What would you do if mass events were allowed without a vaccine?

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

21 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

I’m surprised you find the supermarkets stressful, the ones near us have done a fantastic job at mitigating risk. 
 

But, if Glastonbury 2021 goes ahead, the doubt being a vaccine produced that quickly, there will certainly be controls and changes put in place to reduce the risk. So I am concerned we will all have to adapt whether we like it or not.

I can’t really see that myself. Supermarkets for example have to open, even though we’re in lockdown. Obviously lockdown is there for a reason, so to support that for the places that are open there are certain measures to minimise the spread as much as possible.

Festivals don’t need to happen, they’re either on or they’re off. If they’re allowed to happen then we’re not going to be seeing the measures we’re seeing in supermarkets etc. They’d be pretty futile and wouldn’t achieve much at something like a festival. If the virus is about, it will spread at a festival whatever you do, if you’re worried about the spread it just doesn’t happen full stop.

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[DeanoL]

14 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I fully agree with a short term sacrifice, but it won’t affect my behaviour at all longer term. There are plenty of risks we face day in day out that we live alongside without thinking about. Since human history began plenty of nasty new things have come along, but life expectancy has consistently increased throughout that time, and these nasty things have never curbed our ability or desire to do the things we want to do indefinitely.

Fair point on the family stuff, but the latter part of this is interesting, as I don't think it's true at all. Plenty of nasty things have come along that absolutely have curtailed our ability to do what we want. 

The big, obvious one is AIDS, and how it totally changed the changed attitudes towards casual sex encounters. It really was a long time until people felt entirely comfortable with that again. 

But there are far smaller things. Glastonbury is almost the only festival left that lets you bring your own booze. Didn't used to be the case, but underage drinking issues meant councils placed restrictions on licenses so now you can't. A small change we have just accepted.

The spectre of terrorism, and the Manchester atrocities, mean you can't take a bag into large shows any more, and you're queuing a lot longer to get in. Relatively small change, just accepted as a necessity in the world we live in now.

Smoking and the smoking ban is another big example of a major societal change that came in as a result of health concerns. 

In the early 70s there were no speed limits on motorways. 

Major societal changes do happen as a result of things like this, as do smaller, more subtle ones. I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that large festivals and gigs just end up going away for a long time. We will still be able to scratch that itch: there will be live music, there will be outdoor gatherings. Just maybe not of 100,000 people anymore. 

(And possibly not - might be that the science shows they're no more harmful than anything else and they're fine, maybe the science shows actually the larger problem is pubs or schools and those end up changing, it's really too early to say yet. What would amaze me is if everything goes back to how it was before though).

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Fair point on the family stuff, but the latter part of this is interesting, as I don't think it's true at all. Plenty of nasty things have come along that absolutely have curtailed our ability to do what we want. 

The big, obvious one is AIDS, and how it totally changed the changed attitudes towards casual sex encounters. It really was a long time until people felt entirely comfortable with that again. 

But there are far smaller things. Glastonbury is almost the only festival left that lets you bring your own booze. Didn't used to be the case, but underage drinking issues meant councils placed restrictions on licenses so now you can't. A small change we have just accepted.

The spectre of terrorism, and the Manchester atrocities, mean you can't take a bag into large shows any more, and you're queuing a lot longer to get in. Relatively small change, just accepted as a necessity in the world we live in now.

Smoking and the smoking ban is another big example of a major societal change that came in as a result of health concerns. 

In the early 70s there were no speed limits on motorways. 

Major societal changes do happen as a result of things like this, as do smaller, more subtle ones. I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that large festivals and gigs just end up going away for a long time. We will still be able to scratch that itch: there will be live music, there will be outdoor gatherings. Just maybe not of 100,000 people anymore. 

(And possibly not - might be that the science shows they're no more harmful than anything else and they're fine, maybe the science shows actually the larger problem is pubs or schools and those end up changing, it's really too early to say yet. What would amaze me is if everything goes back to how it was before though).

