History Event Planning and COVID-19

by William P. Tatum III, Ph.D., Dutchess County Historian

Holding responsible in-person events during the era of COVID-19 requires a dramatic re-thinking of our use of space and how we interact with one another.

The bottom line:

• Virus-bearing respiratory droplets are the major concern for infection.
• Any environment that is enclosed, with poor air circulation and a high density of people, spells trouble.
• A successful in-person event plan would need to account for social distancing, air-flow, surface cleaning, Personal Protective Equipment, and new procedures for interactions between people.
• There are opportunities for programming that are not totally based on digital delivery.
• The alternatives for in-person programming should focus on exterior spaces and severe attendance caps to ensure that social distancing and PPE can be used to provide the safest possible event environment.
• Ultimately, the decisions of individuals, based on their personal comfort zones, will define success for future in-person programming.

As Dutchess County begins the process of loosening social distancing measures and re-opening the economy, it is time for the county history community to consider how we will adapt to the challenges of COVID-19. Moving away from a strict lockdown does not imply that the coronavirus is in retreat or any less virulent than it was in March: the health threat remains, particularly to those individuals suffering from pre-existing health conditions or who are over 50.

The primary issue under discussion in the Dutchess History Community is the future of in-person events. For well over a century, History organizations have focused on in-person programming as the primary method for delivering content to audiences. From museum exhibits that assume a steady stream of visitors to lectures based on large crowd attendance, our sector has always sought to bring groups of people together in close proximity. Our primary method for measuring success has been counting audience turn-out. Even our fundraising strategies have relied on crowds, either in terms of visitor ticket revenue or gala events. It is likely that we won’t be able to return to the old model of doing business for some time to come.

Estimates on the time required to develop and deliver a vaccine range from 18 months to 15 years.

As a new (novel) virus, the scientific community is still uncertain when it comes to many particulars of what COVID-19 does to the human body, particularly what the long-term effects of infection might be. Avoiding exposure to the virus remains an important goal for anyone in the At-Risk category (pre-existing health conditions, age above 50). The timeline for developing a vaccine runs from the extremely optimistic 18 months (Mayo Clinic Article) to the pessimistic 15 years (WebMD Article). Developing a vaccine for coronavirus involves serious complicating challenges (Live Science Article).The outlook is not good for safely holding conventional in-person events any time soon.

We must consider an individual’s willingness to leave their home to attend a program as a key variable for planning.

“If you build it, they will come” is a great idea for Hollywood, but does not work out so well in reality. Event attendance is a two-part decision: One part is the choices that the hosting organization makes on what to offer, the other part concerns the thoughts and feelings of potential attendees. Does any given member of your organization or visitor feel comfortable venturing out of their house after lockdown ends? What do people consider to be unnecessary risks? The American Alliance of Museums has partnered with Wilkening Consulting to analyse several surveys of the museum-going population on when they will feel comfortable returning to museums. While the Dutchess History Community consists of many different kinds of sites, the analysis of the survey (which you can read here) provides food for thought that applies across the board.

The digital turn is not a perfect answer for programming: it leaves some people behind.

Losing in-person events creates a tremendous hole in the history community fabric, one that cannot be bridged by technology alone. While most of the History Sector is shifting to digital delivery for programming, the approach has its drawbacks. The expense of technology, re-training staff after decades of focusing on hands-on learning, and a communications market glutted with digital outreach are all sobering factors. Most importantly, however, are the segments of the population that the digital shift leaves behind: anyone without a good computer/smartphone and access to a high speed data line, anyone who is not interested in embracing new technologies, anyone who has physical impairments (sight, hearing) that complicate their engagement with technology.

Reducing exposure to respiratory droplets is the #1 approach to avoiding COVID-19 infections.

To understand the factors complicating in-person programming, we must turn to the science. In his recent popular blog article (visit it here or download it here), Biologist Erin Bromage of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth has laid out the science of infection as it concerns COVID-19. The key variable in this case is the respiratory droplet: all the fluid that exits your mouth and nose when you exhale. Different types of exhalations involve different amounts of respiratory droplets: the cough and sneeze generate far more than a calm breath. All of the government-mandated protocols, from social distancing to mask-wearing, are designed to reduce an individual’s exposure to respiratory droplets, either airborne or on surfaces, which are the main means by which COVID-19 spreads.

