Jump to content

Future of festivals...


Sawdusty surfer
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, scaryclaireyfairy said:

Once they start letting punters in stadiums for sports, we'll have a better idea of how likely festivals are next year.

One way ahead (for Glasto at least) could be having fewer punters but keeping the festival's actual footprint as big as possible. Obviously this means lots less cash to play with so maybe more of a return to the old days in terms of line-up, fewer late night zones etc. Campfires and pop up sound systems again. I'd not grumble. I could certainly see huge international acts taking another year out from touring if they can afford to, making the pool of possibles even shallower anyway.  Coldplay, Elbow and Fatboy Slim for 2022? I'd still go.

Everyone will still cram to the front of an act regardless, I don't see that changing. See your actual capacity probably won't make much difference if it's 5,000 or 250,000. 

 

As for other changes when festivals come back I can see cash just not being a thing at all. Completely contactless across the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sawdusty Surfer said:

Borderline stuff for Glastonbury 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to feel that there is some shift (whether media led or not) towards people having to accept a contamination risk. It could be that public spaces get a traffic light - green - low risk, all social distancing etc in place; amber - as long as you follow the rules you should not catch anything, but you might; red - high risk, if someone is in the same place as you has the virus, then you're very much at risk. They then let the public decide. Festivals would be red. The massive issue with this system is the poor sods forced to work in amber/red.

It feels like the white healthy immune will be pushing for this kind of freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hfuhruhurr said:

I'm beginning to feel that there is some shift (whether media led or not) towards people having to accept a contamination risk. It could be that public spaces get a traffic light - green - low risk, all social distancing etc in place; amber - as long as you follow the rules you should not catch anything, but you might; red - high risk, if someone is in the same place as you has the virus, then you're very much at risk. They then let the public decide. Festivals would be red. The massive issue with this system is the poor sods forced to work in amber/red.

It feels like the white healthy immune will be pushing for this kind of freedom.

I would hope that GF wouldn't support any kind of approach that favours any particular demographic and simply cancel. 

If it cant be open to everyone then we won't have it until it can.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

I would hope that GF wouldn't support any kind of approach that favours any particular demographic and simply cancel. 

If it cant be open to everyone then we won't have it until it can.

I don’t think it’s a system that excludes people at all, other than allowing things to continue graded on risk and letting people decide what risk is acceptable to them.

I don’t agree with the last paragraph though which does spin it round and make it completely about demographics, which I don’t think that system would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I don’t think it’s a system that excludes people at all, other than allowing things to continue graded on risk and letting people decide what risk is acceptable to them.

I don’t agree with the last paragraph though which does spin it round and make it completely about demographics, which I don’t think that system would be.

Perhaps I've worded that badly.....I don't think that GF would want to hold a festival where it requires some people to take risks in order to attend. That said though I guess that's little different to any 'normal' year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, parsonjack said:

Perhaps I've worded that badly.....I don't think that GF would want to hold a festival where it requires some people to take risks in order to attend. That said though I guess that's little different to any 'normal' year?

People die every "normal" year, so there is already an acceptance of some risk.  How much is it going to accept, that's the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pinhead said:

Wonder what form festivals will come back in if they find they have to satisfy now a whole bunch of new site license and / or insurance stipulations that make the whole event financially untenable and the festival unrecognisable...

Look at what Disney is doing and thats likely what festivals will do. Disneyworld in Florida is opening up in phases and is essentially giving you a warning that you will take all risk when you enter and could get sick. So its up to us whether or not we view the activity as worth it or not because we could potentially get sick.

 

nobody is going to insure any festival from here on out in regards to a pandemic. Wimbeldon being the sole exception and was able to cash in because they paid those premiums all those years after H1N1. Unless youre willing to pay another 25% in ticket prices to cover that cost, its not happening. 

Edited by Suprefan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can’t see it being anything other than binary when it comes to festivals, they can either go ahead completely normally or not at all.

Any sort of social distancing or any measures to limit the spread of a virus are completely incompatible with how a festival works, and would be equally pointless.

If you’re trying to stop a virus spreading you just don’t allow festivals.

Its important to remember though it’s not a risk specific to festivals, if it’s a question of personal risk of getting the virus, that can happen anywhere you come into contact with other people or where other people have been.

I personally don’t think actual risk of catching it will come into it at all though. It’s purely about the spread and the control of the virus from this point of view, once there are no longer concerns about having to contain the virus then I think things like festivals will return completely normally. Of course it’s just a question of when that will be.

From the point of view of personal risk of getting the virus that will just be down to the individual to weigh up alongside everything else in life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to the above, let’s say Glastonbury was still happening next month. if you look at the recent testing of all Premier league staff out of about 750 people 6 had it, so a little under 1%. That means if Glastonbury went ahead out the 200,000 people about 2000 would have it. So your personal risk of catching it would still be very low... you’d be very unlucky to get it. The problem is within a month these 2000 people will have created about a million infections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

To add to the above, let’s say Glastonbury was still happening next month. if you look at the recent testing of all Premier league staff out of about 750 people 6 had it, so a little under 1%. That means if Glastonbury went ahead out the 200,000 people about 2000 would have it. So your personal risk of catching it would still be very low... you’d be very unlucky to get it. The problem is within a month these 2000 people will have created about a million infections. 

I’m not sure it would be low ... maybe if you were at a distance yes ... but that wouldn’t be the case ... look at Cheltenham and anfield match and look what came from those ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, crazyfool1 said:

Borderline stuff for Glastonbury 

 

22 hours ago, ModernMan said:

Seems like Glastonbury 2021 being on is severely coming under threat already. 

