This article has now been split into three parts.

Part 1: Covid-19 Facts, Analysis, and Advice
Part 2: Busting Covid-19 Myths
Part 3: Should My Game Be Canceled?

Each part will link to the other two, and they will all be extended and updated as necessary.

Don’t Panic! imagination will still be here tomorrow.
Image by Patty Talavera from Pixabay, text by Mike

Part 3: Should your next RPG Game-session be canceled because of Covid-19?

Having summarized just about all the available knowledge on the subject, we’re now in a position to consider the question originally posed: Should your RPG be canceled for a month or so?

There are multiple ways to analyze the current situation where you are in order to answer that question, hopefully with a fair degree of consistency between them. They rely on the facts and analysis already presented, and don’t rely on any of the myths. They do presume that you are following the advice given.

Rather than answering a definitive “yes” or “no”, let’s look at the conditions under which you should cancel:

1. Gaming At Home, and you are feeling unwell. Don’t take chances, self-isolate. That means the game should be canceled. And your friends warned that you may have already exposed them.
2. Gaming At Home, and one of your players is feeling unwell. This is a more difficult decision. If there’s any risk that the ill player has exposed anyone else in your group to the virus, the game should be canceled.
3. Gaming At Home, and someone started feeling unwell a couple of days after you last played: Absolutely cancel the game; the previous session almost probably took place while the ill person was infectious, assuming they have contracted Covid-19, and that means that everyone else at the table might be infectious but not yet experiencing symptoms right now. Respond accordingly.
4. Gaming At Home, and everyone is already suffering from presumed or confirmed cases: Why, you self-centered bastard! Don’t expose others by traveling to someone’s place to game and don’t require others to do so. Cancel that game!
5. Gaming At Home, and the entire city/country is in lock-down: Anyone contemplating gaming in this situation isn’t just self-centered, they are stupid. And a menace to the public health.
6. Gaming in public with more people than the current association limit: Stupid, stupid, stupid. Violating the limits of association for ‘frivolous’ reasons in this manner leaves you open to prosecution almost certainly, fines if you’re lucky, jail if you aren’t. Assuming that the cop you are endangering doesn’t solve the problem directly – if the association limit is 500 people, they probably won’t, if the limit is 5 or less then the odds go way up, because the limit would only be set that low (or lower) if the situation was truly dire. Of course, if you or one of your players is showing symptoms, all bets (and games) are off.
7. Gaming in public with 1/5th the current association limit or more, but less than the actual limit: I’ve chosen my wording very carefully on this one. The game store where I co-GM the Adventurer’s Club campaign usually has some sort of trading game tournament underway at the same time – twenty-plus tables with 4-5 people at each, and there used to be more until they moved to smaller (but more accessible) premises. That puts them at the bottom of this range. Frankly, this situation is more about the travel to and from the venue than anything else; if unnecessary travel is banned or advised against, then cancel. If not, and the venue isn’t providing hand-cleaning to everyone entering the premises, either take your own or relocate the game, or cancel. Finally, even if all the other conditions for a go-ahead have been met, if anyone’s unwell, cancel is the prudent course of action.
8. Gaming in public with less than 1/5th the current association limit: Take reasonable precautions – but game on! – unless someone is showing symptoms or has other reason to suspect possible infection.

In other words:

• DON’T break quarantine or isolation
• DON’T break limits of association
• DON’T put others in a position of violating restrictions
• DON’T put others at risk
• DO think of others
• DO protect yourself
• DO protect your friends
• DO look ahead

Looking Ahead

If things get as bad as they possibly might, the Italian solution might be the right one. Right now, no-one knows for certain. The time to start preparing for the worst case is now. The trigger for implementing your plans and preparations is the day that citizens are advised to avoid unnecessary travel, or even to avoid travel altogether. Very few countries are at that point yet, and some may never reach it. Others may implement the restriction by the back-door method of shutting down public transportation.

• Have a plan agreed upon with your players and friends.
• Establish channels of information.
• Investigate the option of virtual gaming in advance.
• Contemplate figuring out how to run your campaign by email, or by chat room.
• Plan for alternative venues, and for alternative digital venues.
• Make sure everyone knows, and can access, any software required. And any URLs required.
• Prepare any physical venue appropriately.
• Know whose responsibility it is to verify whether a game can go ahead or not.
• Know when the decision has to be made.
• Take responsibility. It’s your game.

Don’t Panic! Our dreams will still be there tomorrow.
Image by Jin Neoh via FreeImages.com, text & trickery by Mike

I was already contemplating this much-larger-than-a-fill-in post when it became clear that the next part of the Sixes System would take longer to write than the available time.

