Will the 2021 festival go ahead?

[Wooderson]

1 hour ago, fraybentos1 said:

There was also a chunk of misinformation in the post which led to some of the conclusions drawn which it is right to point out imo.

Like what?

[Wooderson]

Theres a gulf of space between "economy being shafted" and Glastonbury Festival going ahead in June.

[jparx]

Just now, Wooderson said:

Theres a gulf of space between "economy being shafted" and Glastonbury Festival going ahead in June.

You can set your watch by Wooderson’s weekly wet blanket!

[Wooderson]

1 minute ago, jparx said:

You can set your watch by Wooderson’s weekly wet blanket!

My apols mate. 😉

[Wooderson]

For the record I of course want it to go ahead - just in case some readers don't know my perspective.

 

[fraybentos1]

5 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Like what?

'Don't forget it's not just some nasty cold, it will most likely fuck you up for a few weeks at least.'

 

this is not true, it is not 'likely' to fuck you up for weeks, especially with the age group I think they were referring to.

 

Then the other bit about 50 million people needing vaccinated. Those numbers will never be realistic, start with the most vulnerable third of the population or so and deaths/ hospitalisations will plummet and that is what matters. JVT said yday that vaccinations of most vulnerable third of population would avoid 99% of deaths.

[zahidf]

accessaa.co.uk/culture-secretary-says-easter-likely-to-see-events-industry-return-to-normality/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=regular

Delivering a keynote speech at the Major Events Summit today, 2 December, Oliver Dowden, the secretary of state for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said he expected a return to normality for the events industry by Easter.

 

I think this was posted before but he is the cultre secretary....

[Wooderson]

2 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

'Don't forget it's not just some nasty cold, it will most likely fuck you up for a few weeks at least.'

 

this is not true, it is not 'likely' to fuck you up for weeks, especially with the age group I think they were referring to.

 

Then the other bit about 50 million people needing vaccinated. Those numbers will never be realistic, start with the most vulnerable third of the population or so and deaths/ hospitalisations will plummet and that is what matters. JVT said yday that vaccinations of most vulnerable third of population would avoid 99% of deaths.

Given the plethora of (mostly online) voices comparing it to colds and flus, i think it is worthwhile to continue to characterise Covid19 as significant and serious. Its indeed different to a "nasty cold". GF21 could end up destabilising a national/international programme of managing this crisis. Glastonbury a victim of its own unique size here sadly. It will be last to get the go ahead.

If we're quibbling over the time it takes to recover, fine, point taken, but thats a broader piece of work with many variables - a lot of them still utterly unknown.

I take it from your tone a hint of frustration, understandable. The ability of a state to limit this bug's transmission to riskier corners of the population has been a challenge. To weaken messaging, comparing it to more benign and well known ailments and as such belittle those on the side of caution has been effective by interest groups - some nefarious.

No one knows the precise level of herd immunity that will be required to stabilise this pandemic post launch of vaccination . Nor do we know the length of time or precise efficacy of any vaccine. To commit to one timeframe in the absence of info on the other strikes me as illogical.

Just because we all **want** the fest to proceed doesnt mean that it can or will. To call out these that would seek to temper expectations is typical of this forum at the moment sadly.

 

[hfuhruhurr]

11 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

'Don't forget it's not just some nasty cold, it will most likely fuck you up for a few weeks at least.'

 

this is not true, it is not 'likely' to fuck you up for weeks, especially with the age group I think they were referring to.

True, the likely implies that this is what happens to most people. But, a significant minority in the bulletproof young do get it really bad - for a few weeks, and there's the long covid thing that is real. Personally, I know a 23yr old, very healthy knocked for six by it for a month (not hospitalised, but really unwell), and a 17 yr old with long covid - completely knackered having to power nap every hour.

So for me, this arse of a virus is non-trivial and to dismiss the implications for some youngsters isn't a good thing.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Wooderson said:

No one knows the precise level of herd immunity that will be required to stabilise this pandemic post launch of vaccination .

that's true, but that's not the measure the UK govt are using for how they deal with this crisis.

As far as hospitalisations and deaths go, we should start to see a very significant fall by around the end of January (subject to vaccine roll-out), when the oldies and health workers have been jabbed.

At the point we see that fall the govt should be able to give re-start dates for a few months in the future - unless they decide that managing the infection levels is their new priority.

