Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, xxialac said:

The Euros starts at the beginning of the Summer in early June.

The vaccine programme aims to have got everyone a vaccine with the effect kicking in by 20 August.

We know they're not planning for full stadiums by June as:

a) you can't be only planning to open up restaurants in May and then have full stadiums in June. Too rapid a transition, even with testing.

b) the leak says >4,000 people in stadiums. Does that sound like full stadiums.?

Who says you need all adults to be vaccinated before you can have outdoor crowds? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, km9 said:

>4000 means more than 4000, you know that don't you?

No need to be patronising and please re-read the comments.

The debate was about whether the stadiums would be full

'much bigger than 4,000 people' points to not being full.

The wording is telling.  Why have that phrasing when you could have 'will be full' or 'they're aiming for full stadiums'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BobWillis said:

Who says you need all adults to be vaccinated before you can have outdoor crowds? 
 

 

That's a strawman argument.

Of course you don't need all adults vaccinated before outdoor crowds.

But I believe you need more adults vaccinated before you have FULL mass events.

And that June 11 is just too soon. Look at the roadmap.

I'd be much more optimistic for September and possibly August.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

That's a strawman argument.

Of course you don't need all adults vaccinated before outdoor crowds.

But I believe you need more adults vaccinated before you have FULL mass events.

And that June 11 is just too soon. Look at the roadmap.

I'd be much more optimistic for September and possibly August.

But no one is saying full crowds for the stadiums, just a lot busier tgab before. Could be 50% full 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

articles like this makes me laugh where the main objection is the limited accuracy of the tests and missing some infected people.... while completely ignoring that no testing whatsoever would be done of those kids without school testing and *all* infected kids would be missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But no one is saying full crowds for the stadiums, just a lot busier tgab before. Could be 50% full 

I am. If most adults apart from probably under 40’s maybe even under 30’s have had their first dose + 3 weeks by June and mass rapid testing is available then why not? If those things aren’t going to unlock society then why has billions of taxpayers money been spent on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BobWillis said:

I am. If most adults apart from probably under 40’s maybe even under 30’s have had their first dose + 3 weeks by June and mass rapid testing is available then why not? If those things aren’t going to unlock society then why has billions of taxpayers money been spent on it. 

Oh, I agree we should get rid of restrictions if we have most vulnerable people with a jab. June may be a little early for that, as I think they'd want a second dose for them at least. Saying that 50% capacity is fine 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

 

I’m just listening to him .. he’s just said they have fallen partly due to the new quarunteen measures .... I mean yes I’m sure this will stop some cases ... but how on earth is he able to say this .. given we have only had this for less than a week 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BobWillis said:

I am. If most adults apart from probably under 40’s maybe even under 30’s have had their first dose + 3 weeks by June and mass rapid testing is available then why not? If those things aren’t going to unlock society then why has billions of taxpayers money been spent on it. 

On not this again...because if they re-open too much, too soon, it will lead to bad health outcomes.

And in my view having 90,000 people huddled together at Wembley stadium and on the way to Wembley Stadium by June 11 is too soon.  Not to mention that having good quality mass rapid testing by then is far from certain.

Maybe the 'taxpayer money' saving vast numbers of lives, allowing the NHS to start functioning fully again and allowing most of the economy to reopen by Summer could still represent good value for money? The argument put forward is pretty facile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crazyfool1 said:

I’m just listening to him .. he’s just said they have fallen partly due to the new quarunteen measures .... I mean yes I’m sure this will stop some cases ... but how on earth is he able to say this .. given we have only had this for less than a week 

Yeah, that's scientifically illiterate isn't it.

He's also dismissed the reports on the UK having the Euros

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/uk-euro-2020-host-matt-hancock-b920637.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1613901147

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, xxialac said:

That's a strawman argument.

Of course you don't need all adults vaccinated before outdoor crowds.

But I believe you need more adults vaccinated before you have FULL mass events.

And that June 11 is just too soon. Look at the roadmap.

I'd be much more optimistic for September and possibly August.

I just don’t get it anymore.  The idea was we needed lots to be vaccinated for things to open up.  Will we get to the point the following summer where everyone has to be re-vaccinated, and the summer after that etc....

Surely once most are protected, the NHS won’t be overwhelmed and the country can get back to normality?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anecdotal evidence means very little but I was surprised to talk to a couple of people in work who’ve been ultra-cautious and critical of the Government all the way through and have them go straight into ‘why is it going so slowly, whats the point in Vaccines if we can’t open up?’ I’ve seen similar from a couple of family members. I wonder if they’re about to misjudge the public mood again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sisco said:

I just don’t get it anymore.  The idea was we needed lots to be vaccinated for things to open up.  Will we get to the point the following summer where everyone has to be re-vaccinated, and the summer after that etc....

Surely once most are protected, the NHS won’t be overwhelmed and the country can get back to normality?! 

I think we might need to get even more vaccinated to do extreme things like filling stadiums.  Three weeks after everyone has had their second dose is after June sadly.  We'll get there, and this year.  

And we'll be able to do plenty of things by June, just not gathering people in crowds to shout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MEGABOWL said:

Anecdotal evidence means very little but I was surprised to talk to a couple of people in work who’ve been ultra-cautious and critical of the Government all the way through and have them go straight into ‘why is it going so slowly, whats the point in Vaccines if we can’t open up?’ I’ve seen similar from a couple of family members. I wonder if they’re about to misjudge the public mood again.

They finally work out how to be cautious, just as the population changes its mind! 😄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

This is nonsense. Pupils get tested here every few days and it works pretty well. Also the cases found in school are pretty low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...