So, when my free time was suddenly opened up by the cancellation of the Australian F1 Grand Prix, I took it as a sign…. Part 3 of the Sixes System, “Doing Things” will follow next week, I hope (and expect).

Because of the subject matter, and it’s urgency and relevance, I might post this early.

Addendum 15 March 2020:

This morning, as I was contemplating the question posed in the last line above, and whether I could make my conclusions any clearer, and before I’ve caught up to date with developments over the last 24 hours, a different way of looking at the question came to me, which provides the clearest guideline yet.

1. Count up the number of people who will normally be in attendance at your gaming venue. At home, that’s probably just you and your players; at an outside venue, it could be hundreds or thousands.
2. Subtract about 20% for people who will stay home because of the current situation.
3. Add an estimate of each unique individual that any of your players and GM will encounter on their trip to the gaming venue. Depending on the route followed and the means of transport, that might be a handful (travel by personal automobile or walk), dozens (travel by public bus), or over a hundred.
4. If there are going to be other people at the gaming venue, or that you will encounter in the course of normal activities like buying lunch, add in 10% of an estimated number of contacts for them, too.
5. Compare that result with the limits currently recommended for congregations. Where I am, that’s a limit of 500; at other places, it might be 5,000, or anything in between. If there are any reported cases in your country, state, or city, assume a figure of 5,000 in the absence of any guidance. Since we’re counting people encountered casually en route, and they aren’t double the limit.
6. If over the original limit – cancel. If over the elevated limit: cancel.
7. If anywhere close to the increased limit (above, say, 75% – cancel through prudence. If none of you are in the higher-risk categories, you might increase that to 85% of the limit. For each person in the higher-risk categories, drop it by 5%, or even 10%, depending on how cautious you want to be.
8. If more than about 10% of the limit, proceed – but with precautions.
9. Otherwise, go right ahead. Unless the travel itself is forbidden by your local authorities.

Using this test, let’s take my planned game for next week: 2 players plus myself. I don’t have to travel, so +0. One of my players has to catch two buses: figure a worst-case of about 20 people on each: +40. The other has to catch a train and a couple of buses: figure 250 for the train and 40 for the buses: +290. Getting lunch: 2 vendors, plus 10% of the number of customers they are likely to encounter in a day: +10% Î 2 Î 500 = +100. Total = 433. All three of us are in the high-risk group (two diabetics and one person around 65), so start with the 75% threshold and drop it by 15% to 60%. The current limit of congregations where I am is 500, which doubles to 1000 – 60% of which is 600. It’s safe for this game to go ahead – at least at the moment. Especially if I force the players to wash hands after buying lunch (and before eating it).

The week after is my superhero campaign. Four players, including both the players listed above. Another traveling by train (+100, these aren’t as packed as the other trains). The fourth travels with the second, so his encounters are already counted. Same venue, same lunchtime arrangements. 4+40+290+100=434, plus the lunchtime 100. This is getting close to the threshold of 600, but if the same limits still apply, this should still be fine – especially with the same requirement as above. However, elevated risk categories suggest an abundance of caution, so “should be fine” is probably a 50/50 proposition – with a bias toward prudence.

A week after that, the Adventurer’s Club campaign with the same players plus two more, and a public venue, normally with about 60 people present. One of these additional players takes the train (+200 people), but both the player who normally takes two buses to my place usually travels with myself and the sixth player (-40). Lunch probably increases in risk to 200 people, +100 over the previous figure. Figure that those 60 people have probably contacted (collectively) another 1200 discrete individuals in the course of their day – that’s another +120. Putting those together: 534+2+60+200-40+100+120 = 976. Unless the venue cancels its regular activities (removing those 60 people and their 1000 contacts), this is right at the limits of permissible risk. We should at least talk to the players about cancellation or relocation. Given that several participants are in the high or highest risk categories, it’s probably a washout.

Being Realistic with some Worst-Case projections

Sydney currently has a population of about three-and-a-half million. At last count, there were 112 known cases current in this state; I’ll assume that they are all here.

Number of current cases doubling every 5 days? That means that they are increasing by a factor of a touch under 1.15 per day. If you’re infectious for two days before developing symptoms, that’s 1.15 Î 1.15 = Î1.32. So 112 known cases means 148 people undiagnosed. It’s easy to postulate a worst-case situation in which there are ten times as many people carrying the disease as there are known cases, but the mathematics just doesn’t stack up; if that were the case, there would be virtually zero chance of not catching the virus over the next twenty days, and the country would be locked down like Italy. It’s not – yet.

