Jump to content

Will coronavirus lead to the cancellation of Glastonbury ?


crazyfool1
 Share

will Coronavirus lead to the cancellation of Glastonbury   

605 members have voted

  1. 1. will it be cancelled ?

    • im pretty confident /100% sure it will be cancelled
      294
    • im not sure , but think it will be cancelled
      200
    • it could go either way , ive no idea
      65
    • im not sure , but I think it will probably go ahead
      26
    • im pretty confident /100% sure it will go ahead
      18


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Euro 2020 now Euro 2021. 

Glasto 2020 soon to be Glasto 2021. 

Might even be struggling with a June 2021 date.

A lot of the info coming out has little references to 12-18 months of interventions and restrictions.

Whitty yesterday mentioned 'weeks, months and possibly even longer', it has been mentioned that the emergency bill currently being drafted will have the facility to remain in force for up to two years. I saw a pandemic model somewhere yesterday suggesting that we may start to some control over spread in March next year, and most forecasts now predict 15-18 months before an vaccine can be introduced on a scale that would have an effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

China won't be holding anything like Glastonbury for a very long while.

There is not a chance this is "beaten" before June. We may well see the other side of a peak, but an event like Glastonbury could easily cause a second peak.

This is my fear. We’ll likely be over the worst of it by May/June, but would the authorities risk a second wave? Very much doubt it.

I’m supposed to get Married in June too in the Lakes. If that gets stopped (100+ people) then it’s no Wedding, no Glasto and potentially £15k out of pocket. All over what is basically a bad outbreak of “flu”. Fuck. 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

This is my fear. We’ll likely be over the worst of it by May/June, but would the authorities risk a second wave? Very much doubt it.

I’m supposed to get Married in June too in the Lakes. If that gets stopped (100+ people) then it’s no Wedding, no Glasto and potentially £15k out of pocket. All over what is basically a bad outbreak of “flu”. Fuck. 😞

would at least some of that (venue etc) do a deferral do you think? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

but an event like Glastonbury could easily cause a second peak.

Just no.

7 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

All over what is basically a bad outbreak of “flu”. Fuck. 😞

Talking out of all 4 of your asses I see.

This thread is just embarrassing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea. They’ve sent a reassurance email but the language is very legalese/non-committal. It’s laying heavy on my mind but I guess ultimately out of my control. I looked at insurance for cancellation (I work in the field) in Jan but none of the policies I read would have covered pandemic or government action anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jonnyisRFC said:

I’m guessing this has already been discussed? 

192209C9-DD5E-42C6-9B07-75D045C7A0A7.jpeg

Yes- I believe this to be rubbish as I haven't had any e-mails/comms from the recycling crew 

I will be gutted if the event is cancelled/postponed but the way I look at it is there will be other Glastonburys.

I'm more upset about potential impact on schools if they close- especially for my son as he's in his last year of primary and could potentially miss out on loads of end of year stuff (and he is actually looking forward to taking his SATS!) especially his residential as they are the kind of 1 time only type of events.  Understand that precautions need to be taken but would still be gutted nonetheless for him.

Edited by dondo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bombfrog said:

Just no.

Talking out of all 4 of your asses I see.

This thread is just embarrassing now.

Obviously no expertise here but I always try to avoid tabloid sources and read up. There was a piece in (I think) New Scientist on-line which drew comparisons to other viral epidemics. Symptomatically and in terms of mortality rate, incubation period and virulence it said it was closest to influenza C or D, but seemingly more dangerous for elderly and with a lesser effect on children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC news reporting the new measures help the NHS but risk a a second wave in July/august.

shutting everyone away is silly IMO, as soon as everyone re emerges so will the virus. Protect the vulnerable whilst those who are healthy build up herd immunity. That’s how diseases like this are combatted.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smeble said:

BBC news reporting the new measures help the NHS but risk a a second wave in July/august.

shutting everyone away is silly IMO, as soon as everyone re emerges so will the virus. Protect the vulnerable whilst those who are healthy build up herd immunity. That’s how diseases like this are combatted.

