Jump to content

Fuzzy Afro

Member
  • Posts

    4,520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Fuzzy Afro

  1. 13 hours ago, charlierc said:

    I dunno. He did Finsbury Park as his own sell-out headline date and if he's confident enough to book a stadium date (admittedly on home territory with it being Newcastle), why not aim for a big crowd at BST HP?

    He won’t be at BST, not because he’s not big enough for Hyde park (he is) but because BST is for acts that are much older. 

  2. 39 acts on the two main stages over the weekend this year compared to 61 between the main and R1 in 2019. Not to mention that merging the FR stage and the pit has taken another 30ish acts off the bill over the weekend.

     

    The new format is nothing but a cost saving measure. 

    • Upvote 5
  3. 1 hour ago, nathanh said:

    Olivia Rodrigo subbing Sam dont be stupid shes much bigger

    To be fair, Rodrigo was 3rd down on the other stage at Glastonbury and Fender subbed the pyramid. He also played an arena tour in spring whilst Olivia was in academies.

     

    What I would say is that Rodrigo is ascending whereas Sam is probably already at his peak. Wouldn’t shock me at all if both are MSW headliners next year but if they are on the same day, Fender will get a more prestigious slot. 

  4. 1 minute ago, she bangs the drums said:

    It was even more apparent this year that the festival now has roughly two set of clientele.

    1) The shirt less lads with bum bags / fanny packs with bra top girls by their side who come to the arena for 2/3 per day such as AJ Tracey or head in to the dance tents 16-24.

    2) the rock / indie/ metal fans (mainly 25-50) who are out watching as many bands as they are allowed to see.

    I appreciate there is some crossover, however when you see the crowd for Bad Boy Chiller Crew or whatever they were called and AJ Tracey v Enter Shikari, BMTH then it becomes more apparent.

    Interestingly I would have assumed that the former group are largely on all weekend camping tickets and the latter mainly stick to day tickets but I got the train from Oxford on Saturday and it was absolutely rammed with teenagers. 

  5. 6 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

    On the contrary, Scotland’s strategy seems to be doing everything England does but a few weeks after for the sake of looking more sensible and cautious. If it goes fine in England expect Scotland to follow a month agter 


     

    Not sure this argument really applies anymore. England first removed face nappies almost 7 months ago (albeit they did get reinstated for a couple of months within that). Scotland has NEVER removed them. 

  6. 46 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/09/uk-past-point-covid-vaccinations-children-will-make-difference/

    JCVI set to annouce this weeks if to give under 12s the vaccine.   Prof Paul Hunter making the point we are past the point where it would make any difference and the impact on secondary school kids have only given marginal gains.

    I totally believe this - its largely an unnecessary vaccine for this age group.  The problem is if we don't give it to the kids then international travel will be really difficult.  Sure you can get there but you won't be able to do anything when you arrive in some places.

    Leaving me with the tricky choice if to get the kids the jab in the USA at half term.  I would rather get it under the watchful eye of the NHS.  Hoping they at least give us the option.

     

    It’s not the job of the JCVI to make decisions in order to make it easier for international travel. 
     

    The 2 things for them to consider:

     

    1. Does the evidence show that the protection offered against covid outweighs the risk of severe side effects that the vaccine occasionally causes? (bearing in mind the incredibly low risk kids are at from covid)

     

    2. If yes, does it do so significantly enough to indicate that the benefit is strong enough to justify the enormous costs of a widespread vaccination programme. 
     

     

    If the first answer is No, don’t vaccinate kids.

     

    If Yes/Yes, vaccinate kids.

     

    If it’s Yes/No you have a more difficult situation. In this case I’d say don’t bother with an NHS sponsored vaccination programme but allow parents to purchase it privately for travel like you would with any other travel jabs. 

     

    • Upvote 1
  7. 3 hours ago, efcfanwirral said:

     

     

    This makes all the sense in the world with Labour wanting to appear as the government in waiting.

     

    Let’s be honest, Boris and his government have handled the pandemic near perfectly for over a year now. The last major fuck up, in my opinion, was sending the schools back for a day in January 2021 only to close them and lock down the country that night. Lockdown 3 came too late and cost thousands of lives.

     

    However, since that point:

     

    - They designed a roadmap that was perfectly calibrated to the ongoing Alpha wave

     

    - When Delta came along and led to high case rates and increasing hospitalisations, they sensibly hit the pause button and pushed freedom day back a month. This was a fair compromise between the hawks who wanted to push ahead with the reopening and the doves who wanted to actually go backwards and lock down again. The one month pause allowed for more jabs and better understanding of Delta.