Professor Bromage has also provided us with a checklist of issues to consider when it comes to in-person programming. Please refer to his article for the specific scientific breakdown of these issues (except the last one):

• Social distancing

• Ventilation and airflow

• Surface cleaning

• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

• Public interaction policies

Social Distancing: 6-Feet of Separation between Households

Current social distancing regulations in New York are based on households (people physically living together under the same roof) and require a minimum of 6 feet between individuals of different households. So if your entire household—everyone living under the same roof—decides to attend an event together, you don’t need to maintain 6 feet of separation from each other. But all of you, collectively, should maintain 6 feet of separation from any other individuals. One must also consider laying out clear avenues for moving through the space that guarantee visitors from different households will not violate the 6-Foot Rule.

The standard in-person history event involves large numbers of people seated together, whether they are listening to a lecture or attending a fundraising gala. The key to these events in the pre-COVID-19 world was packing in as many people as possible to make the best use of the space available. In general, that meant an organization could use a wide variety of interior or exterior spaces for programming.

Seating plans that adequately meet the requirements of current social distancing regulations require tremendous amounts of space. Here is how those measurements play out for a single seat, assuming that the seat of a chair is 18 inches square:

For every seated person, a venue would need to provide a 13.5 x 13.5 foot square, or 182.25 square feet. For reference, your average Subaru Outback is 16 feet long. Another way to think of this issue is how many rooms in your dwelling are larger than 13×13 feet? Putting that math to work on even a small scale quickly requires large open spaces.

These seating requirements do not lend themselves to most forms of participatory programming, such as meetings, seminars, and dinners. With that much physical distance, anyone with impaired hearing or sight will have difficulty interacting with any other attendee. The approach used in crowded auditoriums of carrying microphones around to audience members so that they can weigh in would violate social distancing and introduce new cleaning regimens: that microphone would have to be sanitized between uses.

The space requirements for individuals standing would likely be comparable to the above charts. However, when one takes households into account, the social distancing square expands significantly, fluctuating in relation to the size of space required for the group to stand or sit together.

If you had enough space, you could make the social distancing seating chart work. But could you draw a sufficient audience to make the effort worthwhile? The types of events for which that approach to seating would work are all passive (listening, looking) and would require new effort on the part of audience members to navigate the venue. Social distancing in this context defeats one of the prime motivations of audiences for in-person events: the feeling of being part of a group or community.

Ventilation and Airflow: Enclosed Spaces and High Density of People Spells Trouble

When someone coughs in the foyer, where do the particles go? That’s no longer a “tree falling in the woods” question.

Bromage’s discussion of super-spreader events (where a large number of people are infected in one place) covers the basics of this issue. Ventilation systems and airflow define how those respiratory droplets can move through interior spaces. Any venue that has HVAC but lacks viral filters can dump contagious particles in any number of places, depending on how the system is set up. In outdoor venues, one must bear in mind the airflow of breezes as well as physical proximity of guests.

As Bromage notes, “Any environment that is enclosed, with poor air circulation and high density of people, spells trouble.”

Surface Cleaning: Where the Respiratory Particles Land Matters

While Bromage’s article focuses on respiratory transmission (exhaling and inhaling those droplets in the air), surface cleaning is still necessary. The infectious respiratory droplets have to fall somewhere. Thought must be given to what surfaces people touch, how often they touch them, and what cleaning methods best suit those surfaces.

Surface cleaning also has an impact on the other factors. For example, if your interior venue decides that it will address cleaning of door knobs by having all doors open (so that the knobs can be cleaned less often), there is an impact on social distancing and on air circulation.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Increased Short-Term Protection, but Not a Panacea

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is an answer to situations where social distancing is not possible: classically in a hospital setting, but now including everything from the grocery store to busy walking paths.

