The conference industry was one of the first to feel the effects of the coronavirus-driven lockdowns. From March onward, virtually every large public gathering was canceled or postponed, from major events like SXSW and Comic-Con to the thousands of trade, academic, association, and hobbyist meetings that represent the long tail of the multi-billion dollar events industry.

No one knows what will happen when these conferences are allowed to resume. How much of the original event plans are still viable? How many attendees will actually show up? What sort of precautionary measures will be required by new health and safety regulations? And what happens if there’s another surge of infections? If a cluster is traced to a specific event, the fallout could be ruinous.

Interested to learn more about what might happen in the near future—especially as a semi-frequent conference-goer myself—I sought out several industry professionals to find out what they are seeing and hearing these days. Not to put too fine a point on it, all agree things are very bad. “Ask anyone who works in this industry,” says Dallas-based meeting planner Nann Philips, who runs Scurry Street Meeting Management, “and they’ll tell you it’s pretty dismal right now.”


Planning Around a Pandemic

Because most conferences are planned years in advance, the current disruptions threaten the financial future of subsequent meetings. Exigencies and contingencies are key to event planning, but few contracts anticipated a global health crisis, so it hasn’t always been clear who has to take the hit. In the early days of the shutdowns, hotels and venues were more willing to let conference organizers out of their agreements. With some states and cities preparing to open back up, that is quickly changing. Meanwhile, exhibitors and attendees are demanding refunds.

Currently, there is a cautious optimism that some events will be able to go forward in the fall, perhaps even as early as September. But it’s clear that when they do return, things won’t be the same. “We’re not going back to normal,” says Philips. “The normal we had is gone.”

In response, various industry groups have come together to chart a path forward. On May 8, the Events Industry Council, a coalition of stakeholder companies, announced the formation of a task force “focused on developing standards to ensure the safety and wellness of attendees” to restore confidence in large public meetings.

In the nation’s gala-happy capital, the DC Events Coalition was formed in early March to help local businesses do the same. Philip Dufour, an events producer who leads Dufour Collaborative and helped to establish the coalition, says they’ve had conference calls of up to 750 to discuss shared issues. “The live events industry was the first to go offline,” he says, “and we’re trying to prevent being the last one to come back online.”

Virtual Mundanity

Speaking of online: if you want to stage a conference right now, your only option is taking it virtual, and many have gone this route. From big names like TED to industry-specific events and annual shareholder meetings, many companies and organizations have begun experimenting with the format. In June, Apple’s enormous developer’s conference, WWDC, will be staged for the first time as an online-only experience.

Industry groups and tech companies are stepping up to help as well. PCMA, an association of business event professionals, recently launched a “digital event fast track” course for conference planners. LinkedIn just announced a set of tools called LinkedIn Virtual Events. And of course, few companies have enjoyed as meteoric a rise in recent months as the now-ubiquitous Zoom.

Dufour has already helped one client pivot an exclusive 250-person live event to a virtual one, and on just three weeks’ notice. The only people who remained on-site were technical staff and the executive in charge of the control room. Dufour says the event was successful, and most attendees were present all three days. While his clients would not have considered a remote event in the past, now they have seen it work, and he expects to do it again. “We now think for this kind of group there will be a need” for virtual event planning, he says.

It’s possible that some live events may work as well or better in a virtual setting as in a live one. The more content-focused or educational the event is, such as staff training, the better it will translate. Participants in a remote workshop may find an easier time concentrating than in a crowded room. Anything where people traveled out of obligation rather than an express need, especially for meetings of just a few hours, now has a good excuse for taking the whole thing online. Many board meetings already operate with one or more participants not physically present, and making it all-remote would put everyone on the same footing.

Even if the event overall works better live, certain aspects of the experience might be improved. It’s certainly more time- and cost-efficient. The ROI on attending or exhibiting at a conference can vary widely. Even if the upside is lower for attending a virtual meeting, so is the downside. (Less expensive tickets may not be as good for the events themselves, however.) Over the course of a year, a company could send more people to more conferences virtually than they could in-person. What’s more, they’ll be guaranteed a better seat. Says Dufour, “ironically, everyone on Zoom gets an upfront look at the speaker instead of [being in] the back of the room.”