[fraybentos1]

4 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Given the plethora of (mostly online) voices comparing it to colds and flus, i think it is worthwhile to continue to characterise Covid19 as significant and serious. Its indeed different to a "nasty cold". GF21 could end up destabilising a national/international programme of managing this crisis. Glastonbury a victim of its own unique size here sadly. It will be last to get the go ahead.

If we're quibbling over the time it takes to recover, fine, point taken, but thats a broader piece of work with many variables - a lot of them still utterly unknown.

I take it from your tone a hint of frustration, understandable. The ability of a state to limit this bug's transmission to riskier corners of the population has been a challenge. To weaken messaging, comparing it to more benign and well known ailments and as such belittle those on the side of caution has been effective by interest groups - some nefarious.

No one knows the precise level of herd immunity that will be required to stabilise this pandemic post launch of vaccination . Nor do we know the length of time or precise efficacy of any vaccine. To commit to one timeframe in the absence of info on the other strikes me as illogical.

Just because we all **want** the fest to proceed doesnt mean that it can or will. To call out these that would seek to temper expectations is typical of this forum at the moment sadly.

 

For the record, I am not saying it is just a cold/ flu and I am not saying it is not serious because it quite clearly is. 

What I meant was I took issue with the hyperbole of the liberal (or frankly wrong) description of the virus being 'likely' to fuck you up for weeks. 

6 minutes ago, hfuhruhurr said:

True, the likely implies that this is what happens to most people. But, a significant minority in the bulletproof young do get it really bad - for a few weeks, and there's the long covid thing that is real. Personally, I know a 23yr old, very healthy knocked for six by it for a month (not hospitalised, but really unwell), and a 17 yr old with long covid - completely knackered having to power nap every hour.

So for me, this arse of a virus is non-trivial and to dismiss the implications for some youngsters isn't a good thing.

I'm not meaning to be dismissive, I am in this age group and I know plenty people that have had it. It's a serious virus of course, but my main point was about the misinformation given.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

19 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Given the plethora of (mostly online) voices comparing it to colds and flus, i think it is worthwhile to continue to characterise Covid19 as significant and serious. Its indeed different to a "nasty cold". GF21 could end up destabilising a national/international programme of managing this crisis. Glastonbury a victim of its own unique size here sadly. It will be last to get the go ahead.

If we're quibbling over the time it takes to recover, fine, point taken, but thats a broader piece of work with many variables - a lot of them still utterly unknown.

I take it from your tone a hint of frustration, understandable. The ability of a state to limit this bug's transmission to riskier corners of the population has been a challenge. To weaken messaging, comparing it to more benign and well known ailments and as such belittle those on the side of caution has been effective by interest groups - some nefarious.

No one knows the precise level of herd immunity that will be required to stabilise this pandemic post launch of vaccination . Nor do we know the length of time or precise efficacy of any vaccine. To commit to one timeframe in the absence of info on the other strikes me as illogical.

Just because we all **want** the fest to proceed doesnt mean that it can or will. To call out these that would seek to temper expectations is typical of this forum at the moment sadly.

 

But it won’t most likely ‘fuck you up”, though.

You will “most likely” never even know you’ve had it. 

[DeanoL]

I think there are two questions here. The first is "will a festival the size of Glastonbury legally be allowed to go ahead in June 2021?" and I think the answer to that is "yes".

But that alone doesn't mean the festival will happen.

There's a couple of questions that need to be answered by most festivals really. The first is "can we afford another year off?" - for many festivals the answer is quite simply "no". If they don't run in 2021, they're bankrupt. So if you're in that position, may as well try and run the festival anyway. I don't think Glastonbury are quite there. I think they could manage to take 2021 off also. I think if they lost 2022 as well they'd be done for but they can afford to break for another year. There's obviously costs to that - it means no work for a lot of people and possible redundancies, so it's not an easy choice, but it could be made.

So then it's an exercise in risk: should we go ahead? What's the worse case: there is an outbreak, on the farm, some people get seriously ill, and there is at least one COVID death linked to a Glastonbury outbreak. What does that do to Glastonbury? It's not good. They'll be portrayed as irresponsible for running the event (as will the government for letting it go ahead), the media will always be keen to bash Glastonbury, this will lead to customers questioning the safety of the festival, do they really have ticket-holders best interests at heart? The festival needs to sell out every year to stay viable and no-one really knows exactly how much more demand for tickets there is than supply. There could even be questions over the BBC coverage: should they be celebrating this clearly irresponsible festival? Long term the loss of major TV coverage would be the biggest blow possible for the festival's reputation and booking power.

