When will this shit end?

[Quark]

Just now, Cream Soda said:

If enough people had it in the outside world, surely enough would also have it within the fence of Glastonbury to make it equally effective? Would there be any logic to enforcing it to attend Glastonbury if it wasn't enforced in other situations in the real world?

As a private ticketed event they could take any steps they saw fit provided they weren't deemed to be discriminatory I would have thought?  Even if it's not a part of a wider national strategy to control it, an event would still want to look after its staff, its performers and its guests as much as possible.

Other thing to consider is the results coming out of Spain about antibody production in only 5% of the population, which is suggesting that herd immunity really won't be a thing.   If lots of people have had it and survived, but there's no guarantee that gives them future immunity, how many would want to go somewhere like a festival when they run the risk of getting it again? Or would be more likely to go if vaccination was a prerequisite? Which one would lose the festival more customers?

[Quark]

3 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

I may be wrong but I can't see Glastonbury going down this road unless they absolutely had to.  I don't see why they would have to if it wasn't being enforced in wider society.

I don't think it's likely, probably came over like I'm saying it's going to happen so my bad.  But I'd have no issue if they did, and depending on how the whole thing pans out over the next 9 months it might be a consideration.

[Cream Soda]

Just now, Quark said:

As a private ticketed event they could take any steps they saw fit provided they weren't deemed to be discriminatory I would have thought?  Even if it's not a part of a wider national strategy to control it, an event would still want to look after its staff, its performers and its guests as much as possible.

Other thing to consider is the results coming out of Spain about antibody production in only 5% of the population, which is suggesting that herd immunity really won't be a thing.   If lots of people have had it and survived, but there's no guarantee that gives them future immunity, how many would want to go somewhere like a festival when they run the risk of getting it again? Or would be more likely to go if vaccination was a prerequisite? Which one would lose the festival more customers?

How will the vaccine work if we don't produce antibodies?  (genuine question)

I have deja vu now and feel I may have asked this before but I don't remember the answer.

[Quark]

Just now, Cream Soda said:

How will the vaccine work if we don't produce antibodies?  (genuine question)

I have deja vu now and feel I may have asked this before but I don't remember the answer.

I'm not going to pretend I can answer that properly!  I think there's a difference in the way the body produces and maintains antibodies between having the infection and having the vaccine, but I'm not going to try and blag it!

[Cream Soda]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

I'm not going to pretend I can answer that properly!  I think there's a difference in the way the body produces and maintains antibodies between having the infection and having the vaccine, but I'm not going to try and blag it!

Fair enough 🤣

Glastonbury is interesting from the mass gathering point of view as it has so many people living different/alternative lifestyles who attend.  I'm assuming (maybe wrongly on my part, I don't know) that some of those might not be in favour of a vaccine and that could result in a real change in the vibe of the festival if they were not allowed in. 

[Quark]

1 minute ago, Cream Soda said:

Fair enough 🤣

Glastonbury is interesting from the mass gathering point of view as it has so many people living different/alternative lifestyles who attend.  I'm assuming (maybe wrongly on my part, I don't know) that some of those might not be in favour of a vaccine and that could result in a real change in the vibe of the festival if they were not allowed in. 

An interesting point.  I'd include that in the doublethink bracket tbh.

We're all here for each other, as a collective we will be stronger, unity and all the rest of it.

You want me to do something that will protect and help the collective, but it's something I don't want to do? No way man!

Who knows?

[Cream Soda]

3 minutes ago, Quark said:

An interesting point.  I'd include that in the doublethink bracket tbh.

We're all here for each other, as a collective we will be stronger, unity and all the rest of it.

You want me to do something that will protect and help the collective, but it's something I don't want to do? No way man!

Who knows?

Someone who is opposed to vaccinations wouldn't agree that it would protect and help the collective though would they, they'd think the opposite.

It's an interesting dilemma for Glastonbury which is why I don't think they would go down that road and potentially alienate a core section of the festival unless they absolutely had no choice.  Let's hope it doesn't get to that point!

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

The same way Americans see masks basically 

[DeanoL]

35 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Don’t think you’d need to force anybody, enough people would take it because they’d appreciate it would help bring an end to an awful situation. Plus then things like festivals would have the right to refuse anybody who hadn’t taken it. 

I think people will probably want it so they don't get sick with it, so there will still be a personal incentive. If there wasn't I think most people would err on the side of not taking it.

30 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

 

If enough people had it in the outside world, surely enough would also have it within the fence of Glastonbury to make it equally effective? Would there be any logic to enforcing it to attend Glastonbury if it wasn't enforced in other situations in the real world?

