[Exports_project_office] Proposals for lingering COVID protocol issues

Tue Apr 6 14:03:53 PDT 2021

Ok - so for the sake of closing this convo (without Deb's ok but knowing
her opinion from before she is fine with this)

 All three stay in Q one day shorter, meaning Meg gets out with rest of us,
and Whoi ladies one day later.

I need to deal with hotel asap. we can talk about other things tomorrow
later..

TY

Ivona

On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:45 PM Graff, Jason Robert <
Jason.Graff at oregonstate.edu> wrote:

> 1) I think the one day shortening of q for the select cases makes sense,
> but we do need to have a strategy moving forward if long delays in travel
> occur.
>
> 2) Outdoors - I see both sides to outdoor activities starting day 1 or
> waiting until day 5.  As Craig pointed out, moving to the outdoors where it
> should in fact be safer when avoiding crowds, restaurants, etc. and when
> appropriately distanced is a good thing physically and mentally. I think we
> have to trust people not to abuse the system we put into place.  I don’t
> know everyone sailing with me, but those I do know would be devastated if
> they compromised the project. I think if someone see egregious abuse of our
> policies they should let someone know about it.  Allowing some face time
> would also improve morale.  This warrants a discussion Thursday morning and
> requires some additional thinking.  This could be a slippery slope - two
> people chatting at a distance see two other people in the park.  Again, it
> comes down to trust and people being aware and responsible.  I don’t think
> we want to prescribe “yard time” but having limitations is a good idea to
> prevent more of those unintended larger groups from forming.
>
> Jason Graff
> Oregon State University
> Assistant Professor - Senior Research
> jrgraff at science.oregonstate.edu
> 541-737-4090
>
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Ivona Cetinic via Exports_project_office <
> exports_project_office at espo.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> [This email originated from outside of OSU. Use caution with links and
> attachments.]
> Let us hear from Jason (who is having a hard day today) and Deb regarding
> the q. I will then talk to ladies and hotel and that part of my nightmare
> is done.
>
> Ivona
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021, 2:22 PM Ken Buesseler via Exports_project_office <
> exports_project_office at espo.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Some parts of this seem easy, other harder.  My "easy" part is if Craig,
>> Ivona and others are OK with the 1 day relaxation, then I'm fine with the
>> same 1 day relaxation for my two students.  With this, Meg is there for
>> full MOB and the 2 students only miss one day.
>>
>> I agree outdoor recreation is trickier.  I'm generally OK with this, but
>> had a concern earlier about not waiting 5 days.  The thought was based upon
>> the assumption that if we do not allow recreation until after the day 5
>> test results, than someone who is positive on day 5 would be identified as
>> someone who picked up COVID during travel, which we know is largely out of
>> a travelers individual control.  If we do pick up one or more positives on
>> day 5 after starting outdoor recreation on day 1, then we will not know if
>> COVID was picked up during travel, or someone was not complying with
>> recreation the rules.  I do NOT expect non-compliance, but it would be a
>> bad way to start EXPORTS, if a few real or false positives come in early
>> on, and the group is second guessing how it happened.   This is a social
>> comment, not a medical one.
>>
>> Again, I'll go with the flow on the outdoor recreation.  We have not
>> decided to do this or not in Vigo, as it has not come up as a major issue.
>> FYI, we do have a 15 min one way walk to our two COVID tests in Vigo, so
>> joking already about our 2 exercise moments, and more seriously about how
>> to stagger tests to avoid a large group dynamic as we head to our tests.
>>
>> Any change on the double bubble issue? Allow few to go between ships but
>> only during off hours with clear corridors and control?
>>
>> Later, Ken
>> On 2021/04/06 2:02 PM, Craig M. Lee via Exports_project_office wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We received answers from Guy last night (please review attached email).
>>
>> Given the data from NOC,  I think we could, in good conscience, allow a 1, or perhaps 2, day shortening of the quarantine for late arrivals. One day is more conservative, two days is the most we could accommodate and still stay within UK guidelines. I think we could justify either, but we need to make it clear to everyone that this is a contingency measure, not a change in policy. Ivona and I favor a 1-day relaxation (which would let Meg exit quarantine with the rest of the science team, and the great students one day later). We can keep the 2-day relaxation in our back pocket, in the event the others suffer from travel delays.
>>
>> Outdoor recreation is trickier. My understanding is that outdoor recreation would not be in violation of UK policy, so it’s really up to us what we will or will not allow. Guy expresses some concern, but I view it as being very safe. *provided* that everyone complies with social distancing and avoids shops, pubs, restaurants (even just picking up food to go), etc.
>>
>> If we feel confident in peoples’ ability to comply with rules, then it seems like we just need to set a policy for outdoor exercise. It probably does not have to be terribly prescriptive. Something like:
>>
>> - Outdoor exercise is permitted, but must be done solo (no gathering in groups)
>> - Avoid crowded areas and remain at least 2 m from other people
>> - Visits to shops, restaurants, pubs, recreation facilities etc are prohibited. This includes outdoor facilities like food carts and pick-up of to-go orders.
>>
>> Then we just decide whether we let people outside immediately, or only after the 5-day LFT. The main reason to wait for the 5-day test is if the UK is worried about us bringing infection in, which does not appear to be the case. I propose that we use something like the protocol above and allow immediate outdoor access, but would like to hear from others. I’d also like to run whatever we adopt by Guy before finalizing.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Craig M. Lee
>> University of Washington
>> Applied Physics Laboratory
>> 1013 NE 40th St.
>> Seattle, WA 98105-6698craiglee at uw.edu
>> (206) 685-7656
>> (206) 543-6785 (fax)http://iop.apl.washington.edu
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Exports_project_office mailing listExports_project_office at espo.nasa.govhttps://espo.nasa.gov/lists/listinfo/exports_project_office
>>
>> --
>> Ken Buesseler
>> Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutionhttp://cafethorium.whoi.edu     @Cafe_Thorium
>> Director, Center for Marine and Environmental Radioactivityhttp://www.whoi.edu/CMER        @whoi_cmer
>> 508-289-2309
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Exports_project_office mailing list
>> Exports_project_office at espo.nasa.gov
>> https://espo.nasa.gov/lists/listinfo/exports_project_office
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Exports_project_office mailing list
> Exports_project_office at espo.nasa.gov
> https://espo.nasa.gov/lists/listinfo/exports_project_office
>
>
>
>
> Jason Graff
> Oregon State University
> Assistant Professor - Senior Research
> 541-737-4090
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://espo.nasa.gov/pipermail/exports_project_office/attachments/20210406/a5262804/attachment.html>