I get your points, but none of those things actually stopped us doing the actual things you mentioned. For example you can’t take a bag to a gig, but you still could go to gigs and people still wanted to go to gigs, despite the risk of terrorism. Aids probably changed peoples attitudes towards unprotected sex, but people still have unprotected sex in huge numbers.

Flight from risk is human nature. You see it in stocks and currency, any perceived risk and people take an instant flight to safety, take risk off the table first, and ask questions later. Ultimately at some point there is always a recalibration an then an acceptance and a recovery. Other traits of human nature kick in and take back over, greed pleasure seeking etc etc.

[clarkete]

4 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Flight from risk is human nature. You see it in stocks and currency, any perceived risk and people take an instant flight to safety, take risk off the table first, and ask questions later. Ultimately at some point there is always a recalibration an then an acceptance and a recovery. Other traits of human nature kick in and take back over, greed pleasure seeking etc etc.

Indeed it is and some events change the world forever, as this one surely will.

The interesting thing will be whether any of those changes are for the positive.  

https://time.com/5797629/health-1918-flu-epidemic/ 

[Old_Johno]

A big thing this question is missing is the time frame. If Glastonbury was still on this year would I still go? Maybe, but I’d expect to see screening etc. on the gates, or massively reduced numbers.

2021, 100% would go. By then we will understand most of the unknowns, and have tested enough people to know if you’ve had it or not. Immunity will only really be clear over time, I know a lot of people who are unsure if they have had it, felt a bit flu like for 24-48 hours, but they won’t show on any statistics currently. 

Also Im relatively young and healthy, and whilst there are lethal cases with the under 40’s I’m more likely to die on the way to the festival than from the virus statistically. 

Would I go without a vaccine If I was over 60? Not a chance. 

[stuartbert two hats]

There's a weird undercurrent of actually trusting the judgement of our authorities on here - the assumption that if events are allowed to go ahead then they must be fine. I was social distancing for a couple of weeks before lockdown and I'll be carefully trying to asses risk when deciding what to do post lockdown. Not just believing what I want to hear because I really, really like festivals.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

41 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

There's a weird undercurrent of actually trusting the judgement of our authorities on here - the assumption that if events are allowed to go ahead then they must be fine. I was social distancing for a couple of weeks before lockdown and I'll be carefully trying to asses risk when deciding what to do post lockdown. Not just believing what I want to hear because I really, really like festivals.

Again that comes down to your perception of safe though. There is a fairly likely but not definite scenario that things like gigs and Festivals get the go ahead eventually, but while the virus is still circulating. Individuals may still decide not to go because they don’t personally want the risk of catching the virus if they haven’t already, others won’t worry about it. By letting them go ahead in that scenario, the government won’t necessarily be telling us they’re safe, if safe is zero risk of getting it. It will just be a case of them looking to get as many things back to normal that they feel possible if the health service can also cope with it.

Its the same when lockdown is eased, if shops and schools are reopened first, will they be safe? No, not unless the virus has disappeared. Nothing will be safe, if you deem safe no risk of getting the virus, but things will start to open back up that expose people to the risk of it getting it. 

If festivals were allowed tomorrow I wouldn’t be daft enough to think that the government are telling us they’re risk free as far as getting the virus is concerned.

[MetaKate]

Exactly. Unfortunately when things open back up the government is fully aware that many more people will get sick. They will open it back up in a way that hopefully mostly young healthy people get sick and dont put strain on the healthcare system.

[guypjfreak]

3 hours ago, Old_Johno said:

A big thing this question is missing is the time frame. If Glastonbury was still on this year would I still go? Maybe, but I’d expect to see screening etc. on the gates, or massively reduced numbers.

2021, 100% would go. By then we will understand most of the unknowns, and have tested enough people to know if you’ve had it or not. Immunity will only really be clear over time, I know a lot of people who are unsure if they have had it, felt a bit flu like for 24-48 hours, but they won’t show on any statistics currently. 

Also Im relatively young and healthy, and whilst there are lethal cases with the under 40’s I’m more likely to die on the way to the festival than from the virus statistically. 

Would I go without a vaccine If I was over 60? Not a chance. 

