Currently, 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.
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:
Ground transportation—private cars, taxis, coaches, etc., unless windows are open or fresh outdoor air ventilation is available.
Airplanes during embarking and deplaning.
High CO2 exposures:
Airplane flights.
Crowded conference rooms and common areas with poor ventilation.
Hotel rooms with poor ventilation or air flow from nearby rooms.
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.
“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.”
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.”
“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.
The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the in-person meeting industry. Though it took too long to recognize that COVID-19 spreads via air transmission, we finally have effective procedures (vaccine mandates, masking, air quality standards, and social distancing) to reduce infection risk at in-person meetings. Now, meeting planners can add an affordable air quality tool to their site visits.
How can you determine air quality at a prospective venue?
Look around the room at an in-person event and you’ll see if masking and social distancing are taking place. We can implement vaccination mandates using third-party vendors such as sharemy.health, CLEAR Health Pass, Safe Expo, and others. But how can we determine the air quality at a prospective venue?
Currently, we don’t know how to detect airborne COVID-19 viruses. (This is likely to be true for a long time. We still have no test for airborne tuberculosis bacterium (TB) transmission two centuries after identifying TB as a distinct disease.)
Luckily, under the conditions I’ll outline below, we can obtain useful information about a venue’s air quality by using a device that measures a proxy for air pollution: carbon dioxide (CO₂).
People breathe in air, typically containing about 0.04% CO₂. They breathe out a mixture of gases containing about 4 – 5 % CO₂. People with COVID-19 co-exhale respiratory aerosols containing the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
If an occupied building space has effective ventilation, the occupants’ excess exhaled CO₂ is quickly diluted with fresh air, and the CO₂ level in the air remains close to normal values. Measuring the level of CO₂ in the air can, therefore, tell us whether effective ventilation is present or not.
Here are the generally accepted standards for CO₂ levels:
~400 parts per million (ppm) – Normal outdoor air level. 400 ~ 1000 ppm – Typical value level indoors with good ventilation. 1,000 ppm – the OSHA/ASHRAE recommended maximum level in a closed room. > 1,200 ppm – Poor air quality – requires ventilation in the room. 2,000 ppm – This level of CO2 typically produces a significant increase in drowsiness, tiredness, headaches, lower levels of concentration, and an increased likelihood of spreading respiratory viruses.
Until recently, meters that measure CO₂ levels in the air cost hundreds of dollars. (Some models with especially accurate sensors or the capability to measure other air pollutants still do.) But today we can buy an affordable air quality tool — a hand-held CO₂ meter for under $100. The one I just purchased (illustrated above) cost $80, and there’s a wide variety to choose from (for example, from here or here).
My 3.27″ (diameter) x 1.26″ (depth) meter measures CO₂ levels from 0 – 5,000 ppm. It can run on standby for 18 hours, supports USB charging, and includes a battery level indicator and temperature and humidity readings. While its specifications omit accuracy, inexpensive CO₂ meters are typically reliable within ±100 ppm. This is good enough to provide a decent estimate of the air quality in an enclosed space.
My unit shows a concentration of ~350 ppm CO₂ outside my rural Vermont home, which was built tightly. In my home office, the level increases to about 450 ppm and rises to about 525 ppm if I’m sitting next to the unit for a while. Slightly cracking open a window quickly brings down the reading.
I haven’t had time to explore other buildings yet, but am looking forward to seeing what I find out when I do.
Is a CO₂ a proxy for indoor air quality in occupied spaces?
Can measuring CO₂ levels give us a useful indication of indoor air quality?
The answer is a qualified yes. It depends!
First of all, we need to measure CO₂ levels in occupied spaces. A meeting planner doing a site visit should take CO₂ readings in occupied meeting rooms, restaurants, hotel lobbies, etc. Taking measurements in empty spaces will only show high readings if the building ventilation system is grossly inadequate (with CO₂ infiltrating from other areas.) Also bear in mind that increasing the number of occupants in a space increases the likelihood that an infectious person will be present and the number of people possibly infected. Doubling occupancy can thus cause a four-fold increase in risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Finally, air treatment options, such as MERV 13 or better filtering, or possibly ultraviolet-C radiation, may reduce the prevalence of active COVID-19 aerosols. When venues employ these mitigation strategies, CO₂ levels will not be decreased. Of course, if a venue has deployed these preventative measures, they will surely inform you about them when asked!
Due to these factors, you shouldn’t rely solely on measurements of CO₂ levels to determine whether a space is ventilated enough to mitigate transmission risk.
However, a simple CO₂ meter like the one I now own can be an effective air quality tool, providing valuable information to anyone who wants to investigate the air quality of occupied spaces at venues, hotels and properties, restaurants, and other meeting locales. I’ll be bringing mine when I travel, and I encourage you to do this as well!
More information on the relationship between CO₂ levels and COVID-19 exposure
If you’d like to learn more about the relationship between CO₂ levels and COVID-19 exposure risk, here are some useful references:
Attention, meeting planners! Safe meeting venue ventilation for COVID-19 is critical. As we start thinking about returning to in-person events, it’s crucial to check that venues are upgrading their HVAC systems to handle potentially virus-infused air.