I'm not saying that all means the festival won't happen. The flip side of this is the consequences I've just explained are pretty much the same for if someone dies of a drug overdose at the festival, yet this is a risk the festival take every year with no real attempts to clamp down on drug taking.

But this is all the sort of thing that will need to be considered over and above the question of "are we allowed?" - because Glastonbury's reputation is one of it's main assets.

[Wooderson]

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I think there are two questions here. The first is "will a festival the size of Glastonbury legally be allowed to go ahead in June 2021?" and I think the answer to that is "yes".

But that alone doesn't mean the festival will happen.

There's a couple of questions that need to be answered by most festivals really. The first is "can we afford another year off?" - for many festivals the answer is quite simply "no". If they don't run in 2021, they're bankrupt. So if you're in that position, may as well try and run the festival anyway. I don't think Glastonbury are quite there. I think they could manage to take 2021 off also. I think if they lost 2022 as well they'd be done for but they can afford to break for another year. There's obviously costs to that - it means no work for a lot of people and possible redundancies, so it's not an easy choice, but it could be made.

So then it's an exercise in risk: should we go ahead? What's the worse case: there is an outbreak, on the farm, some people get seriously ill, and there is at least one COVID death linked to a Glastonbury outbreak. What does that do to Glastonbury? It's not good. They'll be portrayed as irresponsible for running the event (as will the government for letting it go ahead), the media will always be keen to bash Glastonbury, this will lead to customers questioning the safety of the festival, do they really have ticket-holders best interests at heart? The festival needs to sell out every year to stay viable and no-one really knows exactly how much more demand for tickets there is than supply. There could even be questions over the BBC coverage: should they be celebrating this clearly irresponsible festival? Long term the loss of major TV coverage would be the biggest blow possible for the festival's reputation and booking power.

I'm not saying that all means the festival won't happen. The flip side of this is the consequences I've just explained are pretty much the same for if someone dies of a drug overdose at the festival, yet this is a risk the festival take every year with no real attempts to clamp down on drug taking.

But this is all the sort of thing that will need to be considered over and above the question of "are we allowed?" - because Glastonbury's reputation is one of it's main assets.

Nice take.

[Wooderson]

31 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

But it won’t most likely ‘fuck you up”, though.

You will “most likely” never even know you’ve had it. 

All random. 🙂

[zahidf]

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I think there are two questions here. The first is "will a festival the size of Glastonbury legally be allowed to go ahead in June 2021?" and I think the answer to that is "yes".

But that alone doesn't mean the festival will happen.

There's a couple of questions that need to be answered by most festivals really. The first is "can we afford another year off?" - for many festivals the answer is quite simply "no". If they don't run in 2021, they're bankrupt. So if you're in that position, may as well try and run the festival anyway. I don't think Glastonbury are quite there. I think they could manage to take 2021 off also. I think if they lost 2022 as well they'd be done for but they can afford to break for another year. There's obviously costs to that - it means no work for a lot of people and possible redundancies, so it's not an easy choice, but it could be made.

So then it's an exercise in risk: should we go ahead? What's the worse case: there is an outbreak, on the farm, some people get seriously ill, and there is at least one COVID death linked to a Glastonbury outbreak. What does that do to Glastonbury? It's not good. They'll be portrayed as irresponsible for running the event (as will the government for letting it go ahead), the media will always be keen to bash Glastonbury, this will lead to customers questioning the safety of the festival, do they really have ticket-holders best interests at heart? The festival needs to sell out every year to stay viable and no-one really knows exactly how much more demand for tickets there is than supply. There could even be questions over the BBC coverage: should they be celebrating this clearly irresponsible festival? Long term the loss of major TV coverage would be the biggest blow possible for the festival's reputation and booking power.

I'm not saying that all means the festival won't happen. The flip side of this is the consequences I've just explained are pretty much the same for if someone dies of a drug overdose at the festival, yet this is a risk the festival take every year with no real attempts to clamp down on drug taking.

But this is all the sort of thing that will need to be considered over and above the question of "are we allowed?" - because Glastonbury's reputation is one of it's main assets.

I only disagree because i dont think glastonbury would be blamed by June if other stuff like WImbledon and other festivals are going on, people are allowed to go to packed out pubs e.t.c. 

[Ozanne]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I think there are two questions here. The first is "will a festival the size of Glastonbury legally be allowed to go ahead in June 2021?" and I think the answer to that is "yes".

But that alone doesn't mean the festival will happen.

