An Open Letter about the SCA's new COVID policy

[jducoeur]

(I've just sent this to the relevant officers, but I'm also sharing it publicly: this is a serious topic, more than worth some proper public discussion, not just random conversations on Discord. Comments are welcome, but keep them civil, thoughtful and productive; I will squash or delete anything that gets too heated. I encourage you to write your own letters -- feel free to crib from here if that seems useful to you, but please make your feelings known to the powers that be.)

Unto Their Majesties and Highnesses of the East, the Kingdom Seneschal, and the Board of the Society, Justin du Coeur sends greetings and concerns.

I read yesterday's updates to the COVID policies with some dismay, which was heightened by the online discussions around it. As I had expected, the result is that a number of members are no longer comfortable attending indoor events -- which in practice means all events for about 4-5 months in these parts. Realistically, some of those people will just give up and go away. Worse, the folks who are least comfortable with the new rule are in many cases the newest and most enthusiastic members; given that retention is a long-term challenge for the Society, anything exacerbating that is, IMO, a grave mistake.

And the hell of it is, I don't think any of it is necessary. Fundamentally, the problem here is micro-management. We've swung from "All Events Everywhere Must be Fully Masked" to "No Events Anywhere are Allowed to be Fully Masked". (Yes, yes -- it is possible to get exemptions from the SocSen, but let's get real: very few local autocrats are going to even dare to send that email. The broad perception is that you've forbidden it, and that's that.)

Putting it bluntly, that sort of rigid rule only makes sense in a world where there is broad consensus about the problem -- and we don't live in that world. On the one hand, we have people claiming that the pandemic is over and everyone should just go back to normal; OTOH, we have the reality that hundreds of people a day are being killed by COVID, vastly more are being crippled by it, and lots of folks are extremely worried. I know too many SCAdians who have had their lives destroyed by Long COVID, and many of my friends are terrified by this rule change, despairing of what it says about the SCA.

A lot of people are making entirely reasonable risk-analysis decisions that, for them, the new SCA rule is irresponsible. And indeed, it is out of line with much of the rest of geekdom -- most of the other activities I participate in (ranging from dance gatherings to SF/F conventions) are nowhere near this casual about masking yet, so we look even more irresponsible.

And no, it isn't enough to say, "if you are worried, wear a mask yourself". The science is crystal-clear here: having everyone masked is far more effective at preventing the spread of COVID than just doing so yourself. The rule as it stands comes across to many people as a statement that the SCA as an organization does not care whether you live or die -- and moreover, is actively preventing you from being safe, even if the local branch wants to be.

To address this, I propose a small tweak to the rules. We need an additional codicil, saying basically:

* Specific events may require more stringent masking and/or proof of vaccination. Any event with such rules must state them clearly in all event announcements and publicity.

I'm sure that people will fiddle, catastrophize and wordsmith this to death, but really -- that's all it needs to say. By allowing events to have stronger rules, we provide for variations in local culture, as well as the different nuances of, eg, indoor vs. outdoor events.

Different areas will make very different decisions about how to handle this, based on real-world culture as much as SCA. Some places will take a purely laissez-faire attitude, along the lines of the new rules. Other areas (likely including this one) will tend to require masks for indoor activities for the time being. Some will likely split the difference, experimenting with both styles and seeing what folks prefer. That's fine: our cultures are different, and the problem here arises solely because of a bad habit that tries to squash those differences out of existence with rigid universal rules.

I urge you to seriously consider this straightforward amendment to the policy. Allow local branches some latitude to see what works for them. It isn't that hard, it would largely defuse this crisis quickly, and it would better allow the SCA to conform to the differences in real-world culture that are the reality we need to deal with.

In Service,
Justin du Coeur, OL OP
Chatelaine, Barony of Carolingia, East

Comments

[cellio]

I was pretty stunned that SCA Inc went that last step of forbidding kingdoms (or local groups) from having more stringent requirements. The corporation generally allows kingdoms to add requirements to corporate rules, yet they have chosen here to forbid groups from doing what makes sense based on local conditions and desires for inclusion. Wow.

[cvirtue]

What will the Inc do if a kingdom/group has more stringent rules?

[cellio]

I don't know. I assume that someone would complain up the chain and it would eventually reach the corporate seneschal, who would yell at the kingdom seneschal and threaten sanctions, or something like that.

[mindstalk]

Making medieval plague cosplay more realistic.

[hudebnik]

Note that the differences from place to place aren't just cultural, they're factual. Covid is much more prevalent in some places than others, so even if there were no cultural/political differences and everybody were making the same rational risk/benefit calculations, the results of those calculations would be different in different places.

And, of course, a local event that nobody from out-of-town ever attends carries fewer risks than a Royal Progress, not to mention an inter-Kingdom event.

[danabren]

While I am no longer active, himself is, and he's spitting nails. Not only for personal reasons of safety within our home, but also because the local archery marshal is immunocompromised and has cancelled all archery practice until further notice (for obvious reasons).

This fiat from Corporate is baffling, and offensive, and frightening.

Digression

[cvirtue]

I'm curious:

"the folks who are least comfortable with the new rule are in many cases the newest and most enthusiastic members; "

Are newer folks more science-oriented? More at risk? Less accustomed to Corporate pronouncements?

Re: Digression

[jducoeur]

Probably a bit of each, plus generally more socially aware than their older compatriots.

That said, my wording ("in many cases") is quite deliberate -- not so much "younger members are all more concerned", but rather "many of the newer members are especially concerned". Lots of older long-time players are also extremely freaked out and angry about this.