Will the 2021 festival go ahead?

[xxialac]

4 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Considering it can take 2-14 days for Covid symptoms to appear you could get it on the coach on the way in, not show any signs of it, test negative but actually have it and then start a super spreader event while on the site for 5 days. Or get if from a surface someone with Covid has touched just as you walk in. Or from someone who coughs as they walk by you as they're leaving the you-have-Covid reject queue. Bollocks to that as an option.

It comes down to money. The festival isn't going ahead without insurance (which isn't happening as it stands) or unless the vaccine starts getting rolled out a lot quicker globally and numbers drop pronto. ie in the next 12 weeks. Which is almost impossible considering we're at the peak of another wave at the moment and its Christmas. 

20,000 cases today.........🤫

I don't follow.

Why, if the vaccine starts getting rolled out a lot quicker and numbers drop pronto, can't you still have a superspreader event then too?

[DeanoL]

58 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Does this graph look like the virus being everywhere next June?

There's everything to fear for the next couple of months but not by June - and this is all WITHOUT benefit of vaccines.

Yes. Because that's a graph of COVID deaths. It doesn't show how many people are infected. Indeed, the more people dying from COVID, the less it spread because it kills the host before they spread it much. If the vaccine just reduces death rate, COVID spread will actually go up.

32 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Seems odd that Cheltenham and packed football matches were allowed to go ahead up to mid-March, but festivals won’t go ahead in 7 months time, with already two waves of the virus having occurred, vaccines being rolled out and vastly superior testing and treatments available. 

But they shouldn't have been. And people here were saying they were idiots for going ahead with it, and it was so obvious it was a mistake. Now if we're having this discussion anywhere but this forum, people would be saying the same about Glastonbury - that it's absolutely ridiculous to host the UK's largest mass gathering, where sanitation isn't great, while we still haven't got a critical mass vaccinated. Mostly, people will be asking "couldn't they just wait until September?"

[xxialac]

15 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yes. Because that's a graph of COVID deaths. It doesn't show how many people are infected. Indeed, the more people dying from COVID, the less it spread because it kills the host before they spread it much. If the vaccine just reduces death rate, COVID spread will actually go up.

But they shouldn't have been. And people here were saying they were idiots for going ahead with it, and it was so obvious it was a mistake. Now if we're having this discussion anywhere but this forum, people would be saying the same about Glastonbury - that it's absolutely ridiculous to host the UK's largest mass gathering, where sanitation isn't great, while we still haven't got a critical mass vaccinated. Mostly, people will be asking "couldn't they just wait until September?"

Covid rates definitely won't go up with more and more vaccinations.

"The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine cuts transmission of the virus by reducing the number of asymptomatic infections, the vaccine developers reported".

And on your last point it depends where you draw the line on 'critical mass'?

All the over 75s? All the over 50s? Herd immunity? Highly subjective...

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

35 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yes. Because that's a graph of COVID deaths. It doesn't show how many people are infected. Indeed, the more people dying from COVID, the less it spread because it kills the host before they spread it much. If the vaccine just reduces death rate, COVID spread will actually go up.

But they shouldn't have been. And people here were saying they were idiots for going ahead with it, and it was so obvious it was a mistake. Now if we're having this discussion anywhere but this forum, people would be saying the same about Glastonbury - that it's absolutely ridiculous to host the UK's largest mass gathering, where sanitation isn't great, while we still haven't got a critical mass vaccinated. Mostly, people will be asking "couldn't they just wait until September?"

Depends what else is allowed to happen as well. Things are either 100% safe or they aren’t, people have freedom of choice and if you can go to a football match or Wimbledon, or down the pub, or to Ascot then where do you draw the line? The government had no issue getting us out and about in the summer, but was it 100% safe? Of course it wasn’t, there is a risk as soon as a you walk out of the door, but as soon as is possible the government will transfer that risk back to us and allow us to decide for ourselves. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[The Nal]

53 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I don't follow.

Why, if the vaccine starts getting rolled out a lot quicker and numbers drop pronto, can't you still have a superspreader event then too?

Not quite as super if more people are immune/vaccinated. 

[xxialac]

25 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Not quite as super if more people are immune/vaccinated. 

And not quite as super if more people are tested!

Edited December 10, 2020 by xxialac

[stuartbert two hats]

2 hours ago, xxialac said:

Covid rates definitely won't go up with more and more vaccinations.

"The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine cuts transmission of the virus by reducing the number of asymptomatic infections, the vaccine developers reported".

And on your last point it depends where you draw the line on 'critical mass'?

All the over 75s? All the over 50s? Herd immunity? Highly subjective...

Depends on how fast/much the restrictions are lifted.

[Lycra]

3 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Seems odd that Cheltenham and packed football matches were allowed to go ahead up to mid-March, but festivals won’t go ahead in 7 months time, with already two waves of the virus having occurred, vaccines being rolled out and vastly superior testing and treatments available. 

What happened early 2020 is history and mistakes were made. Government have learnt by them (hopefully🤞) and it a different ball game now.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

25 minutes ago, Lycra said:

What happened early 2020 is history and mistakes were made. Government have learnt by them (hopefully🤞) and it a different ball game now.

Well technically everything is History, I think there are still some conclusions you can look to draw from what happened 9 months ago for what might happen 7 months from now.

My point really was that by then we had deaths stacking up, on the last day of Cheltenham Italy had 2500 deaths that day (some of those will be backdated, but they’re the official figures now for that day) the government knew precisely what was coming our way, as we all did, but they didn’t act because they didn’t want to, and they saw it as an absolute last resort to do so. They only did act when it was abundantly clear that if they didn’t the NHS would be overwhelmed, but that is the only reason.

