As an interpreter, I often find that people have difficulty believing that simultaneous interpretation is something one can actually pull off successfully. They have very little confidence in the process, and feel they should regularly remind their listeners of this.
Especially when they're speaking fast, use idiom, figures of speech or other things that can indeed be harder to translate than others, they often can't contain their incredulity in the interpreter's capabilities and feel they have to make that heard.

So often I've heard statements like "... I don't know if that was translated accurately..." (followed by a smile that clearly said "You couldn't possibly have done that correctly"), "I wonder how that came across in the translation" (sometimes followed by "if at all" - nice, speaker, charming - not...) - or worse, someone in the room who more or less speaks the language you're interpreting into decides to take over and give his own translation of something you have already accurately and fully translated yourself!

Colleagues may feel that this sounds familiar...

If you're colleague, and you're reading this - have you ever felt like hitting the person with the sardonic smile over the head with your microphone? 

​Have I? No comment... :-)

The profession of interpreter is an old one. It dates from times long before we had our current technology. And therefore it's not surprising that for a long time we've thought that interpreters have to be in the same place as the speakers they interpret for, and the audience that listens to their translation. And for centuries, that was true as well. In fact, for most of my professional life that was true. I've traveled to many places, and even different countries, to do my job as an interpreter.
One of the places I liked traveling to, was the U.S. Those trips offered me the opportunity to use my weekends for exciting side trips, it had me visiting spectacular landscapes in national parks, and other places of interest.
And then, one day, I heard some of my colleagues and I were going to be making use of a 'Bluebox' - a little box, blue indeed, that had connectors for a telephone cable, and several headsets. "You no longer have to travel!" was the enthusiastic message from America. I wasn't so sure I was as enthusiastic. But I had to admit, it worked. I still had to go to the same location as my colleagues, but my family at home only had to do without me for a short time, not for days - or longer.
Not much later it was replaced by a Tieline, a codec as used by sports journalists, for instance. With connections for POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service), ISDN, and the Internet. That opened up possibilities!

And of course, by now we know that you don't really need this kind of equipment anymore, in most cases. You just use a pc or laptop with a decent headset, go on the Internet, and with the help of services like Zoom or Interprefy and such you can do a professional interpreting job without ever having to leave home!
Before the trouble with COVID-19 started, I had already used these services, and saw the advantages. Less travel, lower costs, less time, and it was easier to fit assignments into my schedule. I was already a fan of this when the corona virus forced the world to start doing more online.
So, where are we now? I don't know about others, but I haven't been to any venue for an assignment all year. Everything is online.

Suddenly, remote interpreting is normal. But will that last, I wonder.
Will this only be considered a temporary solution, set aside as soon as there's a vaccine or a cure for the virus?
Or will clients like the advantages of remote interpreting so much that they will stick to this newly embraced concept when the pandemic is under control?
Does anyone have a crystal ball?