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.

  • Placebo effect can work as well as real medicine – but your body may need permission to use it
    Photo credit: Irina Marwan/Moment via Getty Images From empty pills to homeopathy to sham surgery, placebos have powerful effects on the body.

    The first time the placebo effect really got under my skin was when I read that roughly one-third of people with irritable bowel syndrome improve on placebo treatments alone. Usually this statistic is presented as a fascinating quirk of medicine. My reaction was anger.

    Humanity possesses an extremely effective treatment, with essentially zero side effects – and patients need someone else’s permission to use it.

    The placebo effect refers to the improvements in symptoms that patients experience after they’re given an inert treatment like a sugar pill. Driven by expectation, context and social cues rather than pharmacology, the placebo effect is often dismissed as all in the mind. But decades of research have shown it is anything but imaginary.

    Placebo treatments can trigger measurable changes in the brain, immune system and hormone function. In studies on pain, placebos cause the brain to release endorphins, the body’s natural opioids. In Parkinson’s disease, placebo injections increase dopamine activity in the brain. The placebo effect isn’t magic. It’s biology.

    Having spent nearly a quarter-century teaching evolutionary medicine, I’ve come to see placebos not as curiosities of clinical trials but as windows into how human biology responds to social signals. And it’s that relationship that is exactly what makes the placebo effect unsettling.

    Medicine works, even when it isn’t medicine

    The placebo effect is so reliable that researchers must account for it in nearly every clinical trial.

    When testing a new drug, scientists compare its effects to what patients experience on a placebo treatment like sugar pills, saline injections or sham surgery. If the drug doesn’t outperform the placebo, it rarely reaches the public. Placebo responses are common and powerful enough to rival active treatments.

    Even surgery isn’t immune to the placebo effect. In several well-documented studies of knee procedures, patients who received sham operations – incisions without the full surgical repair – improved almost as much as those who received the real procedure.

    Clinician in scrubs and gloves holding wrist of patient lying on a hospital bed
    The experience of going under the knife can itself be healing. Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Clearly something real is happening inside the body. But the strangest part of the placebo effect is not that it works. It’s what makes it work.

    The prescription of belief

    Placebo treatments tend to be more effective when delivered by credible authorities. Pills work better when prescribed by doctors wearing white coats. Expensive pills outperform cheap ones. Injections produce stronger responses than tablets.

    Some researchers have even removed the deception from placebo experiments entirely. In open-label placebo studies, patients are directly told they are receiving a placebo; and yet many still report significant improvement.

    But look more closely at how these studies are run. Patients are not simply handed a sugar pill and sent home. They receive an explanation from a clinician, in a medical setting, within a structured ritual of care: a context that may be doing much of the biological work.

    Even when the deception disappears, the social scaffolding remains. The permission to heal is still being granted by someone else.

    The placebo effect extends beyond the patient

    The placebo effect is often framed as something happening inside an individual. But it does not operate in isolation.

    Consider what happens in veterinary medicine. Dogs and cats cannot believe a treatment they’re given will work; they have no concept of receiving medication. Yet when owners and vets believe an animal is being treated, they consistently report improvements in pain and mobility that medical tests do not confirm.

    In one study of dogs with osteoarthritis, owners reported improvement roughly 57% of the time for animals receiving only a placebo.

    Dog resting head against person's arm while vet inspects a front leg
    Is Fido feeling better, or is the placebo effect working on you? Chalabala/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The animals themselves may not have improved. But the humans caring for them perceived they had. The healing signal, it turns out, travels through the humans in the room.

    When healing makes things worse

    There have been times when going to the doctor made you less likely to survive. In the 19th century, mainstream medicine was built on bloodletting, purging and doses of mercury and arsenic – treatments that killed as often as they cured.

    Homeopathy emerged in the late 18th century precisely in this context. Its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, was a physician horrified by the harm the conventional medicine of his time was causing. His highly diluted versions of contemporary remedies did nothing pharmacologically. But they also did not kill people, which put them decisively ahead of the competition.

    Homeopathic patients not only survived but also reported dramatic recoveries from chronic ailments and acute infections alike. During the cholera epidemics of the mid-1800s, patients at homeopathic hospitals had lower death rates than those receiving standard care. Why was that?

    The standard cholera treatment of the era was aggressive and exhausting; for a disease that already caused massive fluid loss, doctors often prescribed further bloodletting, along with toxic purgatives such as calomel – a form of mercury – to “flush” the system. In contrast, homeopathic care involved extreme dilutions of substances in water or alcohol, effectively providing hydration and a calm, structured environment without the physiological assault.

    Death rates were lower not because homeopathy worked but because the placebo effect – combined with not poisoning patients – was more effective than the medicine of the day.