The logic is that in the real world people are mostly distributed, you're not often in very close proximity to people, and even then not many.

If 20% of people at the festival don't have the vaccine, and one person who has COVID attends, *lots* of those people are going to catch it. Maybe not all of them, but all that close personal contact in crowds, the lack of good washing facilities and so on - it's going to spread quickly to those who don't have immunity. And then they all go back to different places across the country and start spreading it there - it's not easily contained in a way that local outbreaks in cities could be. Unless, y'know, they lock us all down on the farm for two weeks after the festival ends...

Requiring the vaccine for attending next year's festival is likely, I would say, assuming it's effective. If people really don't want to take it they don't have to go. It'll still be there in 2022, likely without such restrictions.

[Ryan1984]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

there's definitely an element of that (and including ones who died early when not having covid).

I think Spaffer is hoping that the end of year numbers won't make the UK look so bad against other countries.

He’s already sowing the seeds for that. Whenever he’s challenged on numbers - especially by Starmer - he snaps back with a look at the figures when it’s over soundbite.

[Cream Soda]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Requiring the vaccine for attending next year's festival is likely, I would say, assuming it's effective. If people really don't want to take it they don't have to go. It'll still be there in 2022, likely without such restrictions.

Would it even be rolled out to the general population by then?  Front line workers and the vulnerable first I would have thought and its not even available yet...

[squirrelarmy]

25 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

The same way Americans see masks basically 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

23 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I think people will probably want it so they don't get sick with it, so there will still be a personal incentive. If there wasn't I think most people would err on the side of not taking it.

The logic is that in the real world people are mostly distributed, you're not often in very close proximity to people, and even then not many.

If 20% of people at the festival don't have the vaccine, and one person who has COVID attends, *lots* of those people are going to catch it. Maybe not all of them, but all that close personal contact in crowds, the lack of good washing facilities and so on - it's going to spread quickly to those who don't have immunity. And then they all go back to different places across the country and start spreading it there - it's not easily contained in a way that local outbreaks in cities could be. Unless, y'know, they lock us all down on the farm for two weeks after the festival ends...

Requiring the vaccine for attending next year's festival is likely, I would say, assuming it's effective. If people really don't want to take it they don't have to go. It'll still be there in 2022, likely without such restrictions.

That’s something we don’t really know. The cruise ships are a good guide about how the virus spreads. One person infected 20% of a cruise ship over the course of a month. That’s living in enclosed conditions, infected staff living in tiny cramped quarters, surfaces everywhere having the virus sitting on it. In the course of a month many people would’ve become infected and infected others. A five day outdoor festival couldn’t be anywhere near 20% in comparison. I appreciate you’ve asterisked the word *lots* though because it depends on what the definition of lots is, but of those 20%, a percentage some way south of 20% would get infected, especially when 80% can’t even pass it on.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[ace56blaa]

29 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

The same way Americans see masks basically 

we have the same problem in the UK if not worse. Because at least US has had to put in place mandatory masks in a lot of states. All our politicians including Boris, say they are for masks in enclosed spaces and queues, but never wear one and by extension I see about 5-10 percent of people wearing them shopping at most

[WestCountryGirl]

1 minute ago, ace56blaa said:

we have the same problem in the UK if not worse. Because at least US has had to put in place mandatory masks in a lot of states. All our politicians including Boris, say they are for masks in enclosed spaces and queues, but never wear one and by extension I see about 5-10 percent of people wearing them shopping at most

Admittedly I go shopping quite late in the day, when it's quieter, but in three recent trips I have seen maybe three other people/couples wearing masks. 

It is insane how little emphasis there has been on mask wearing over here. So much mixed messaging, so little encouragement... so little observance.

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

That’s something we don’t really know. The cruise ships are a good guide about how the virus spreads. One person infected 20% of a cruise ship over the course of a month. That’s living in enclosed conditions, infected staff living in tiny cramped quarters, surfaces everywhere having the virus sitting on it. In the course of a month many people would’ve become infected and infected others. A five day outdoor festival couldn’t be anywhere near 20% in comparison. I appreciate you’ve asterisked the word *lots* though because it depends on what the definition of lots is, but if those 20% a percentage some way south of 20% would get infected, especially when 80% can’t even pass it on.

Yeah we don't know. Festivals are very different to cruise ships. People aren't squashed as tight together as in many parts of Glastonbury and the sanitation is better. But like you say, no surfaces and outdoors. 

The problem for Glastonbury is we probably still won't know by the time the festival rolls around. There are not many outdoor mass gatherings the size of Glastonbury. And it's right at the start of festival season. So if a vaccine is available to people by then, they could insist on it. Or they could make Glastonbury the test case. I'd probably rather have the former.

