day can’t come soon enough — you bet I’ll be designing, facilitating, and attending them.”

I hope it’s clear that I, and those meeting professionals who are pointing out valid safety and ethical concerns, don’t hate in-person meetings. Realistically, the future of in-person meetings remains uncertain, even with the amazing progress in developing and administering effective vaccines. More mutant COVID-19 strains that are resistant to or evade current vaccines, transmit more effectively, or have more deadly effects are possible. Any such developments could delay or fundamentally change our current hopes that maintaining transmission prevention plus mass vaccination will bring the pandemic under control.

I’m cautiously optimistic. But, right now, there are still too many unknowns for me to recommend clients to commit resources to future large 100% in-person events. Hub-and-spoke format hybrid meetings look like a safer bet. Regardless, everyone in the meeting industry hopes that it will be safe to hold in-person meetings real soon.

In the meantime, please don’t attack those of us in the industry who point out safety and ethical issues and the consequences of prematurely scheduling in-person meetings. We want them back too! We all miss them.