Tests grading criteria for Efforts Made vs. No Policy could be more granular

[kattni]

Hello! I was directed to your Public Health Pledge Event Badging Standard documentation by Josh Simmons, initially for the purpose of getting an idea of what categories to consider important in planning a conference. I am now, however, interested in applying for a rating. Thank you for putting this together!

My event is free, and therefore on a tight budget, so some of the options for Robust Policy are out of our reach for 2024, and likely the foreseeable future. I'm not suggesting a change there, I'm simply providing context for the following.

The Tests grading criteria for Robust Policy is daily negative test result required with a verification mechanism, which makes sense to me to achieve that rating. It's the Efforts Made requirement versus the No Policy requirement that seems like it could be more granular. Efforts made involves providing tests and encouraging their use. No Policy states, "No mention of tests." I feel like there is a middle ground here, wherein you encourage the use of testing with tests provided by the attendee. I am not in a position to be able to provide tests, unfortunately, however, I fully intend on including information on their benefit and suggesting that attendees bring their own.

I realise that there are only three levels here, and it's tough to incorporate significant granularity in this situation. So, I understand if this is not something you can consider. However, I thought it was worth mentioning regardless. Thank you for your time!

[altsalt]

I completely agree with you and it is the reason that #5 was never completed.

[joshsimmons]

Thank you for the excellent feedback, for your work to make the event safe and inclusive, and for your interest in applying for a rating!

I'll spend some time folding this feedback in to a new standard, which we are overdue for, and then we can this from there.