There has been little public discussion on this important topic. In this post, I’ll explain why questions about venues’ HVAC safety should be at the top of your site visit checklist.
Before we start, I need to make clear I’m not an HVAC engineer. My (perhaps) relevant background is an ancient Ph.D. in high-energy particle physics. I also spent two years spent exploring ventilation systems—specifically air-to-air heat exchangers—when I owned a solar manufacturing company in the 1980s.
Introduction
Since the pandemic began, the science of COVID-19 transmission has evolved rapidly. Because early theories turned out to be inaccurate, current preventative measures are frequently misdirected. So I’ve included a short history of theories of COVID-19 transmission. These shed light on the reasons we’ve underestimated the importance of ventilation in creating safe environments for indoor events.
Next, I’ve outlined what current research indicates venues and properties should be doing.
Finally, I’ve aired my concerns about how well venues and properties are responding to the safety concerns I’ve introduced.
A short history of theories of COVID-19 transmission
Initial focus on surface contamination
Early reports on SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission falsely concluded that surface contamination was a significant transmission vector.
“COVID-19 is transmitted via droplets and fomites during close unprotected contact between an infector and infectee. Airborne spread has not been reported for COVID-19 and it is not believed to be a major driver of transmission based on available evidence.” [Emphasis added] —Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), February 2020
This led to an epidemic of another kind—regularly cleaning and disinfecting surfaces. Meeting industry venues that have remained open during the pandemic adopted cleaning and disinfecting everything in sight as a visible assurance that their venues were safe places to gather.
“By May, [2020] the WHO and health agencies around the world were recommending that people in ordinary community settings — houses, buses, churches, schools and shops — should clean and disinfect surfaces, especially those that are frequently touched. Disinfectant factories worked around the clock to keep up with heavy demand.” —COVID-19 rarely spreads through surfaces. So why are we still deep cleaning?, Dyani Lewis, Nature, January 2021
However, current research suggests that the risk of infection from touching a heavily contaminated surface is less than 5 in 10,000. This is considerably lower than current estimates for SARS-CoV-2 infection through aerosols.
By the way, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) recommends that cleaning activities be performed after hours, rather than during meetings because “Vacuuming, sweeping, curtain cleaning, brooms, could potentially re-suspend infectious particles.” [ASHRAE Epidemic Commercial Task Force recommendations, updated March 2021, Page 10.]
Droplet transmission
After scientific consensus quickly moved to droplet transmission as a significant factor, face masks were strongly recommended, and mandated at most in-person meetings. However, there have been numerous reports of lax mask usage during F&B breaks and socials.
Social distancing was also recommended. Why? Because it was thought that the COVID-19 virus was mainly transmitted via large respiratory droplets that fall quickly. This belief is still popular and frequently cited today.
Airborne transmission
Unfortunately, the latest research now points to aerosol transmission of COVID-19 as a significant vector. Aerosols are small droplets and particles (formed when small droplets dry quickly in the airstream) that can remain suspended for many minutes to hours. They can travel far from the source of air currents. An excellent summary of this research is included in The Lancet‘s April 15, 2021 article: Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Here’s the key introductory paragraph:
If an infectious virus spreads predominantly through large respiratory droplets that fall quickly, the key control measures are reducing direct contact, cleaning surfaces, physical barriers, physical distancing, use of masks within droplet distance, respiratory hygiene, and wearing high-grade protection only for so-called aerosol-generating health-care procedures. Such policies need not distinguish between indoors and outdoors, since a gravity-driven mechanism for transmission would be similar for both settings. But if an infectious virus is mainly airborne, an individual could potentially be infected when they inhale aerosols produced when an infected person exhales, speaks, shouts, sings, sneezes, or coughs. Reducing airborne transmission of virus requires measures to avoid inhalation of infectious aerosols, including ventilation, air filtration, reducing crowding and time spent indoors, use of masks whenever indoors, attention to mask quality and fit, and higher-grade protection for health-care staff and front-line workers. [Emphasis added.]
How to think about aerosols
You can think of COVID-19 aerosols as cigarette smoke, or the aroma from cooking food. Of course, aerosols diffuse over distance, which is why social distancing is still a good idea, and why transmission of COVID-19 outdoors is unlikely unless people are tightly packed together. Incidentally, this means that if you’re eating or drinking at a restaurant or bar and can smell the food of diners at a nearby table or the smells of cooking from the kitchen, you’re not in a safe situation as far as COVID-19 transmission is concerned.