It will be 2021.. There's NOTHING that will be huge public gatherings this year.. 

[hannahlmoore]

I think I'd need to look at what else is going on and what stage we were at. For example, if I'm back getting the packed central line to and from work every week day, then I don't see why I wouldn't go to a mass event at a weekend. I don't see the difference in risk.

[stuartbert two hats]

30 minutes ago, hannahlmoore said:

I think I'd need to look at what else is going on and what stage we were at. For example, if I'm back getting the packed central line to and from work every week day, then I don't see why I wouldn't go to a mass event at a weekend. I don't see the difference in risk.

I agree, luckily I'm in a position to ensure I don't commute anywhere for a good long time.

[gigpusher]

I have already stated that if Glastonbury were on this year I would go. I say that knowing that I don't have any vulnerable people that I have to visit, the only other member of my household is my husband who would also go. I work from home all the time anyway, have no underlying health conditions that I am aware of and could easily self-isolate anyway and have no other health problems. Glastonbury is probably the only one I would risk it for at this stage and I would do it knowing that I really shouldn't expect NHS treatment if it did all go wrong. 

I don't necessarily trust our government to operate for the greater good so when restrictions are lifted I think I will still be doing my own risk assessment on most things.  

[stuartbert two hats]

7 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

I have already stated that if Glastonbury were on this year I would go. I say that knowing that I don't have any vulnerable people that I have to visit, the only other member of my household is my husband who would also go. I work from home all the time anyway, have no underlying health conditions that I am aware of and could easily self-isolate anyway and have no other health problems. Glastonbury is probably the only one I would risk it for at this stage and I would do it knowing that I really shouldn't expect NHS treatment if it did all go wrong. 

I don't necessarily trust our government to operate for the greater good so when restrictions are lifted I think I will still be doing my own risk assessment on most things.  

What, this year?  Seriously, even knowing what you do now?

[gigpusher]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

What, this year?  Seriously, even knowing what you do now?

Yep. It's why it's not on because idiots like me would turn up but to be honest if we don't have a vaccine next year (which is possible) it will be a similar level of risk. They would only let it on if the threat to the NHS is contained not the threat to us personally. We're kidding ourselves if we think we're not going to be back to some kind of normal life before they have contained the health threat. 

Every day we all do risk assessments without even thinking about it when we get in a car, go to work, go on holiday, go to a gig. It's not that I don't take it seriously but I could easily self-isolate for 2 weeks after getting back etc and for me potential risk vs potential pay off would be worth it. I used to do risk assessments for work and I would still classify the risk of serious illness for me from COVID 19 as being relatively low. I don't drink or do drugs so would be capable of keeping on top of my own personal hygiene during the festival quite well. I wouldn't do it for just a random gig but it's Glastonbury and I love it probably more than is sensible. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

49 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Yep. It's why it's not on because idiots like me would turn up but to be honest if we don't have a vaccine next year (which is possible) it will be a similar level of risk. They would only let it on if the threat to the NHS is contained not the threat to us personally. We're kidding ourselves if we think we're not going to be back to some kind of normal life before they have contained the health threat. 

Every day we all do risk assessments without even thinking about it when we get in a car, go to work, go on holiday, go to a gig. It's not that I don't take it seriously but I could easily self-isolate for 2 weeks after getting back etc and for me potential risk vs potential pay off would be worth it. I used to do risk assessments for work and I would still classify the risk of serious illness for me from COVID 19 as being relatively low. I don't drink or do drugs so would be capable of keeping on top of my own personal hygiene during the festival quite well. I wouldn't do it for just a random gig but it's Glastonbury and I love it probably more than is sensible. 

I think there is confusion between two separate things. If Glastonbury was on this year from a personal risk point of view I’d still go in a heartbeat. Despite what people may think and how the current measures might make them perceive it, the virus is a relatively low risk for most people. It’s certainly not anywhere a high enough risk for me to actively choose to curtail my normal life through a purely personal choice.

But I think that’s where the confusion comes in. I’m not saying in the current climate of trying to limit the spread and being in lockdown etc, if Glastonbury was allowed to go ahead I’d still go. Obviously there is no viable way it could ever go ahead this year and for good reason.

