Jump to content

Will the 2021 festival go ahead?


JoeyT
 Share

Glastonbury 2021   

434 members have voted

  1. 1. Following the Oxford Vaccine news will it go ahead?

    • Yes - I 100% believe
      43
    • Yes - I think so but not close to 100%. Need to see how the roll out progresses.
      158
    • Maybe - I'm 50/50
      87
    • Unlikely - Even with the latest news I think it's unlikely to take place
      79
    • No - The vaccine news is great but I can't see 200k people being allowed at Worthy Farm in June.
      67


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, aj6658 said:

The original goal was 1 million a week and now they are trying to hit 4-5m a week?!  Senior figures are optimistic... This just screams PR from this government. No substance just vibes 

 

This really needs to stop. You haven't reached your initial target stop spouting garbage of hitting a new target 5 times larger. 

What do you mean they haven't reached their target? They're currently doing well over 300k vaccinations per day which is clearly well over a million a week. The only way is up too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, aj6658 said:

You haven't reached your initial target stop spouting garbage of hitting a new target 5 times larger. 

I think they should keep continually setting stretching targets into the future.

The Feb target now looks like it could be met, or pretty nearly met, so it's good that they're planning for the next steps after that.

Everyone would be up in arms if they waited until 15th Feb to plan the next steps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aj6658 said:

The original goal was 1 million a week and now they are trying to hit 4-5m a week?!  Senior figures are optimistic... This just screams PR from this government. No substance just vibes 

 

This really needs to stop. You haven't reached your initial target stop spouting garbage of hitting a new target 5 times larger. 

You know when the polio vaccine was finally distributed that in New York City alone they vaccinated 5 million people in  the first 2 weeks? So lets take a guess as to what is stopping anyone from hitting such a mark despite having supposed better technology and logistics than 60 years ago? Red fucking tape. Every government should have had a plan 6 months ago for vaccine distribution and the uk came up with one barely a month before the first authorization, so that tells you something.  
 

If these things were in the hands of competent people you will see the optimistic results being talked about. But there is nothing to say this cant be achievable because if there are 5 diff vaccines available by next month then you just need the shots to arrive that were ordered and thats it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, aj6658 said:

The original goal was 1 million a week and now they are trying to hit 4-5m a week?!  Senior figures are optimistic... This just screams PR from this government. No substance just vibes 

 

This really needs to stop. You haven't reached your initial target stop spouting garbage of hitting a new target 5 times larger. 

The main rate determining step in all this is the availability of vaccine. The remainder is a logistical exercise. The crux is 50million doses need to be administered to complete phase 1 : ca. 2 million per week to achieve the target in 6 months. To roll out into phase 2 when still running phase 1 requires additional large scale vaccine supply and the extra capacity to administer it. And phase 1 roll out cannot be stopped half way through to accommodate phase 2 as the 2 vaccine doses must be given within 12 weeks. Those people who have received dose 1 have already received follow-up dose 2 appointments in April.

The latest information suggests 2million vaccinations/week is achievable if the data is not being skewed by reporting anomalies. Hence rolling out further & faster is distinctly possible: it all comes down to vaccine supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

EE for the phone towers and chargers and the Guardian.

I would argue that they are more partnerships than sponsorships. They provide a service in exchange for the exposure. I would be very surprised if the fees were all that high. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Matt42 said:

@eFestivalsdoes Glastonbury take any corporate sponsorships at all?

yes (or at least, it did 10 years-ish ago).

Although they put restrictions on the amount of corporate branding that they're allowed to use.

examples i know of from back then were an xbox or playstation tent, Pimms, Rizla, and the 24 hour rave place in the markets (energy24?)

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

The current vaccination rate is roughly 2.5 million a week, what do you mean by saying they initial target hasn't been met?

Currently running at about 2.1mil/week based on last 3 working days. Will this be sustained over weekend? Another unknown is vaccine availability as the government have not released contracted delivery supply schedules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Suprefan said:

You know when the polio vaccine was finally distributed that in New York City alone they vaccinated 5 million people in  the first 2 weeks? So lets take a guess as to what is stopping anyone from hitting such a mark despite having supposed better technology and logistics than 60 years ago? Red fucking tape. Every government should have had a plan 6 months ago for vaccine distribution and the uk came up with one barely a month before the first authorization, so that tells you something.  
 

If these things were in the hands of competent people you will see the optimistic results being talked about. But there is nothing to say this cant be achievable because if there are 5 diff vaccines available by next month then you just need the shots to arrive that were ordered and thats it.

It’s really just supply, it’s got nothing to do with red tape. The governments planning on this has been pretty good, how else do you explain how we’re so far ahead of everyone on vaccinations per 100k? If we could’ve got 66m doses in vials we’d all be vaccinated by now.