    Healing is not free

    The body needs resources to heal from injury and disease. Activating systems such as immune responses, tissue repair and inflammation at the wrong time can be dangerous.

    A full-scale immune response is metabolically expensive, with fever increasing metabolic rate by roughly 10% per degree Celsius rise in body temperature. Triggered at the wrong time, this can deplete critical energy reserves needed for immediate survival, such as escaping a predator. Furthermore, misplaced or overzealous inflammation causes collateral damage to healthy tissues, potentially leading to chronic dysfunction.

    Some researchers have proposed that placebo responses reflect a kind of biological health governor: a system that regulates when the body invests heavily in recovery. Cues from trusted individuals may be exactly the signal the body waits for before committing resources to recovery. A caregiver’s reassurance, a physician’s authority and the rituals of medicine may tell the body that conditions are finally stable enough to devote energy to healing.

    If that interpretation is correct, the placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is an ancient biological system responding to social information.

    Body under stress

    The placebo effect resembles another system people struggle with today: the stress response.

    Stress evolved to keep you alive in the face of acute danger – predators, famine, immediate physical threat. These days, this useful piece of biological engineering might fire when someone hasn’t replied to your email. The system that once saved people’s lives now makes many miserable over things that would have been unimaginable to their ancestors.

    You can talk back to the stress response, consciously reappraising the threat – in other words, reframing a looming deadline not as a catastrophe but as a manageable challenge – to help quiet it. But notice what you cannot do: You cannot simply decide to activate your placebo response. You cannot will yourself to release pain-relieving endorphins by believing hard enough in a sugar pill. For that, you still need the ritual, the white coat, the authority figure. You need someone else.

    The stress response, misfiring as it is, remains yours. The placebo response has been outsourced: not because it wasn’t always social, but because even now, people still can’t seem to access it on their own.

    The uncomfortable implication

    The placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is a feature of human biology that people have largely surrendered to whoever performs authority most convincingly.

    If belief can activate biological healing pathways, belief can also be manipulated. Charismatic figures, elaborate medical rituals and expensive treatments may produce real improvement in symptoms even when the underlying treatment is physiologically inert. That is how wellness culture works. It leverages the same social scaffolding of care to trigger the body’s internal pharmacy, regardless of whether the treatment itself does anything.

    The placebo effect is often celebrated as proof that the mind can heal the body. But I believe that may not be its most interesting lesson. It also reveals that human physiology evolved to take its cues from other people. Your brain, immune system and pain response are not isolated machines. They are deeply intertwined with social signals, expectations and trust.

    In a world filled with doctors, advertisements, wellness influencers and elaborate medical rituals, that insight is both fascinating and profoundly maddening. People are walking around with one of the most powerful healing systems ever documented locked inside them, and they can reliably access it only when someone in a position of authority gives them permission.

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

  • She called it a green flag when her date cooked a healthy meal for her. But then he explained which organ he was protecting.
    Photo credit: CanvaA man cooks for his date at home.
    ,

    She called it a green flag when her date cooked a healthy meal for her. But then he explained which organ he was protecting.

    “I am dating a dummy. But he is my little dummy, and no one can take that away from me ever.”

    Alexandra Sedlak had been seeing a man for over a month and things were going well. He was thoughtful, attentive, and one day invited her over for a homemade dinner. She immediately catalogued this as a green flag.

    She was right to be touched. He had actually thought about what she would like. She’s health-conscious, so he tailored the meal to her preferences. As they sat down he proudly explained what he’d made and why.

    It was designed, he told her, for her prostate health.

    dating, relationships, viral video, humor, couples
    A visibly confused woman tries to think. Photo credit: Canva

    Sedlak asked him if he meant his prostate health.

    He confidently said no. He meant hers.

    Sedlak, an actress and filmmaker with 145K Instagram followers, shared the moment in a video posted on November 22, 2025 under her handle @alexandrasedlak. She described the progression from delight to confusion with great precision. “I am dating a dummy,” she concluded in the video. “But he is my little dummy, and no one can take that away from me ever.”

    For reference: the prostate is a gland in the male reproductive system, located below the bladder. Women do not have one. A study published in PMC found that men’s knowledge of gynecologic anatomy tends to be significantly lower than women’s, which at least provides some scientific context for this particular gap running in the other direction.

    The comments were predictably delighted. One person suggested she invite him over and cook a meal focused on his ovulation health, then casually ask what part of his cycle he’s in. Another compared him to a golden retriever who should be given head scratches and told he’s a good boy.

    He is very caring. He cooked her a whole meal. The organ was wrong but the intention was right.

    For more relationship-based content, follow @alexandrasedlak on Instagram.