LOOK EVERYBODY, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER EXPERT IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES. TELL THE GOVERNMENT THEY NEED TO GET OVER HERE TO EFESTIVALS NOW!!!!!!!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

 Symptomatically and in terms of mortality rate, incubation period and virulence it said it was closest to influenza C or D, but seemingly more dangerous for elderly and with a lesser effect on children.

It's not an incorrect assumption. However, it's better to think of it as a massive flu outbreak with no vaccine. If this coronavirus strain becomes endemic and circulates for ever, then after we have a vaccine and can protect vulnerable groups, I'd expect it to settle around where seasonal flu is (which still a big deal, but doesn't occur in massive peaks that entirely overwhelm the health services, it still puts them under massive strain every year). At the moment though, we have little or no known immunity to it and no way of protecting vulnerable groups. So without some control it will peak massively and lots of people will die quickly. This was the fear with Swine Flu, but as it turned out, years of vaccinating older people protected them and the mortality rate was way lower than it might have been (up to 20% of the world still caught it though). This doesn't appear to be the case here, so there's obviously more cause for concern. 

Edited by Toilet Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Morning Nobby!

So, I read the Imperial report last night. One key point about it is that it used actual data from China and Italy to inform the models, rather than some of the more theoretical modelling that occurred earlier on (as we get more data, the models will get better). There are a few assumptions made that are not unreasonable, mainly regarding the R0 (they modelled 2-2.6) and the predicted fatality rate (they settled on a baseline of 1%, which is also not unreasonable). Neither of these are entirely certain though. However, I think the conclusions are pretty clear, mitigate in the hope of reaching "herd immunity" quickly and it's a disaster. Impose ever increasing public health measures to suppress spread and management is much easier (depending on the degree of intervention, when they are implemented and what the actual transmissibility of the virus is, the predicted outcome is 550,000 deaths from do nothing reduced to 5,600 with early intervention measures...later less stringent interventions still end up with about 120,000 predicted fatalities). Mitigation rather than suppression would lead to about a halving of mortality (still >200,00 deaths). As such, there's no rational reason not to begin implementing further public health measures at the correct time, and from their model, earlier is better (in the report they looked at the impact of case isolation, home quarantine, social distancing and school/university closures). Best predicted results occur with all 4 major public health interventions that they measured used when critical admissions are lowest (they also looked at the impact of each measure in isolation, in different combinations, with higher numbers of critical care admissions and with different R0 of the virus, but all 4 together early on work best). This I guess needs to balanced with the economic impact (which they deliberately don't consider in the report) and the ethical considerations of balancing with economic impact (which again they deliberately don't consider) as well as the capacity of the health systems in different countries (they looked at the UK and the US). When to trigger each public health intervention will be different depending on the exact circumstances of each country.

They then suggest that these measures would need to be in place for a period of 2-3 months or so and would need to be re-introduced when cases rise again. Interestingly, they are using ICU admissions as a surrogate for actual case numbers (which would remove the need for massive levels of testing). Whether this turns out to be a good measure of the amount of virus circulating or fits the outcome to the model is unknown...theoretically, it could end up proving the model rather than taking a different approach and changing it (for example, between peaks, aggressive testing and contact tracing and individual public health interventions (like stricter measures for high risk groups) could delay the onset of the next peak and the need to introduce all 4 again). Anyway, the upshot of the modelling is repeated stringent public health interventions over the next 2 years until most of the world has immunity. The economic and ethical implications of this are not considered in the report,  but they acknowledge that difficult policy decision need to be made (you really would want a more socially democratic government at times like these)...