If on the other hand we could suspend reality and the question was in the current situation if Glastonbury could go ahead with no issues would you go, then from purely a personal risk point of view I wouldn’t think twice about going.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[gigpusher]

1 minute ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I think there is confusion between two separate things. If Glastonbury was on this year from a personal risk point of view I’d still go in a heartbeat. Despite what people may think and how the current measures might make them perceive it, the virus is a relatively low risk for most people. It’s certainly not anywhere a high enough risk for me to actively choose to curtail my normal life of I didn’t need to.

But I think that’s where the confusion comes in. I’m not staying in the current climate of trying to limit the spread and being in lockdown etc, if Glastonbury was allowed to go ahead I’d still go. Obviously there is no viable way it could every go ahead this year and for good reason.

If on the other hand we could suspend reality and the question was in the current situation if Glastonbury could go ahead with no issues, then from purely a personal risk point of view I wouldn’t think twice about going.

Exactly but I think other people may have more complicated family reasons so living with other vulnerable people and being in  a situation where they have to look after them etc. I am (in this instance) in the fortunate position to not be especially close to anyone who would be reliant on me for help.

I can easily self-isolate and still work. I can easily self-isolate if sick. In terms of the risk to me personally as an otherwise healthy person I would expect to recover from it. In fact if stories that it has been around for longer than we think are true I may well have already recovered from it once as I had what I thought was a cold that had a persistent dry cough that hung around for about 2 and a half months in November. My local Sainsbury's is right opposite one of the biggest hospitals in our region that is probably a bigger risk some days than Glastonbury would be if I took additional hygiene measures and stuck to the smaller stages that I tend to prefer anyway. 

The lockdown at the moment was to prevent the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed. If it was for people's health it would have been called earlier and we'd be taking border control and quarantine issues more seriously. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

12 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Exactly but I think other people may have more complicated family reasons so living with other vulnerable people and being in  a situation where they have to look after them etc. I am (in this instance) in the fortunate position to not be especially close to anyone who would be reliant on me for help.

I can easily self-isolate and still work. I can easily self-isolate if sick. In terms of the risk to me personally as an otherwise healthy person I would expect to recover from it. In fact if stories that it has been around for longer than we think are true I may well have already recovered from it once as I had what I thought was a cold that had a persistent dry cough that hung around for about 2 and a half months in November. My local Sainsbury's is right opposite one of the biggest hospitals in our region that is probably a bigger risk some days than Glastonbury would be if I took additional hygiene measures and stuck to the smaller stages that I tend to prefer anyway. 

The lockdown at the moment was to prevent the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed. If it was for people's health it would have been called earlier and we'd be taking border control and quarantine issues more seriously. 

Yes I also think there is a good chance I’ve had it. My ex and her mum both lost their sense of taste and smell a while back, and she had previously had a number of cases confirmed at her work before lockdown. We see each other regularly as we share a dog between us. I had three or four days with a scratchy throat, slight temperature and some mild aches. It later turned out that loss of taste and smell was symptom.

Either way, I’ve had it or I’m not scared of getting it. I think people confuse what’s going on now, which is an attempt to suppress the virus as much as possible and help the NHS cope, with the actual personal risk to them which is very low.

I completely get the concern for vulnerable relatives and friends, and how that will factor into people’s thinking. But from a personal point of view it doesn’t carry a risk anywhere big enough to make me not do things like go to pubs and go to festivals.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[gigpusher]

Just now, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Yes I also think there is a good chance I’ve had it. My ex and her mum both lost their sense of taste and smell a while back, and she had previously had a number of cases confirmed at her work before lockdown. We see each other regularly as we share a dog between us. I had three or four days with a scratchy throat, slight temperature and some mild aches. It later turned out that loss of taste and smell was symptom.

Either way, I’ve had it or I’m not scared of getting it. I think people confuse what’s going on now, which is an attempt to surprised the virus as much as possible and help the NHS cope, with the actual personal risk to them which is very low.