Israel is the only outlier, they not only paid double the price for the vaccine but they also made an agreement with Pfizer that they would exchange all their population that received its data (everything aside from their names I believe) in return for a large amount of doses. Israel is effectively an experiment/marketing campaign for Pfizer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lycra said:

Another unknown is vaccine availability as the government have not released contracted delivery supply schedules.

the Scottish govt sort-of did, within their vaccination plan (and the UK govt was pissed off and made them withdraw it).

I think its a fair assumption that's the minimum delivery schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Israel is effectively an experiment/marketing campaign for Pfizer.

as well as lots of great data on the vaccine's effect, a giant trial like that should be good for encouraging vaccine take-up around the world (as long as the outcomes are good, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lycra said:

Currently running at about 2.1mil/week based on last 3 working days. Will this be sustained over weekend? Another unknown is vaccine availability as the government have not released contracted delivery supply schedules.

More sites opening tomorrow. And Scottish/Wales figures to be added as well (they don't report weekends). Can't see why they can't level up next week more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yes (or at least, it did 10 years-ish ago).

Although they put restrictions on the amount of corporate branding that they're allowed to use.

examples i know of from back then were an xbox or playstation tent, Pimms, Rizla, and the 24 hour rave place in the markets (energy24?)

Thanks! And what would problems would it cause if Glastonbury lost its corporate sponsors? Are they integral to the festival being the size it is or could Glasto carry on without?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

as well as lots of great data on the vaccine's effect, a giant trial like that should be good for encouraging vaccine take-up around the world (as long as the outcomes are good, of course).

I think that’s what I read the point was. Obviously there are a few vaccines now, so Pfizer are hoping Israel are a good advert for rapid, mass vaccination with their vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yes (or at least, it did 10 years-ish ago).

Although they put restrictions on the amount of corporate branding that they're allowed to use.

examples i know of from back then were an xbox or playstation tent, Pimms, Rizla, and the 24 hour rave place in the markets (energy24?)

The Playstation / Singstar karaoke tent was right next to the LeftField / Tony Benn tower which was especially jarring.

But all of those started to be purged after the 2009 festival though, I believe at the specific instruction of Emily. I'm sure she commented on it around then about how she wanted to pull back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

Thanks! And what would problems would it cause if Glastonbury lost its corporate sponsors? Are they integral to the festival being the size it is or could Glasto carry on without?

I don't think any are a real problem apart from perhaps EE.

Glastonbury would probably be obliged to find another mobile operator who could put in similar temporary infrastructure, as I know from a licence hearing (long ago now) that the council considered a not-overloaded phone system essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, incident said:

The Playstation / Singstar karaoke tent was right next to the LeftField / Tony Benn tower which was especially jarring.

But all of those started to be purged after the 2009 festival though, I believe at the specific instruction of Emily. I'm sure she commented on it around then about how she wanted to pull back.

Singstar - that was it.

And yep, I think you're right. After I listed those I was thinking I'd been told about them as part of a convo about them ending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

am i right in thinking there was an xbox tent the year before? I think I might be.

It's possible but I don't remember it. The thing that makes me doubtful is that it'd have had to be alongside the Sony / Playstation / Singstar presence as that lasted a few years (at least 5) - prior to having their own tent, they were embedded in The Crown / Queens Head running sessions between acts and their branding was (within that tent) quite prominent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

I’m not sure the BBC pays much for the broadcasting rights. I’ve heard Michael say before that he’s had much bigger offers from the likes of Sky and has turned them down.

It's the BBC coverage, perhaps more than any payment, that is beneficial. 

13 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

You’re absolutely right. If corporate sponsorship was lucrative most festivals would have all their stages named - the Budweiser/Xbox/Nando’s/Lynx Africa Stage or whatnot. There would be zero choice in terms of booze or food and you’d get promotional people on the ground getting in your face trying to sign you up for some shit. But you never really see any of that, even at the really corporate festivals like BST the sponsorship isn’t particularly invasive.

Sponsorship has changed in the last few years. It's not any more just about plastering your brand everywhere or limiting customers' choices to your products, but a more holistic association with events to make us more accepting of them. It's still just as insidious though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

am i right in thinking there was an xbox tent the year before? I think I might be.

I’m fairly sure in 2005 I turned up at the Crown bar to see Mani do a DJ set and he refused when he saw the tent was sponsored by Budweiser. 
 

just found and old news article on it!

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music/manis-not-best-buds-with-glazer-1073176

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

am i right in thinking there was an xbox tent the year before? I think I might be.

Also a Smirnoff tent ? Smirnoff Experience maybe ? Where the guardian lounge / beat hotel used to be ... was only there for maybe one year ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Also a Smirnoff tent ? Smirnoff Experience maybe ? Where the guardian lounge / beat hotel used to be ... was only there for maybe one year ? 

I saw We Are Scientists play in an Orange tent once that might have had another sponsor. Could have been Smirnoff?

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...