So their reluctance to act earlier on in the year suggests they won’t hang around to get things back to normal as soon as they possibly can.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[stuartbert two hats]

I'm leaning towards no again. Not as pessimistic as a month or so ago, but not confident given quite how fast the numbers have started rising again and the supply/efficacy issues with the vaccines.

 

[Lycra]

1 hour ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Well technically everything is History, I think there are still some conclusions you can look to draw from what happened 9 months ago for what might happen 7 months from now.

My point really was that by then we had deaths stacking up, on the last day of Cheltenham Italy had 2500 deaths that day (some of those will be backdated, but they’re the official figures now for that day) the government knew precisely what was coming our way, as we all did, but they didn’t act because they didn’t want to, and they saw it as an absolute last resort to do so. They only did act when it was abundantly clear that if they didn’t the NHS would be overwhelmed, but that is the only reason.

So their reluctance to act earlier on in the year suggests they won’t hang around to get things back to normal as soon as they possibly can.

There is huge apetite to get things back to normal but get it wrong continually and reputations will suffer.

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, Lycra said:

There is huge apetite to get things back to normal but get it wrong continually and reputations will suffer.

You say that but look at how many times the Tories get re-elected  

[ShakeyCrash]

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I'm leaning towards no again. Not as pessimistic as a month or so ago, but not confident given quite how fast the numbers have started rising again and the supply/efficacy issues with the vaccines.

 

I'm still slightly yes but I think we need to Oxford vaccine to come through, hopefully next week.  The Moderna makes little difference in my opinion and relying on pfizer is difficult for a multitude of reasons.  If the Oxford vaccine is approved, and it stops people dying (not so much infections) then my confidence increases.  I'm probably 60% yes, down from 70% when vaccine successes were announced.  

 

[Leyrulion]

1 hour ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Well technically everything is History,

I think technically it's only actually history if it's 10+ years ago...

 

I'm still 50/50, we won't see any effect of the vaccine until Mid January so need to remind myself to keep the faith until at least then!

[stuartbert two hats]

4 minutes ago, ShakeyCrash said:

I'm still slightly yes but I think we need to Oxford vaccine to come through, hopefully next week.  The Moderna makes little difference in my opinion and relying on pfizer is difficult for a multitude of reasons.  If the Oxford vaccine is approved, and it stops people dying (not so much infections) then my confidence increases.  I'm probably 60% yes, down from 70% when vaccine successes were announced.  

 

I'm 40% 

[Lycra]

20 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You say that but look at how many times the Tories get re-elected  

Unfortunately Labour have cocked up bigstyle by allowing the narrative to become all about Brexit.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Lycra

[dotdash79]

11 minutes ago, Leyrulion said:

I think technically it's only actually history if it's 10+ years ago...

I think you will find that It’s only history if it comes from the historic region of France, otherwise it’s just rose colour spectacles

[xxialac]

"Japan aims to admit “large-scale” numbers of overseas visitors for the Tokyo Olympic Games without mandatory vaccinations or quarantines, provided tourists submit negative coronavirus test results and download smartphone tracking apps on arrival, the Nikkei business daily reported Wednesday"

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Seems odd that Cheltenham and packed football matches were allowed to go ahead up to mid-March, but festivals won’t go ahead in 7 months time, with already two waves of the virus having occurred, vaccines being rolled out and vastly superior testing and treatments available. 

footie and horses can go ahead with crowds now with anti-covid measures  in place.

It's also the case that festivals can go ahead now with anti-covid measures  in place.

Thing is, anti-covid measures make most festivals not work.  

[The Dawg]

One thing I have learnt very early on in all this is that it's all just guess work.

Things are moving quickly one way or the other, I just try and remain positive and hope that all my family and friends remain safe and that I will be at the Brothers Bar June '21.

[DeanoL]

16 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Depends what else is allowed to happen as well. Things are either 100% safe or they aren’t, people have freedom of choice and if you can go to a football match or Wimbledon, or down the pub, or to Ascot then where do you draw the line? 

At 50,000 people. Or 100,000 people. The current rules have capacity restrictions for events in Tier 1 and 2. I can certainly see them taking that approach. 

16 hours ago, xxialac said:

Covid rates definitely won't go up with more and more vaccinations.

"The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine cuts transmission of the virus by reducing the number of asymptomatic infections, the vaccine developers reported".

It appears to based on trial data, but there's not yet sufficient data to make that claim verifiable. Which is the issue. If the vaccines cut transmission by a significant amount then that's a complete game changer to everything I'm saying. But we don't know that - it seems with the Oxford trials there was a big difference in that metric between the two dosing regimes (5% vs 65% or something) so more info is needed here.

[DeanoL]

Here's a grim thought - if they go ahead with the testing on the gates approach, how many people are so desperate to go they would go try and catch it on purpose in say, April, as you can't get it twice?

[sisco]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Here's a grim thought - if they go ahead with the testing on the gates approach, how many people are so desperate to go they would go try and catch it on purpose in say, April, as you can't get it twice?

Can you not catch it twice?  I’ve got it now so surely If I show my positive test from December I can just stroll in..... right?

[xxialac]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Here's a grim thought - if they go ahead with the testing on the gates approach, how many people are so desperate to go they would go try and catch it on purpose in say, April, as you can't get it twice?

Practically no one would be my assumption.

[Fuzzy Afro]

10 minutes ago, sisco said:

Can you not catch it twice?  I’ve got it now so surely If I show my positive test from December I can just stroll in..... right?

Highly unlikely that you’d get it twice in quick succession BUT you might test positive due to dead virus being picked up months later. This tactic could easily backfire.