All sounds pretty grim, but there is some good news in there. First, it's the reasonable worst case (and all the ones I saw early in the outbreak were similar, hence the "hype"). It's also the worst-case when only public health measures are used to suppress. There are other variables not considered which should have an impact. Pharmaceutical intervention is coming (and will be quicker than a vaccine...fast-tracking experimental treatment for people who are dying is quicker than fast-tracking a vaccine you will give en masse to an otherwise healthy population...I don't think we should cut any corners on vaccine development). China tried HIV drugs, others are using malaria drugs (Chloroquine), but there are coronavirus therapeutics that were under development for SARS and MERS that are getting ready for early trials (initial trials of these back when the previous outbreaks occurred suggested toxicity was ok, just don't know how well they work yet!...of course, the outbreaks went away and ending for R&D dried up typically, so while we don't have to start from scratch with either therapeutics or vaccines, they could more or less have been developed if we'd stuck with it...a similar clusterf*ck to why we stockpile weapons but not medical equipment, but that's for another day!). How they might change the model is not factored in (though I expect the principal impact would be on mortality rather than anything else as prophylactic use is not on the cards)...it might allow higher trigger thresholds for the introduction of public health measures though, so this would spread the peaks a bit more (when more stringent public health measures need to be introduced). Also, the virus hasn't been around long enough to know what impact climate has on spread. We are only entering into spring in most of the places with large outbreaks, so it's not unreasonable to think that higher temperatures will help limit the spread (it's a hope rather than a certainty at this stage, nobody knows, but other coronaviruses don't hang around as much when summer hits). It's also possible that their assumptions about the R0 and CFR are incorrect. The virus may be more transmissible and less deadly, with loads of asymptomatic cases in the community (we won't know that till we get a serology test and can find antibodies in the population rather than having to assay for live virus in suspected cases), in which case the timeframe of the model shortens considerably (herd immunity is reached quicker and with less stress on the health system). (the herd immunity comment is what alarmed many people, its the natural end point of any pandemic, but rapid pursuit of it is not an effective aim and the thought that this was policy was the concerning part...actually its where we will end up if the virus become endemic, we just need to get there at a pace that doesn't wipe out a large chunk of the population). 

There's also the shift in public behaviour and wider acceptance of that, which again is not factored into the model. Places that experienced SARS/MERS have had lasting social changes. When I first went to China after SARS, I used to see people wearing masks on public transport. I always thought, jeez, SARS really did a number on these folks, they are terrified of catching it again. Until is was pointed out to me that it had become socially accepted practice to wear as mask as you recovered from any respiratory ailment, just to protect your fellow citizens from getting infected as you went back to work. It completely changed my perception of the whole thing from a frightened populace to a socially responsible one...I know masks are much maligned, but used correctly they contribute to social distancing and reducing the R0 of the virus, which is the key to "flattening the curve", so maybe things like this will become more normal? Hand santizer use also went up dramatically everywhere after swine flu (transformed my festival experience, baby wipes only used at the tent now!), so, who knows, simple hygiene measures may become more widespread after suppression and better public education can help this and widen the gap between peaks too. (or course, public behaviour works the other way too as people become fed up of restrictions and just think, f*ck it, I can't do this anymore). 

Anyway, safe to say we still have no idea how this is going to play out. Prudent thing to do is to suppress, try to get it under control and support your population in the face of hardship as a result of the measures implemented to control it (not sure if I'd want a Tory government for this bit...I'm in Ireland so as it stands we don't actually have any elected government, but they do seem to be putting some supports in place early on, though how they deal with more widespread issues going forward is another matter)...

What all this means for Glasto is anyone's guess!...mine is it's unlikely to happen, but stranger things have happened...SARS and MERS died out fairly rapidly once they were brought under control, so theoretically, the same thing could happen here (though this is a lot more widespread)...we don't know enough yet. All I can go on is what my colleagues in China have said and that is that it took about 7-9 weeks to get them back to a place where they could look at getting back to a bit of normality...which would probably be end of May/early June...maybe too late, but who knows. 

 

Stay Safe!

Post of the week!

Thanks for that - a very interesting post from someone who clearly knows what they are talking about and isn't being hysterical or sensational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bombfrog said:

Why should I leave. Is it unreasonable to expect that people just stop posting shit?