But skepticism of these events is easily articulated. Instead of being in Las Vegas or Miami for a weekend, you are still in your cramped apartment, and there are still dishes to be done. Can you be sure your event isn’t just a gussied up webinar? As Philips puts it, while live events are “all-five senses,” with digital, “you get two senses, at best.” And the lack of immersion can lead to boredom. Brad Fishman, chief executive of Fishman PR, which organizes conferences for its franchise clients, says, “People don’t have the attention span to sit there for six hours.”

The ROI of YOLO

Exhibitors and salespeople are also unlikely to be happy with an all-virtual conference. Networking, socializing, and serendipity are all but lost. Breakfasts and happy hours, where deals often get made, are non-existent. As Fishman puts it, “No one’s going to sell a product or a service if they can’t be in front of someone.” In theory, conference software could make it possible to see who else is attending a session and allow for a virtual tap on the shoulder, but it’s still a kludge. Exhibitors show up to find customers they don’t already know, and finding them at a virtual conference is unfamiliar territory.

Moreover, events entirely dependent on being in person, such as product launches and auto shows, cannot be duplicated in a virtual environment. The incentive meeting, where you might take your sales team to the Caribbean as a reward, is likewise impossible. SXSW Interactive, while ostensibly a trade show, draws such large crowds because of the local music and nightclub scene, not to mention the breakfast tacos. Making one yourself to eat during a Zoom call can’t compare.

And so everyone agrees that live events are not going away entirely. Dufour says, “I think when we’re all on the other side, people are going to crave personal interaction again. This is never going to permanently become virtual.” But when the new normal begins to establish itself, pretty much every aspect of conferences will have to be reconsidered, from food to seating plans to what kind of sessions are even possible. Local health officials will have to issue new rules in the coming months, but it’s really what conference-goers are willing to go along with that will be even more impactful.

The Last Days of Swag

On the lower impact end of the spectrum, badges might be mailed out, rather than picked up in person. Swag is going away, though it was already under pressure for environmental concerns, and buffets are a total goner.

On the higher impact end of things, general sessions with a thousand or more people crammed in to see a celebrity keynote speaker, long a staple of large conferences, will become a thing of the past. At smaller events and in breakout rooms, social distancing requirements will limit the number who can attend. “If you have an event of 500,” Dufour predicts, “now you’ll need to hold it in a venue that holds two or three times that.” Hosting smaller crowds in larger event spaces raises the cost for organizers, and events with thinner operating margins might cease to be economically viable.

But it’s also possible that the technology and logistics developed during our (hopefully brief) virtual era can create new opportunities, and offset costs, by allowing for a hybrid approach.

Philips predicts that hybrid events could become the “biggest segment of the industry over the next five years.” She suggests that 60% to 70% of live events will have some kind of digital component to involve absent attendees. Fishman agrees that hybrid conferences will become commonplace, at least until a vaccine is discovered. “For people who are afraid,” he says, “it gives them the opportunity to attend.”

Those who choose not to attend for health and safety reasons may still be able to participate from afar. Dufour sketches out a hypothetical gala: “Let’s say you have 100 people who won’t [attend in-person] but are still supportive, let’s give them a way to participate. Let them log on and watch—can we send them a catered package to allow them to have a similar meal?”

He also suggests a “wagon wheel” approach, where instead of one large event, there are several smaller, probably regional events, lowering the risk to attendees. Each of these meetings could then sync up to hear the same speakers. While live attendance is all but certain to drop in the coming years, new technologies and techniques could bring more people into the fold.

But there are reasons to be cautious about the hybrid approach as well. Hybrid conferences will certainly accommodate those who wouldn’t participate otherwise, but they also provide incentives not to show up at all. And the reason to have a conference in the first place is to bring people together for learning, networking, marketing and sales. For an attendee or an exhibitor, every person who chooses not to attend is someone you can’t speak with in the hallway, or meet up with later for a drink.