PPE is not a complete answer in and of itself. Professional PPE is designed to be worn for extended periods of time, but that doesn’t make it comfortable. Also, wearing PPE for extended periods of time is usually teamed with a broader procedural approach that includes some form of sanitization/decontamination and a social distancing/containment component so that someone wearing PPE doesn’t spread the virus to other people. For an extreme example, think of the airlocks and decontamination chambers designed to create a buffer for clean spaces.

Unless you are a frontline responder, you probably don’t have professional PPE. Instead, you have a cloth mask, which works more to keep you from infecting other people than to keep other people from infecting you. Wearing these masks (which lack a one-way valve for expelling CO2) can restrict the flow of oxygen into the body over long periods of time. So individuals should only be making quick, essential trips and limiting their exposure as much as possible: grocery store run, yes; history lecture, no.

PPE does have an essential role to play in increasing safety for in-person events that adequately address the other points in this post. The government of the State of New York is clear that you should bring and wear PPE on any ventures beyond the confines of your household.

Public Interaction Policies: How Do Staff and Volunteers Interact with the Public now?

Bromage alludes to this variable in his commentary on face-to-face interactions (where PPE and Social Distancing make a big difference).

The bottom line for the history community is that in-person events (if they could effectively address all of the above issues) would require new procedures moving forward. Those protocols would define how visitors can interact with each other and with staff/volunteers, and how staff/volunteers would act to address everything from emergency situations to cleaning the site.

Staffing is a serious consideration here: COVID-19 and the above factors are not a reason to either drop your staffing levels for in-person public events or to have staff members or volunteers working in isolation from one another. A host of issues crops up when you create a situation where a staff member or volunteer might be forced to address an uncomfortable situation by themselves, without back up on hand.

New Approaches: Signatures Experiences and Gala-In-A-Box

In light of the above discussion, any in-person event that seeks to establish a safe setting for attendees should be outdoors, have attendance limitations built in, and feature a flow of traffic that ensures large groups of people will not be sharing the same space for an extended period of time.

Tours offer an example of an old style of programming that can be adapted to these new parameters. Limiting the number of tours, capping attendance numbers, being clear that tours of individuals from separate households require special arrangements are all part of this re-design process. While I do not encourage tours of interior spaces, I admit that they might be possible if adequate time was allowed between groups and all surfaces clean. The sticking point would be how an organization should handle a group of 5 people from different households who want to take a tour together. Wearing personal protective equipment (both staff/volunteers and visitors) would be an essential element as well.

Sites could offer presentations from inside structures or on porches, where visitors could speak with interpreters while observing social distancing regulations. Even in these circumstances, wearing PPE and limiting visitor numbers would be essential.

Consider these new approaches to in-person programming as “signature experiences:”  small, high quality, attendance-capped offerings. In the aftermath of COVID-19, with the old models no longer tenable, these signature experiences offer a framework for continuing visitation in a much safer fashion that focuses on quality over quantity.

Similarly, self-guided tours of sites are still possible, although the sticking points of interior spaces remain. Significant thought would have to be given to what measures would be used to ensure that visitors to an exhibition, for example, would observe social distancing and that cleaning protocols could be followed.

Some in-person events are simply not possible. Annual meetings and galas are among the most painful losses. Many organizations in the History Sector, including a few of our colleagues in the Dutchess History Community, count on galas and annual meetings for fundraising. Both events bring large numbers of people together in relatively small spaces with poor airflow, the perfect setting for a mass-spreader incident.

Consider the care package model as an alternative. Everyone loves receiving mail. Could your organization offer a gala-in-a-box, either through mail delivery or curbside pick-up? This approach would require considering what objects represent your organization and ways in which you can help your members and constituents capture that gala feeling at home. Online auctions offer alternatives to the in-person auctions for fundraising as well.

There is no question that the road ahead is a challenging one for the Dutchess History Community and the History Sector in general. The impracticability of our conventional in-person programming models combined with the shortcomings of digital delivery offer strange new challenges, which will not be easily overcome.

In contrast to many other areas, however, we are a united community that is accustomed to working together. Through our unity, we are prepared to present a united front to these challenges and whatever other ones may arise over the coming years. We have overcome galling challenges and crises for over 300 years in Dutchess County and will continue to do so together for centuries to come.