I've been a member of this forum for 15 years and I've never seen anything like it.

Instead of calling posts shit and people deluded, why not explain why you think that?

It's how discussions work.

Edited by stuie
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Smeble said:

BBC news reporting the new measures help the NHS but risk a a second wave in July/august.

shutting everyone away is silly IMO, as soon as everyone re emerges so will the virus. Protect the vulnerable whilst those who are healthy build up herd immunity. That’s how diseases like this are combatted.

Have a look at the modelling from Imperial yesterday. Best analysis yet using actual data from outbreaks that are further along. Building up herd immunity quickly is not a good idea and will kill about 100 fold more people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Morning Nobby!

So, I read the Imperial report last night. One key point about it is that it used actual data from China and Italy to inform the models, rather than some of the more theoretical modelling that occurred earlier on (as we get more data, the models will get better). There are a few assumptions made that are not unreasonable, mainly regarding the R0 (they modelled 2-2.6) and the predicted fatality rate (they settled on a baseline of 1%, which is also not unreasonable). Neither of these are entirely certain though. However, I think the conclusions are pretty clear, mitigate in the hope of reaching "herd immunity" quickly and it's a disaster. Impose ever increasing public health measures to suppress spread and management is much easier (depending on the degree of intervention, when they are implemented and what the actual transmissibility of the virus is, the predicted outcome is 550,000 deaths from do nothing reduced to 5,600 with early intervention measures...later less stringent interventions still end up with about 120,000 predicted fatalities). Mitigation rather than suppression would lead to about a halving of mortality (still >200,00 deaths). As such, there's no rational reason not to begin implementing further public health measures at the correct time, and from their model, earlier is better (in the report they looked at the impact of case isolation, home quarantine, social distancing and school/university closures). Best predicted results occur with all 4 major public health interventions that they measured used when critical admissions are lowest (they also looked at the impact of each measure in isolation, in different combinations, with higher numbers of critical care admissions and with different R0 of the virus, but all 4 together early on work best). This I guess needs to balanced with the economic impact (which they deliberately don't consider in the report) and the ethical considerations of balancing with economic impact (which again they deliberately don't consider) as well as the capacity of the health systems in different countries (they looked at the UK and the US). When to trigger each public health intervention will be different depending on the exact circumstances of each country.

They then suggest that these measures would need to be in place for a period of 2-3 months or so and would need to be re-introduced when cases rise again. Interestingly, they are using ICU admissions as a surrogate for actual case numbers (which would remove the need for massive levels of testing). Whether this turns out to be a good measure of the amount of virus circulating or fits the outcome to the model is unknown...theoretically, it could end up proving the model rather than taking a different approach and changing it (for example, between peaks, aggressive testing and contact tracing and individual public health interventions (like stricter measures for high risk groups) could delay the onset of the next peak and the need to introduce all 4 again). Anyway, the upshot of the modelling is repeated stringent public health interventions over the next 2 years until most of the world has immunity. The economic and ethical implications of this are not considered in the report,  but they acknowledge that difficult policy decision need to be made (you really would want a more socially democratic government at times like these)...

