Jump to content

Will Coronavirus lead to the cancellation of Glastonbury?


stuartbert two hats
 Share

What's your best guess?   

1,012 members have voted

  1. 1. Will it be cancelled?

    • I'm pretty confident/100% sure it will be cancelled
      118
    • I'm not sure, but I think it will probably be cancelled
      180
    • It could go either way, I've no idea
      242
    • I'm not sure, but I think it will probably go ahead
      288
    • I'm pretty confident/100% sure it will go ahead
      184


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, DeadAmos said:

Morally the the right thing to do is something that actually helps stop the virus , not just be seen to be doing something

The problem is that the virus can’t be stopped unless everyone in the world stops what they are doing right now and locks themselves in their houses for a few weeks. 
 

It’s in general circulation now. Personal infection prevention is the only thing you can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tuna said:

*confirmed cases

I'm going to take testing numbers into consideration if I can get good data for Italy, but I don't expect it to change things drastically. Italy has tested just over twice as many people as the UK (at my last check they had done around 60,000 tests) yet have over 20 times as many cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chazwwe said:

Yes. Thats all any of us can go off. What else would you prefer mass panic over numbers we just pull out of nothing? 

Steady on, let's not extrapolate a single data point ;) 

Doing such comparisons between the rates in Italy and the UK loses a lot of meaning if the context is taken out of the testing, innit. Making the comparison between the time taken to go from 20 cases to 453 cases, and comparing timelines is only meaningful as a direct comparison if you assume the rates of detection are similar. Given that, until 2 days ago, ~1/6 tests in Italy have been positive and only ~1/60 in the UK, it's clear that this is not true. 

Not to say this isn't useful, it's just important to point out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, northernringo said:

I'm going to take testing numbers into consideration if I can get good data for Italy, but I don't expect it to change things drastically. Italy has tested just over twice as many people as the UK (at my last check they had done around 60,000 tests) yet have over 20 times as many cases.

Compared to the rate of spread elsewhere, the growth in Italy was enormous to begin with -- so if this is the same virus and, we assume similar models for people interacting with each other and infection, that suggests to me that there were just far more undiagnosed cases in Italy. Do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just had to google the definition..

"A pandemic is defined as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”. ... However, seasonal epidemics are not considered pandemics. A true influenza pandemic occurs when almost simultaneous transmission takes place worldwide."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Compared to the rate of spread elsewhere, the growth in Italy was enormous to begin with -- so if this is the same virus and, we assume similar models for people interacting with each other and infection, that suggests to me that there were just far more undiagnosed cases in Italy. Do you disagree?

It suggests to me that Italy were not ready to deal with the surge, just like anywhere in Europe at the time. It is now a couple of weeks later, so the UK had this time to prepare and start ramping up tests.

17 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Steady on, let's not extrapolate a single data point ;) 

Doing such comparisons between the rates in Italy and the UK loses a lot of meaning if the context is taken out of the testing, innit. Making the comparison between the time taken to go from 20 cases to 453 cases, and comparing timelines is only meaningful as a direct comparison if you assume the rates of detection are similar. Given that, until 2 days ago, ~1/6 tests in Italy have been positive and only ~1/60 in the UK, it's clear that this is not true. 

Not to say this isn't useful, it's just important to point out.

Hmm, I'm not sure this point suggests what you think it does? To find the rate of detection you would need to know the breakdown between confirmed cases and unconfirmed cases. 

Comparing the UK's path from 453 cases with Italy's path to 453 cases is only impacted by test numbers if there is a huge difference in testing numbers in this period.

Edited by northernringo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, northernringo said:

Been running some initial analysis on the UK v Italy as I'm sick of hearing people say we are 'two weeks behind Italy'.

It has confirmed what I thought, our increases aren't as steep as Italy's. 

Pre-second wave cases (first wave was when cases were pretty much all from China), Italy had 3 cases and the UK had around 9. So the UK actually had a head start. In the second-wave of infections, Italy went from 20 cases to 453 cases in just 5 days. The UK has only today reached that level, 12 days after being on 20 cases.

Yes this is annoying me too and it’s very misleading. It doesn’t matter if we’re a week/two weeks/ a month behind Italy’s current number of case numbers if it took Italy a much shorter period of time to get to the same point, which of course it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, northernringo said:

Hmm, I'm not sure this point suggests what you think it does? To find the rate of detection you would need to know the breakdown between confirmed cases and unconfirmed cases. 

Here I am defining the rate of detection as the number of positive cases / number of tests. Is that incorrect terminology? Apologies if so 

I think the surface level implication from the difference in these two values (whatever the correct name for it is) is that tests are being performed on different populations. I don't know anything about the difference between testing in the two countries so can't comment with anything concrete unfortunately. 

But let me attempt to explain: what we are comparing in these time frames are diagnoses, not rate of infection. That's my point, is all. Given that significantly more positives are found per test in Italy, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the tests were performed on people with higher likelihood of infection, as a priority, which is why the numbers grew far more quickly. These numbers don't track directly the rate of spread of disease.

5 minutes ago, northernringo said:

Comparing the UK's path from 453 cases with Italy's path to 453 cases is only impacted by test numbers if there is a huge difference in testing numbers in this period.

Not my point at all. I'm saying in comparing the two -- normalised to N diagnosed cases -- has room for error in the determination of N.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tuna said:

I think this is academic anyway: I suspect we both agree that comparing curves in the manner people have been doing should be done with caution.

Yep purely for analytics ans logging data

 There statement said nothing has changed in how theyre dealing with it and how they're recommending governments to deal with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is useful/relevant but I work in a press agency and occasionally get requests from journalists. Seems like a fairly large publication is planning to do a report on the financial impact of Glastonbury cancelling or postponing the festival. Doesn't seem like they have any inside knowledge on this happening and it looks to purely speculation but thought it was worth flagging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chazwwe said:

Yep purely for analytics ans logging data

The point is that doing analytics on the data is not just comparing two numbers. 

5 minutes ago, chazwwe said:

There statement said nothing has changed in how theyre dealing with it and how they're recommending governments to deal with it. 

What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chrisp1986 said:

Getting back to business a pandemic now = increase or decrease chance of the G?

No difference IMO. We’re in the same situation with Glastonbury and will be for another month I reckon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...