I’m beginning to think the same. Could well be cancelled next year too. Our best indication of it going ahead will be when large scale sporting events are likely to be back on. With there being some talk of the olympics being out tight cancelled next year too, Glastonbury is looking perilous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zero000 said:

 

I’m beginning to think the same. Could well be cancelled next year too. Our best indication of it going ahead will be when large scale sporting events are likely to be back on. With there being some talk of the olympics being out tight cancelled next year too, Glastonbury is looking perilous. 

It’s clearly dicey. Most people have taken it on the chin and accepted that 2020’s cultural calendar is scrapped. Will people accept 2021’s gone as well? I sort of think we’ll have to learn to live with it (by better testing and treatments etc) rather than keep cancelling everything. We shall see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

I’m not sure it would be low ... maybe if you were at a distance yes ... but that wouldn’t be the case ... look at Cheltenham and anfield match and look what came from those ... 

Probability wise it would be low, if Glastonbury was on right now then about 1% of attendees would have it and be asymptomatic. They’d still clearly spread it which is the issue, but individually the chances of you getting it would still be low. Obviously you’d be close to people, but would you end up close to the 1% who had it? Probability wise you likely wouldn’t, although naturally some would which is where you’d end up with 1m infections a month down the line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Probability wise it would be low, if Glastonbury was on right now then about 1% of attendees would have it and be asymptomatic. They’d still clearly spread it which is the issue, but individually the chances of you getting it would still be low. Obviously you’d be close to people, but would you end up close to the 1% who had it? Probability wise you likely wouldn’t, although naturally some would which is where you’d end up with 1m infections a month down the line. 

How many bands do you see over the weekend ? Correct me if I’m wrong here but aren’t chances increased as you are spending time at each band in close proximity ... rather than sat at your tent with the same people around you ... ? Moving about I’m sure would be lower risk but those same people will be touching surfaces wherever they go too ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t looked to much at this thread! Mainly I wanted to be in denial as I had a three year plan for a new career project  based around festivals and entertainment venues and child adult exploitation. Anyone wants to be bored by my ideas please message me it’s more positive that it sounds! 
what it made me realise that as well as the infection factor there are so many other things tht would be effected by not having festivals financially and mentally and physically for so many people! 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

How many bands do you see over the weekend ? Correct me if I’m wrong here but aren’t chances increased as you are spending time at each band in close proximity ... rather than sat at your tent with the same people around you ... ? Moving about I’m sure would be lower risk but those same people will be touching surfaces wherever they go too ... 

But that just makes it as unlikely that you’ll be next to them as it does likely, of course at a festival you’ll be moving around all over the place seeing different bands, so would the infected people, of 2000 specific people there what are the odds out of 200,000 you end up right next to them and get the virus? Obviously some people will, but most wont.

Someone posted this article a while ago:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/the-cluster-effect-how-social-gatherings-were-rocket-fuel-for-coronavirus

Obviously a smaller scale but at a festival of 350, 7 got the virus. So that’s a 1/50 chance of getting it. The odds are low, your personal risk is still low, but the issue is then the subsequent spread.

Of course a festival will be an increased risk compared to most things, but the probability is still that you won’t get it.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

But that just makes it as unlikely that you’ll be next to them as it does likely, of course at a festival you’ll be moving around all over the place seeing different bands, so would the infected people, of 2000 specific people there what are the odds out of 200,000 you end up right next to them and get the virus? Obviously some people will, but most wont.

Someone posted this article a while ago:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/the-cluster-effect-how-social-gatherings-were-rocket-fuel-for-coronavirus

Obviously a smaller scale but at a festival of 350, 7 got the virus. So that’s a 1/50 chance of getting it. The odds are low, your personal risk is still low, but the issue is then the subsequent spread.

Of course a festival will be an increased risk compared to most things, but the probability is still that you won’t get it.
 

 

That was a 4 hour event, not a 5 day festival, and also at a time when the virus wasn't believed to be as prominent in the population as it is for example now.

Using the above and comparing it to Glastonbury is a bit wide off the mark.

Yet 1 out of 50 still managed to become infected at the German event. Scale that up to Glastonbury numbers and that is 4,000 people. Add in the fact that Glastonbury is much longer and the virus is currently much more common in the general population than it was on Feb 15th and you soon realise you are downplaying the risk somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, northernringo said:

That was a 4 hour event, not a 5 day festival, and also at a time when the virus wasn't believed to be as prominent in the population as it is for example now.

Using the above and comparing it to Glastonbury is a bit wide off the mark.

Yet 1 out of 50 still managed to become infected at the German event. Scale that up to Glastonbury numbers and that is 4,000 people. Add in the fact that Glastonbury is much longer and the virus is currently much more common in the general population than it was on Feb 15th and you soon realise you are downplaying the risk somewhat.

I concede all of that, but whatever the risk surely it’s still fairly low, or far less likely you’ll get it than not?

For example, let’s say the 1% who have it infect half of the festival, so you’ve got a 50/50 chance of getting it, so that’s 100,000 people who get it.

Under normal circumstances it’s said that within a month 1 person ultimately gives it to 400 people, so within a month of Glastonbury the 1% who had it there would’ve resulted in 40million people getting it. So one single event not allowing for anything else happening around the country would’ve resulted in infecting most of the population and achieving herd immunity.

So that can’t be right either, so the odds of getting it are still relatively low, you’re still more likely to leave without it than with it... but of course many might deem that a risk not worth taking for them personally.

Also is it more prevalent now then back in February? Surely it’s as low as it will be now?

Edited by Deaf Nobby Burton
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...