     

    - When it became clear the NHS could cope with Delta they rightly went ahead with freedom day on July 19th. Not only did this restore freedoms and boost the economy, but it allowed us to get the Delta wave out the way before the tricky winter period.

     

    - When Omicron came along, they smartly instituted plan B measures as a precaution but resisted the pressure to lock down. Plan B measures look set to be repealed appropriately on the 26th of this month.

     

    Labour can’t oppose the government on pandemic strategy at this point because the strategy has been executed perfectly for a year now. Starmer’s strategy should be to support the government but question their competence based on everything that happened in 2020. 

    • Upvote 1
  8. On 1/15/2022 at 2:39 PM, DeanoL said:

    It's Japan. Mask wearing when ill or potentially infectious or in very crowded areas is common in some cultures. Wouldn't be surprised if that's where we end up, not legally mandated though.

    “When ill or potentially infectious” doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

     

    This idea that East Asians are masked up 24/7 and have been for two decades is a myth. 

    • Like 1
  9. 6 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

    This bit confuses me...

    If covid outcompetes flu...  to the point apparently we have to believe its not around... and covid is here forever...  then flu is gone forever right ? 

    Obviously flu isn't gone forever...  I just think some of the stuff we are being told right now about flu not being around is on thin ice.  

    Keep in mind...  We never routinely tested for flu in the past.  Not like we do with covid.

    Covid doesn’t really “outcompete” flu in the way that omicron outcompeted delta, or that delta outcompeted alpha etc 

     

     

    The reason omicron outcompeted delta is because it spreads through the population very quickly and gives people antibodies that then stop them getting delta a few weeks later, effectively meaning delta is reduced to insignificance.

     

    With the flu, there isn’t really that cross-immunity that we have between different variants of covid. So having covid today won’t stop you getting the flu in 2 months time. The reason the flu has been insignificant for the past 2 winters is because of behavioural changes (either mandatory or voluntary) that inhibit flu’s ability to spread. Obviously the lockdown last year was the key driver of this but this year it’s working from home, masks and some people generally choosing to stay apart.

     

    With flu you really don’t need much in the way of NPIs to push the R number below 1. Flu is nowhere near as transmissible as covid and in a standard winter season, the R number is just slightly above 1. This means that pretty much any covid measure that’s implemented will be enough to suppress the flu season as well. 

    • Like 1
  10. 1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

    I don't disagree but people on the whole weren't going back into the office all the time when the WFH rules were dropped in the first place. Most people were doing 1-3 days a week. Because people were in different times that led to less socialising anyway.

    I'm not saying the WFH guidance doesn't damage the economy a bit, obviously it does for all the reasons you point out. I'm just saying those reasons make up a very, very small bit of the economy, or even the hospitality sector. It's city centre pubs and Prets basically. "We need to drop the WFH guidance to help city centre pubs and Prets" is a fair enough approach. But it's not going to be the massive shot in the arm for the economy the government seems to think it will be. Especially in dry/vegan/no fun/ January or whatever.

    This is another point I disagree on. Hybrid working in practice has meant the city of London being an absolute ghost town Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays with most people choosing to attend their offices on Thursdays and/or Tuesdays.

     

    This will probably correct itself in time when companies downsize and adopt hot desking, necessitating a rota system on what days people go to the office. 

    • Upvote 1
  11. 3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

    I think that's a total mis-read. It's general worry and hesitation and uncertainty that's keeping the economy down (also it being January) - the WFH thing won't be helping but I think it's fairly minor all things considered. 

    Disagree - mass working from home is very bad for the economy. 
     

    A few behavioural things I’ve noticed:

     

    - In London at least, people spend £6-£10 every day on lunch when they’re in the office. Only a few people are organised enough to meal prep and bring their own lunch, so Pret and their peers make an absolute killing from office workers. People working from home don’t tend to nip out to Pret at lunch time though, they’ll just go to the kitchen and cook something. Economy loses out.

     

    - People aren’t going to pubs in the evening with their colleagues. Economy loses out.

     

    - People aren’t meeting up with friends who work near them. I live out in Essex and most of my friends live in various Home Counties around London, we often go for drinks in the evenings after we all leave our respective offices in the city at 5pm. With everything working from home, these rendezvous just aren’t happening at all. Economy loses out. 

     

     

    I know you work in events and it’s true that uncertainty is the main reason these are being cancelled rather than WFH, but the hospitality sector loses out massively from WFH guidance. 

×
×
  • Create New...