There's a couple of questions that need to be answered by most festivals really. The first is "can we afford another year off?" - for many festivals the answer is quite simply "no". If they don't run in 2021, they're bankrupt. So if you're in that position, may as well try and run the festival anyway. I don't think Glastonbury are quite there. I think they could manage to take 2021 off also. I think if they lost 2022 as well they'd be done for but they can afford to break for another year. There's obviously costs to that - it means no work for a lot of people and possible redundancies, so it's not an easy choice, but it could be made.

So then it's an exercise in risk: should we go ahead? What's the worse case: there is an outbreak, on the farm, some people get seriously ill, and there is at least one COVID death linked to a Glastonbury outbreak. What does that do to Glastonbury? It's not good. They'll be portrayed as irresponsible for running the event (as will the government for letting it go ahead), the media will always be keen to bash Glastonbury, this will lead to customers questioning the safety of the festival, do they really have ticket-holders best interests at heart? The festival needs to sell out every year to stay viable and no-one really knows exactly how much more demand for tickets there is than supply. There could even be questions over the BBC coverage: should they be celebrating this clearly irresponsible festival? Long term the loss of major TV coverage would be the biggest blow possible for the festival's reputation and booking power.

I'm not saying that all means the festival won't happen. The flip side of this is the consequences I've just explained are pretty much the same for if someone dies of a drug overdose at the festival, yet this is a risk the festival take every year with no real attempts to clamp down on drug taking.

But this is all the sort of thing that will need to be considered over and above the question of "are we allowed?" - because Glastonbury's reputation is one of it's main assets.

Very legitimate issues raised. However they can mostly be mitigated with testing festival goers in the week up to the festival along with any vaccinations by then. If a festival has measures in place that can do a decent extent only have people that have tested negative on site then that should be enough. Mass testing will be more available by the summer so this should be a very viable option. 

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Glastonbury's reputation is one of it's main assets.

Glastonbury's rep is one of its main assets, but i don't think there'd be any lasting damage from a covid outbreak with perhaps a death or two.

Glastonbury regularly has deaths without causing it any real reputational damage, and I think people would judge a covid outbreak within the context of us having to live with covid. Ultimately a bad error of judgement that deserves a slagging much like the horses at Cheltenham got, but nothing much more.

[mufcok]

Has anything been said about Cheltenham in March, out of interest?...

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, mufcok said:

Has anything been said about Cheltenham in March, out of interest?...

telegraph said they will be social distancing then but WImbledon should be ok at capacity

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, mufcok said:

Has anything been said about Cheltenham in March, out of interest?...

they've already started allowing an audience for horse racing (if not in tier 3). 

There's currently crowd limits to it, but I expect those to be expanded as things improve (as they should from the vaccine rollout).

It could prove to be a decent testing ground for the likes of festivals.

[mufcok]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

telegraph said they will be social distancing then but WImbledon should be ok at capacity

Interesting. Be intrigued to see what the set up is there with distancing.

Can they really allow Wimbledon on with full capacity but not Glastonbury? Centre Court and Court 1 alone must be about 25,000/30,000 and it runs over two weeks. Probably a hefty amount of different people watching each day as well

[Ryan1984]

10 minutes ago, mufcok said:

Interesting. Be intrigued to see what the set up is there with distancing.

Can they really allow Wimbledon on with full capacity but not Glastonbury? Centre Court and Court 1 alone must be about 25,000/30,000 and it runs over two weeks. Probably a hefty amount of different people watching each day as well

And think of them all travelling from all areas of the country (world?)

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, mufcok said:

Interesting. Be intrigued to see what the set up is there with distancing.

Can they really allow Wimbledon on with full capacity but not Glastonbury? Centre Court and Court 1 alone must be about 25,000/30,000 and it runs over two weeks. Probably a hefty amount of different people watching each day as well

yeah, can't really see how that's less risk than Glastonbury.

One difference, tho, is that there's very low set-up costs, and doesn't need a long build beforehand. The planning for it can be switched on or off in a way Glastonbury couldn't be.

[incident]

8 minutes ago, mufcok said:

Can they really allow Wimbledon on with full capacity but not Glastonbury? Centre Court and Court 1 alone must be about 25,000/30,000 and it runs over two weeks. Probably a hefty amount of different people watching each day as well

According to todays press, both Wimbledon and Euro 2020 (the games in England anyway) are expecting to go ahead at full capacity.

The first Euro 2020 game at Wembley is 10 days before Glastonbury starts, and if that does go ahead at full capacity there really can't be any legal justification not to allow a festival - you'll have people flying in from all over Europe including thousands from Croatia all packing into hundreds of London pubs.