  • It’s a myth that baby boys are less social than girls – a new look at decades of research shows all babies are born to connect
    Photo credit: Jutta Klee/fStop via Getty ImagesBabies – whether boy or girl – look to adults for care and comfort.

    Girls and boys are equally social at birth.

    This finding, based on my team’s synthesis of six decades of research, may come as a surprise. Gender differences in adults’ social sensitivity are famous. Women outperform men at recognizing faces and emotions, and they score modestly higher on measures of empathy. They are likelier to take jobs working with people, such as in teaching and health care, whereas men are likelier to choose jobs working with “things,” such as in engineering or plumbing.

    But how early do these differences emerge, and are they a matter of evolution or social learning? For years, some theorists have argued the former: that the difference is innate, built into the brain hardware of girls and boys through Darwinian selection. But this perspective relies almost exclusively on just one high-profile, yet deeply flawed, study of 102 newborns.

    Mining the neonatal research trove

    Realizing that psychologists have been studying newborns’ social orientation for decades, my team of neurobehavioral researchers and I set out to collect all the data – every published study that has compared boys’ and girls’ attention to social stimuli in the first month of life. Our goal was to better test the hypothesis of an inborn gender difference in attention to, or interest in, other people.

    Our study was a systematic review, meaning we searched through every published report indexed in both medical and psychological databases from the 1960s onward.

    We cast a wide net, looking for any research that measured newborns’ attention to or preference for human faces or voices and that reported the data separately by gender. Importantly, we did not limit our search to the terms “gender difference” or “sex difference,” since these would bias the collection by potentially excluding studies that failed to find boy-girl differences..

    As expected, we unearthed dozens of studies comparing newborn boys and girls on social perception: 40 experiments reported in 31 peer-reviewed studies and involving nearly 2,000 infants. The majority of studies measured the amount of time newborns spent looking at faces, either at a single face or comparing a baby’s preference between two faces of differing social value, such as their own mother versus a woman who was a stranger.

    Our data collection was large enough that we were able to carry out meta-analysis, which is a statistical method for combining the results of many studies. Meta-analysis essentially turns many small studies into a single large one. For studies measuring neonates’ looking time at faces, this included 667 infants, half of them boys and half of them girls.

    a blue and a red distribution curve overlap almost completely making it look mostly purple
    Newborn boys and girls are similarly attentive to faces, with the distribution of time they spend looking almost completely overlapping. Data from Karson et al. plotted using tool at sexdifference.org.

    The result was clear: nearly identical social perception between baby boys and girls. There was no significant difference between genders overall, nor was there a difference when we focused only on studies measuring babies’ gaze duration on a single face, or only on studies measuring babies’ gaze preference between two different faces.

    Our search also netted two other types of studies. One focused on a remarkable behavior: newborns’ tendency to start crying when they hear another baby cry. An early study found this “contagious crying” to be marginally more common in girls. But when we performed meta-analysis on data across nine contagious-crying experiments, including 387 infants, there was again no solid evidence for male-female difference.

    The last dataset we analyzed compared babies’ orientation to both social and inanimate objects using a newborn behavior assessment scale developed by legendary pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton. Across four studies involving 619 infants, girls did pay somewhat greater attention to the social stimuli (a human face or voice), but they also paid more attention to the inanimate stimuli (a ball or the sound of a rattle).

    In other words, girls in this test seemed a bit more attuned to every type of stimulus, perhaps due to a general maturity advantage that they hold from fetal development through puberty. But there was nothing special about their interest in people, according to the Brazelton assessment.

    Boys, too, prefer faces

    Our findings align with other well-designed studies, including one finding that 5-month-old boys and girls equally prefer looking at faces over toy cars or other objects, and another finding that 2-month-old boys actually perform better than girls at detecting faces. So taken together, current research dispels a common myth that girls are innately “hardwired” to be more social than boys in early life.

    The truth is that all babies are wired for social engagement at birth. Boys and girls are both primed to pay attention to human faces and voices, which, after all, belong to those who will keep them fed, safe and comforted.

    Despite their best intentions, most parents cannot help but stereotype their infants by gender and begin treating boys and girls differently early on. Presuming that sons are already less social is not a recipe for remedying this bias. Our research can help dispel this myth, giving every child, male or female, the best possible start for connecting with and caring about other people.

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

Explore More Health Stories

Health

It’s a myth that baby boys are less social than girls – a new look at decades of research shows all babies are born to connect

Well-being

Licensed therapist shares 6 signs you’re doing a lot better than you think you are

Health

Reclaiming water from contaminated brine can increase water supply and reduce environmental harm

Well-being

‘Bouncing back’ is a myth – resilience means integrating hard experiences into your life story, not ignoring them