I completely get the concern for vulnerable relatives and friends, and how that will factor into people’s thinking. But from a personal point of view it doesn’t carry a risk anywhere big enough to make me not do things like go to pubs and go to festivals.

Yes as i say we all do our own risk assessments every day. I know people scared of going to gigs in Manchester since the arena bombing but I would have gone the night after if I'd had a ticket to something. I figure it's low risk and if I die doing something I love then so be it. I just personally wouldn't want to put others at risk but if I knew I was going to something like Glastonbury this year if it was on I would just make sure I had enough food etc in that I could self-isolate afterwards for a fortnight so as not to risk passing on to anyone else. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, gigpusher said:

Yes as i say we all do our own risk assessments every day. I know people scared of going to gigs in Manchester since the arena bombing but I would have gone the night after if I'd had a ticket to something. I figure it's low risk and if I die doing something I love then so be it. I just personally wouldn't want to put others at risk but if I knew I was going to something like Glastonbury this year if it was on I would just make sure I had enough food etc in that I could self-isolate afterwards for a fortnight so as not to risk passing on to anyone else. 

Yes exactly how I view it. The reality is if I haven’t had it and get it I’ll more than likely be ok. If it did happen to kill me... well then what was the alternative? I was always at risk from it so would effectively had to have avoided it for at least another year or longer, or possibly forever. So it’s either hide in my house forever to avoid any risk, or carry on as normal and if it’s going to kill me then it’s just a question of when it kills me.

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, gigpusher said:

Yes as i say we all do our own risk assessments every day. I know people scared of going to gigs in Manchester since the arena bombing but I would have gone the night after if I'd had a ticket to something. I figure it's low risk and if I die doing something I love then so be it. I just personally wouldn't want to put others at risk but if I knew I was going to something like Glastonbury this year if it was on I would just make sure I had enough food etc in that I could self-isolate afterwards for a fortnight so as not to risk passing on to anyone else. 

Me too. It's all about personal responsibility to me, not personal risk.

[gigpusher]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Me too. It's all about personal responsibility to me, not personal risk.

Exactly. I am lucky to know that I could limit that risk to me and my husband who would go too. Since this whole thing has started we have adhered fully to all the lockdown measures and not even done any cheeky visits where we have been within 2 metres of friends or family. If it were to happen I would have planned and prepared for it. I'm glad the option has been taken away from me and fully appreciate, understand and support them in their decision but the question is would you go and given that it would only be on if the strain on the NHS was manageable then my answer would still always be : for Glastonbury yes. 

[giantkatestacks]

I have had it so I would go. And yes I know we haven't been tested but it is pretty obvious if you have had it with symptoms. I'm amazed lot's of other people here haven't but I know that my view is very London-centric.

[gigpusher]

9 minutes ago, giantkatestacks said:

I have had it so I would go. And yes I know we haven't been tested but it is pretty obvious if you have had it with symptoms. I'm amazed lot's of other people here haven't but I know that my view is very London-centric.

Although they are now saying they don't know if having it once stops you getting it again. 

[Crazyfool01]

11 minutes ago, giantkatestacks said:

I have had it so I would go. And yes I know we haven't been tested but it is pretty obvious if you have had it with symptoms. I'm amazed lot's of other people here haven't but I know that my view is very London-centric.

Some will be sure they have had it some won’t the ones with milder symptoms probably not ... untill we get a reliable antibody test ... 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

4 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Although they are now saying they don't know if having it once stops you getting it again. 

@Toilet Duck is the one for this, but it’s highly likely it that’s the case you’ll still get immunity for a period of time, at least a year maybe longer which is pretty much how it works with flu. That’s still a great help and for anyone who has had it there should be a vaccine long before their immunity wears off. At the very least there will be some help in the future as and when you get it again, again just like with flu.

With the virus having been around for virtually 6 months, if you didn’t get any sort of immunity we’d be getting massive waves of people being reinfected again now, but we aren’t. There is the odd story here or there but it’s either that they hadn’t fully eradicated the virus anyway, or related to inaccurate tests.