We also know that in up to 20% of cases, people will experience no symptoms at all. That’s a times (100/80)^5 factor that we should also take into account. That works out to be a Î3.05 factor. And 3.05 Î 1.32 = 4.028.

Worst-case, then, there might be as many as four times as many infectious people out there as there are currently-active cases.

Next Weekend’s game

For Sydney, under the assumptions given, the projected number of infectious people, based on these simple calculations, is currently 448 people.

Given that those are yesterday’s numbers, and that they are doubling every five days at the moment, continuing with the worst-case calculations, next Saturday there will be Î2^(7/5) = ×2.64 cases. 448 Î 2.64 = 1182.

Even if NONE of these have self-isolated, the odds of encountering one of them are infinitesimal: 1182 / 3500000 = 0.03378%.

Most of us will encounter only 100 people, maybe 200 at most, in a day. If you work in a busy store as a cashier, you might get to 1000 encounters a day. To calculate the risk, we need to work on the part of the equation that reduces – that’s the chance of being safe. 100 – 0.03378 = 99.96622% per encounter.

0.9996622^100 = 0.966778 = 96.68% safe, 3.32% risk.
0.9996622^200 = 0.934661 = 93.47% safe, 6.53% risk.
0.9996622^1000 = 0.7133 = 71.33% safe, 28.67% risk.

A week from now, expect the number of hours a cashier can work to be restricted. Halve the number of contacts in a day, drop that 1000 to 500, and you greatly reduce the risks to us all:

0.9996622^500 = 0.84457 = 84.46% safe, 15.54% risk. Even that is higher than the government will probably be comfortable with, so there will be even tighter restrictions if current trends don’t improve.

But for most of us, a 3-to-7 percent risk? We might think about it, and then we’d probably take those odds – in a game. But this is real life, with no mulligans on your saving throw. Exercise appropriate prudence according to the situation around you.

The risk to next week’s game is – well, not negligible, but not substantial, either. And remember that all these numbers are the worst-case scenario.

A week later?

1182 Î 2.64 = 3121 infectious people. Out of 3.5 million, that’s 0.0891714% risk, or 99.911% safe – per daily encounter. (Remember, divide the estimated infectious by 4 to get the number of confirmed cases expected at this point; 3121 / 4 = about 780).

0.99911^100 = 0.9148 = 91.48% safe, 8.52% risk.
0.99911^200 = 0.8369 = 83.69% safe, 16.31% risk.
0.99911^1000 = 0.4105 = 41.05% safe, 58.95% risk.

If current trends continue, the risks will have become too high at this point for life as normal. Further restrictions on travel and association are virtually certain, as are the closure of non-essential businesses.

But the risks to Saturday Week’s game are – still not trivial, but not all that dangerous, either.

Two weeks from now?

Twenty days from now, the Adventurer’s Club campaign is due to continue. If cases double every 5 days, that’s 16 times the current number of cases – so 112 Î 16 = 1792. Four times that gives the number of infected people out there, worst-case: 7168.

7168 divided by the population of Sydney is 7168 / 3,500,000 = 0.002048, or a massive 0.2048%. That means that 99.7952% of the time, you will be fine going about your usual daily routine.

But:
0.997952^100 = 0.81464 = 81.464% safe, 19.536% risk.
0.997952^200 = 0.66364 = 66.364% safe, 33.636% risk.
0.997952^1000 = 0.12872 = 12.872% safe, 87.128% risk.

Those risks are clearly significant. Before this point is reached, I would expect significant restrictions on congregating and traveling to be put in place. In the worst-case scenario.

The Adventurer’s Club campaign is almost certainly going to be a casualty of the pandemic, at least for the time being. If current trends continue, and the worst-case materializes.

Don’t Panic! The world will go on, tomorrow.
Image by Nikki Ovadia from Pixabay, text by Mike

Applying these standards elsewhere

Some numbers will change when you’re looking at somewhere else. The number of confirmed cases, the size of the population, the estimated ratio of confirmed cases to infectious people, the number of encounters per day – these are all subject to local variations. I’ve given my calculations in such detail for two reasons: first so that you can copy them and do your own, relevant to your situation. Remember, worst-case means being pessimistic but not alarmist.

If you only have total numbers for your state, assign them proportionately by population to your city or town. For example, as I type this, Illinois has 32 confirmed cases and 92 test results pending. Worst-case scenario, all 92 come back positive, so that’s 124 cases. According to Wikipedia, Illinois has 12,419,000 people, with one major city (Chicago, obviously) and several smaller ones. If you are in Springfield, Illinois, population 114,694, your “share” of those cases will be 0.924% – call it 1.24 cases. Worst-case scenario, so let’s assume that you’ve got more than your share and bump that up to 3 by doubling it and rounding up.