Pre-pandemic building ventilation standards are inadequate for COVID-19
Interim guidance published by the California Department of Public Health points out that standard building environments have not been engineered to control exposures to small aerosols of hazardous viruses, such as COVID-19:
“Our understanding of the role that the built environment plays in the transmission of COVID-19 is evolving; recent literature has clearly demonstrated small aerosols can be carried well beyond the six (6) foot physical radius and remain suspended in room air where they can be inhaled. With the possible exception of hospitals, healthcare facilities, and research facilities that employ exhaust hoods, existing ventilation requirements, such as those established in the California Building Code and Title 24, were not intended to control exposures to small aerosols of hazardous infectious agents such as COVID-19.” [Emphasis added] —General Considerations extract from the Interim guidance for Ventilation, Filtration, and Air Quality in Indoor Environments, California Department of Public Health, February 21, 2021
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) points out that many existing mechanical air filters will not remove enough levels of airborne COVID-19:
“ASHRAE recommends that mechanical filter efficiency be at least MERV 13 and preferable MERV 14 or better to help mitigate the transmission of infectious aerosols. Many existing HVAC systems were designed and installed to operate using MERV 6 to MERV 8 filters. While MERV 13 and greater filters are better at removing particles in the 0.3 micron to 1 micron diameter size (the size of many virus particles) the higher efficiency does not come without a penalty. Higher efficiency filters may require greater air pressures to drive or force air through the filter. Care must be taken when increasing the filter efficiency in an HVAC system to verify that the capacity of the HVAC system is sufficient to accommodate the better filters without adversely affecting the system’s ability to maintain the owner’s required indoor temperature and humidity conditions and space pressure relationships.” [Emphasis added] —ASHRAE Epidemic Taskforce Building Readiness (updated March 16, 2021)
Updating HVAC systems is not plug and play
The above ASHRAE guidelines explain that you cannot simply swap existing filters with MERV 13 or better filters and pronounce your building “ready” to handle potentially COVID-19 infected people. Venues and properties will typically need to involve “licensed and certified professionals and companies that can perform the analysis, testing, design, construction, control programming, balancing, commissioning, maintenance and operation services required to make the adjustments and achieve the performance included in these recommendations.”
Major heating plant upgrades may be needed to create safe air quality for occupants.
Reopening unoccupied buildings
Finally, many properties and venues have been operating in low-occupancy mode for long periods. Reopening such buildings safely, even to pandemic-appropriate occupancy levels, can require several weeks of preparation for the HVAC plant and facility staff. Here is what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends be done before resuming business operations:
Evaluate the building and its mechanical and life safety systems to determine if the building is ready for occupancy. Check for hazards associated with prolonged facility shutdown such as mold growth, rodents or pests, or issues with stagnant water systems, and take appropriate remedial actions.
Increase circulation of outdoor air as much as possible by opening windows and doors if possible, and using fans. Do not open windows and doors if doing so poses a safety or health risk for occupants, including children (e.g., a risk of falling or of breathing outdoor environmental contaminants such as carbon monoxide, molds, or pollens).
To minimize the risk of Legionnaires’ disease and other diseases associated with water, take steps to ensure that all water systems and features (e.g., sink faucets, drinking fountains, decorative fountains) and water-using devices (e.g., ice machines, cooling towers) are safe to use after a prolonged facility shutdown.
What are meeting venues doing to create safe ventilation?
I’m concerned about the lack of visible venue and property efforts to resolve the ventilation safety issues caused by COVID-19.
Over the last couple of months, I’ve reached out to industry contacts and meeting professionals on social media. I’ve asked for examples of venues and properties that have implemented (or are implementing) ventilation upgrades that will satisfy recent interim comprehensive guidelines such as those published by ASHRAE and the California Department of Public Health.
To date, I have heard of only one venue—a California hotel property that installed MERV 13 filters. If your venue has made or is making such upgrades, please let me know, either directly or via comments on this post.
Perhaps many venues are quietly making these changes. I hope that’s the case.
Perhaps some venues are ignoring the problem, hoping that, somehow, the COVID-19 pandemic will disappear, and they’ll be able to host in-person events without updating their HVAC plant. I doubt they’ll be so lucky.
Frankly, I’m surprised that those who have updated their venue ventilation for COVID-19, aren’t publicizing this as a competitive advantage. Our industry is yearning for the return of in-person meetings. Being able to say a property is compliant with current ventilation guidance seems like a great selling point. This article from the Washington Post (kindly shared with me by Joan Eisenstodt) exemplifies the kind of positive PR that’s possible.
After all, many smaller businesses have already taken the necessary steps to create safe ventilation in their buildings. My dentist and physical therapist, and my wife’s massage therapist have all created safe ventilation environments for their places of business. They’re happy to share the details with anyone who asks.
Is it too much to ask meeting venues to do the same?
More resources
Here are some additional resources that you may find useful. Again, please be cautious of any information you find that has not been published or updated in the last few months—it may be outdated.
Many thanks to Joan Eisenstodt, Robert Carey, Anne Carey, Barbara McManus, Paul Radde, Dan Cormany, Sarah Diem, and Lauren Siring, who provided information and helpful suggestions and resources as I found my way into the complex topic of venue ventilation for COVID-19!
This April 2021 article includes information I’ve compiled from a variety of current sources. I’ve surely missed some valuable information. Please help me improve and update what I’ve shared via your comments below. Thank you!
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.)
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.
4) We’re meeting safely—but you can’t sue us if we’re not
“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.