An Uncertain Path Forward

If the live experience is less engaging, it could lead to a vicious circle where fewer people show up. Lower attendance one year could mean an exhibitor brings fewer employees to staff their booth, which could hurt foot traffic, and lead the organizers to choose smaller venues, limiting attendance. Meanwhile, a conference might seem important to a company’s business, but if they skip a year and it doesn’t affect their bottom line, they might realize they don’t need to go at all. Not all meetings will make it to the other side. Some might downsize to become virtual, and not by choice.

At what point does the human desire to be around other people outweigh the fear of illness? A vaccine might restore the old order, but it wouldn’t happen overnight. Once proven effective, widespread availability is a major challenge, and confidence that others have had their shots is another. The balance between the benefits of social activity vs. the drawbacks of exposure are being debated in many industries right now. For those whose business depends on live events, the big question is a matter of existential concern: if you build it, will they come?

William Beutler is a writer and entrepreneur based in Washington, DC. He is the CEO of Beutler Ink, and he looks forward to visiting Austin again, someday.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: CanvaResearchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture
    Photo credit: PeopleImages/iStock via Getty ImagesWhat kids are doing on tablets seems to matter more than how long they use them.

    Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

    Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and DenmarkFrance and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

    In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

    These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

    I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

    Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

    Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

    In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

    Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

    Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

    Developmentally beneficial activities such as educationsocializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

    In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-beingautonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

    The latest guidelines

    In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

    Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

    For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

    Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

    Rethinking screen time

    Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

    Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

    Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

    A woman and two small children look at tablet screen
    Parental involvement in young children’s screen time has developmental benefits. Cultura Creative/Tetra images via Getty Images

    Using these guidelines at home

    The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

    Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

    The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters
    Photo credit: CanvaA boy rides an e-scooter, left, while a girl is examined in an emergency room.

    An emergency room doctor and fellow mom has been noticing a troubling trend: Many parents are giving their kids something more powerful than bicycles to get around the neighborhood. As a result, she’s seeing more children come into the ER with injuries sustained in e-bike and e-scooter crashes. She recently went online with a plea to parents and young riders.

    Dr. Meghan Elizabeth Beach Martin, known online as Dr. Beachgem, posted a video in her scrubs discussing her concerns after seeing so many children come into the hospital with e-bike injuries during the summer months. She’s worried that too many kids and parents don’t understand the proper safety precautions. As a mother herself, she even questions why children are allowed to ride these devices at all.

    In the video, the doctor explains that some e-bikes can reach speeds of up to 28 mph. She says that if an e-bike goes any faster than that, it’s technically classified as a motorcycle. At those speeds, she regularly sees children with traumatic injuries and broken bones after hitting bumps, cracks in the road, or other vehicles. Many of them aren’t wearing helmets or protective pads, and some are even riding barefoot, making their injuries even more severe. Martin’s video has gained traction on Reddit and elsewhere online.

    E-bikes and e-scooters, examined

    Martin isn’t the only professional seeing a growing problem. The American College of Surgeons reports that there are more than 20,000 e-bike-related injuries each year. Meanwhile, a University of California, San Francisco study found that e-bike injuries doubled annually from 2017 to 2022. The same study found that e-scooter injuries increased by 45% each year during the same period.

    Before riding an e-bike, it’s important to follow proper safety procedures. Make sure you and your child understand your area’s laws regarding e-bikes, including any minimum age requirements. Always wear a helmet and other protective gear when riding. Consider choosing an e-bike with safety features such as motor-interrupt brake levers and disc brakes. These are just a few of the many safety tips experts recommend.

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has similar safety tips for e-scooter riders. Wearing a helmet is one of its top recommendations, along with taking other basic precautions. The agency also recommends checking the brakes before riding and slowing down for bumps, cracks, and other road hazards.

    The vast majority of e-scooters and e-bikes are designed for only one rider, so avoid doubling up. Although laws vary by state and locality, wearing more protective gear is always the safer choice. Riders should also review local e-bike and e-scooter laws to make sure they are operating the vehicles safely and legally.

    A little research goes a long way toward making sure you and your children can ride safely. It’s also important for parents to understand that many e-bikes and e-scooters can travel at speeds that make them very different from a traditional bicycle. The last thing you want is for you or your child to become another emergency room statistic.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters

Health

May cause joy: The full-spectrum health benefits of dance 

Research

Why we crave company