Because of the problems described elsewhere in this article, I’m inclined to bump the ratio of infectious citizens to confirmed cases up by at least 50%, to 6. So that gives 18 infectious people theoretically loose on the streets of this small city.

18 / 114694 = 0.000157 = 0.0157%.

In a city this size, you might encounter 50 people on an excursion down to the local gaming store (assuming this city has one).

1 – 0.000157 = 0.999843.
0.999843^50 = 0.99218 = 99.218% safe, 0.782% risk.

Right now, gaming is as safe as it’s ever likely to get.

Three weeks from now, we’re talking about a 16-fold increase in the number of cases (worst-case scenario). The 18 people has become 288 people and the 0.0157% has become 0.0157 Î 16 = 0.2512%.

1 – 0.002512 = 0.997488.
0.997488^50 = 0.8818 = 88.18% safe, 11.82% risk.

The odds are still in your favor, but I’d start taking precautions.

Five days later, 0.2512% becomes 0.5024.%
1 – 0.005024 = 0.994976.
0.994976^50 = 0.7774 = 77.74% safe, 22.26% risk.

It hasn’t quite doubled, but it’s close enough to it that you would have to seriously consider canceling. And five days after that, if there’s another doubling, that’s about 44% risk, and there would be no question but to cancel. That’s a 20+10=30 days prediction – worst-case scenario.

An observation

The rapidity of change within the situation implied by a doubling every five days is absolutely massive. Public authorities can’t make policy based on the way things are right now – they have to assume that the information they have is already out of date. Instead, they have to make policy based on next week, and the week after, in an attempt to corral that increase and cut it down – massively. If it sometimes seems like the policies being put in place are premature, or a panic-based response, take that into account.

Why these calculations are totally bogus

There’s one absolutely massive factor that these calculations aren’t taking into account. As a result of policies now in place, whatever they might be and wherever you are, the number of encounters per day that you are likely to experience is almost certainly way down on the norm. As things grow worse – which they will, for a while yet – that number will further decline.

And that makes a huge difference.

0.999^1000 = 0.3677 = 36.77% safe.
0.999^500 = 0.6064 = 60.64% safe.
0.999^100 = 0.90479 = 90.479% safe.
0.999^50 = 0.9512 = 95.12% safe.
0.999^25 = 0.9753 = 97.53% safe.
0.999^20 = 0.98 = 98% safe.
0.999^10 = 0.9900045 = 99.00045% safe.

The more this number declines, the more that “doubling in five days” slows down. Modeling that is beyond my basic math; I can see how to do it, but not how to determine all the variables. But it would be a computer algorithm that takes each day’s result and uses it to calculate tomorrows’ result, and the result the day after, and so on, because the key variables would change on a daily basis.

This is why I kept on insisting that the projections were a worst-case scenario – because I knew that I was willfully ignoring a compensating factor that would make a BIG difference. Once again, the lesson from these projections is: Even the worst-case scenario looks scarier than it actually should be. Take appropriate precautions and obey the restrictions placed on movement and gathering in numbers, and DON’T PANIC.

PRINCIPAL SOURCES (in no particular order):

1. ABC-TV (Australia): Coronavirus symptoms explained – what happens when you get COVID-19 and how likely is a full recovery?
2. ABC-TV (Australia): Coronavirus FAQ: Frequently asked questions about COVID-19
3. Australian Government Dept Of Health: Coronavirus (COVID-19) web-page as retrieved 14th March 2020
4. KVIA.com: Coronavirus Outbreak Timeline Fast Facts
5. Facebook: Coronavirus Q&A with Dr Norman Swan
6. ABC 7 (New York): Busting COVID-19 Coronavirus myths: Facts from the Centers for Disease Control
7. ABC News (Channel 24, Australia): “The Virus”, broadcast March 8th, 2020
8. ABC 7 (New York): How is Coronavirus spread? Symptoms, prevention, and how to prepare for a COVID-19 outbreak in the US
9. Worldometer: Coronavirus Web-page
10. ABC News (Channel 24, Australia): Covid-19 Stimulus Package Review & Analysis with David Spears, broadcast March 12th, 2020
11. World Health Organization via New York State Senator Alessandra Biaggi (Twitter Account)
12. Dr Faheem Younus, MD, Chief of Infectious Diseases, University of Maryland UCH (Twitter Account)