All sounds pretty grim, but there is some good news in there. First, it's the reasonable worst case (and all the ones I saw early in the outbreak were similar, hence the "hype"). It's also the worst-case when only public health measures are used to suppress. There are other variables not considered which should have an impact. Pharmaceutical intervention is coming (and will be quicker than a vaccine...fast-tracking experimental treatment for people who are dying is quicker than fast-tracking a vaccine you will give en masse to an otherwise healthy population...I don't think we should cut any corners on vaccine development). China tried HIV drugs, others are using malaria drugs (Chloroquine), but there are coronavirus therapeutics that were under development for SARS and MERS that are getting ready for early trials (initial trials of these back when the previous outbreaks occurred suggested toxicity was ok, just don't know how well they work yet!...of course, the outbreaks went away and ending for R&D dried up typically, so while we don't have to start from scratch with either therapeutics or vaccines, they could more or less have been developed if we'd stuck with it...a similar clusterf*ck to why we stockpile weapons but not medical equipment, but that's for another day!). How they might change the model is not factored in (though I expect the principal impact would be on mortality rather than anything else as prophylactic use is not on the cards)...it might allow higher trigger thresholds for the introduction of public health measures though, so this would spread the peaks a bit more (when more stringent public health measures need to be introduced). Also, the virus hasn't been around long enough to know what impact climate has on spread. We are only entering into spring in most of the places with large outbreaks, so it's not unreasonable to think that higher temperatures will help limit the spread (it's a hope rather than a certainty at this stage, nobody knows, but other coronaviruses don't hang around as much when summer hits). It's also possible that their assumptions about the R0 and CFR are incorrect. The virus may be more transmissible and less deadly, with loads of asymptomatic cases in the community (we won't know that till we get a serology test and can find antibodies in the population rather than having to assay for live virus in suspected cases), in which case the timeframe of the model shortens considerably (herd immunity is reached quicker and with less stress on the health system). (the herd immunity comment is what alarmed many people, its the natural end point of any pandemic, but rapid pursuit of it is not an effective aim and the thought that this was policy was the concerning part...actually its where we will end up if the virus become endemic, we just need to get there at a pace that doesn't wipe out a large chunk of the population). 

There's also the shift in public behaviour and wider acceptance of that, which again is not factored into the model. Places that experienced SARS/MERS have had lasting social changes. When I first went to China after SARS, I used to see people wearing masks on public transport. I always thought, jeez, SARS really did a number on these folks, they are terrified of catching it again. Until is was pointed out to me that it had become socially accepted practice to wear as mask as you recovered from any respiratory ailment, just to protect your fellow citizens from getting infected as you went back to work. It completely changed my perception of the whole thing from a frightened populace to a socially responsible one...I know masks are much maligned, but used correctly they contribute to social distancing and reducing the R0 of the virus, which is the key to "flattening the curve", so maybe things like this will become more normal? Hand santizer use also went up dramatically everywhere after swine flu (transformed my festival experience, baby wipes only used at the tent now!), so, who knows, simple hygiene measures may become more widespread after suppression and better public education can help this and widen the gap between peaks too. (or course, public behaviour works the other way too as people become fed up of restrictions and just think, f*ck it, I can't do this anymore). 

Anyway, safe to say we still have no idea how this is going to play out. Prudent thing to do is to suppress, try to get it under control and support your population in the face of hardship as a result of the measures implemented to control it (not sure if I'd want a Tory government for this bit...I'm in Ireland so as it stands we don't actually have any elected government, but they do seem to be putting some supports in place early on, though how they deal with more widespread issues going forward is another matter)...

What all this means for Glasto is anyone's guess!...mine is it's unlikely to happen, but stranger things have happened...SARS and MERS died out fairly rapidly once they were brought under control, so theoretically, the same thing could happen here (though this is a lot more widespread)...we don't know enough yet. All I can go on is what my colleagues in China have said and that is that it took about 7-9 weeks to get them back to a place where they could look at getting back to a bit of normality...which would probably be end of May/early June...maybe too late, but who knows. 

 

Stay Safe!

Really informative, useful and reasoned post TD, thank you for taking the time to deliver it. It’s helped me to put the information into context. It’s bad but there is some hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Really informative, useful and reasoned post TD, thank you for taking the time to deliver it. It’s helped me to put the information into context. It’s bad but there is some hope.

Stay safe mate. Keep the faith, we'll all get through this. I'd love to be in a field with a cold beer come the end of June, but if it's not this year, then so be it...we'll be back and whenever that is, it will be as great as it always is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Smeble said:

BBC news reporting the new measures help the NHS but risk a a second wave in July/august.

shutting everyone away is silly IMO, as soon as everyone re emerges so will the virus. Protect the vulnerable whilst those who are healthy build up herd immunity. That’s how diseases like this are combatted.

They modelled this and didn't work, NHS got overwhelmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...