One thing really worth thinking about is that if mandating the vaccine for entry is an option and the festival don't take it, and then a lot of people get ill and there are a few deaths... the festival is probably done for. That's the sort of PR that's hard to recover from.

(Note: that's always the case for Glastonbury though - a few deaths from drug overdoses or such would also have the same impact)

[Chapple12345]

3 minutes ago, WestCountryGirl said:

Admittedly I go shopping quite late in the day, when it's quieter, but in three recent trips I have seen maybe three other people/couples wearing masks. 

It is insane how little emphasis there has been on mask wearing over here. So much mixed messaging, so little encouragement... so little observance.

I think it’s because initially they’d said there wasn’t any effect in wearing them and people are now sticking to that thought process rather than listening to recent scientific evidence 

[DeanoL]

Just now, Chapple12345 said:

I think it’s because initially they’d said there wasn’t any effect in wearing them and people are now sticking to that thought process rather than listening to recent scientific evidence 

And because the evidence is now they protect other people, and not you. And people don't give a fuck about other people. If they did we wouldn't have a Tory goverment.

[ace56blaa]

4 minutes ago, WestCountryGirl said:

Admittedly I go shopping quite late in the day, when it's quieter, but in three recent trips I have seen maybe three other people/couples wearing masks. 

It is insane how little emphasis there has been on mask wearing over here. So much mixed messaging, so little encouragement... so little observance.

Yeah it was a big problem from the beginning, it wasn't really mentioned as a possibility in early briefings and tbh even I didn't think to wear a mask the first couple of shopping trips. But it has just made it hard to get anyone to do it now. I work at cineworld, one of the people asking for masks to be worn there, but the backlash on twitter for that is insane, people calling it fascist, some tweeted directly at me saying we were a bunch of minimum wage losers who are fully replaceable. It just feels like there is a lot of uncaring hostility toward anyone who dares ask to be safe

[SouthbanKen]

1 hour ago, Cream Soda said:

If enough people had it in the outside world, surely enough would also have it within the fence of Glastonbury to make it equally effective? Would there be any logic to enforcing it to attend Glastonbury if it wasn't enforced in other situations in the real world?

Keeps out the selfish c*nts 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

19 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yeah we don't know. Festivals are very different to cruise ships. People aren't squashed as tight together as in many parts of Glastonbury and the sanitation is better. But like you say, no surfaces and outdoors. 

The problem for Glastonbury is we probably still won't know by the time the festival rolls around. There are not many outdoor mass gatherings the size of Glastonbury. And it's right at the start of festival season. So if a vaccine is available to people by then, they could insist on it. Or they could make Glastonbury the test case. I'd probably rather have the former.

One thing really worth thinking about is that if mandating the vaccine for entry is an option and the festival don't take it, and then a lot of people get ill and there are a few deaths... the festival is probably done for. That's the sort of PR that's hard to recover from.

(Note: that's always the case for Glastonbury though - a few deaths from drug overdoses or such would also have the same impact)

I think a lot will depend on what’s happening in normal life. If a vaccine that 20% won’t take is enough to enable us to go to work normally, go to the pub normally and the virus doesn’t get out of hand as a result then I think Glastonbury will just come down to personal risk. Come to Glastonbury and you might get Covid and you might die... but that will potentially still be true of every other activity. No doubt you’d then have an increased spread at Glastonbury, but when people get home if anyone with symptoms self isolates and the virus is generally under control then it shouldn’t be an issue, other than the increased risk of going.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[SouthbanKen]

59 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

Someone who is opposed to vaccinations wouldn't agree that it would protect and help the collective though would they, they'd think the opposite.

Well they would be monumentally wrong. How in the world do vaccines not help the collective? Most anti vaxxers arguments are based around unfounded rumours relating to vaccines causing issues in the individual (Eg. Autism).  

[WestCountryGirl]

16 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

Yeah it was a big problem from the beginning, it wasn't really mentioned as a possibility in early briefings and tbh even I didn't think to wear a mask the first couple of shopping trips. But it has just made it hard to get anyone to do it now. I work at cineworld, one of the people asking for masks to be worn there, but the backlash on twitter for that is insane, people calling it fascist, some tweeted directly at me saying we were a bunch of minimum wage losers who are fully replaceable. It just feels like there is a lot of uncaring hostility toward anyone who dares ask to be safe

That's awful that you've faced abuse that way. People really astound me sometimes. 

[squirrelarmy]

A potential solution to the mask wearing issue. 
 

[Homer]

22 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

A potential solution to the mask wearing issue. 
 

Do you have an address please?