Will the 2021 festival go ahead?

[Zoo Music Girl]

I get what you're saying but I just think if society is happy with that level of risk then testing for the festival seems unnecessary.

[xxialac]

Let's pretend there are 100,000 people at the festival.

Testing means that only e.g. 10 positive people (through fake test, false negative, not being checked etc) get in as opposed to 100 (based on 0.1% of population having Covid on a given day).

This would dramatically reduce the number of subsequent infections. 

I do think testing is worthwhile and optically it might be what is needed to make everyone feel comfortable including key stakeholders like government/authorities that risks are being mitigated. 

And it undeniably will mitigate that risk. Will reduce it even more if there's also testing before you leave home, which would reduce the numbers turning up at the gate with it.

This is all theory, however, and ultimately, I suspect they will go for pre-testing only for all the reasons already mentioned on here.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

Doesn’t change the fact that those 100 people would’ve spent 2/3/5/10 hours in a car/coach/train infecting other people. Without the festival taking place they wouldn’t have been in that situation. Sure, they would’ve potentially been making journeys on public transport, but generally those journeys will be shorter. Most people don’t live anywhere near Glastonbury, but by nature of course live near to all the things they need/want to travel to in their daily lives.

If you do reduce that 100 down to 10 at the gate, then the travel will have been a far greater spreader of the virus than the festival itself could ever be, so it kind of seems pretty pointless to be creating one problem and then trying to solve it elsewhere.

Hence why it would make far more sense to somehow test a couple of days before.

[xxialac]

9 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Doesn’t change the fact that those 100 people would’ve spent 2/3/5/10 hours in a car/coach/train infecting other people. Without the festival taking place they wouldn’t have been in that situation. Sure, they would’ve potentially been making journeys on public transport, but generally those journeys will be shorter. Most people don’t live anywhere near Glastonbury, but by nature of course live near to all the things they need/want to travel to in their daily lives.

If you do reduce that 100 down to 10 at the gate, then the travel will have been a far greater spreader of the virus than the festival itself could ever be, so it kind of seems pretty pointless to be creating one problem and then trying to solve it elsewhere.

Hence why it would make far more sense to somehow test a couple of days before.

You make some good points. I do assume though - especially with it being Summer - that there will be a campaign to get people to open their car windows and the train/coach companies can do the same.

As we know ventilation dramatically reduces the risk.

In some ways a 'controlled' event could better manage risk than just a bunch of mates going on a road trip holiday, which is only happening as Glastonbury didn't go ahead.

It's a tricky one. 

Will probably end up not doing what is the right thing to do but what has the best optics.

[henry bear]

Yeah, I can't imagine a scenario in which we're all mass tested at the gate. I think it will be a case of showing proof of vaccination or recent negative test, with perhaps, at most, a temperature test on entry (and entry onto the coach, if applicable).

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

You make some good points. I do assume though - especially with it being Summer - that there will be a campaign to get people to open their car windows and the train/coach companies can do the same.

As we know ventilation dramatically reduces the risk.

In some ways a 'controlled' event could better manage risk than just a bunch of mates going on a road trip holiday, which is only happening as Glastonbury didn't go ahead.

It's a tricky one. 

Will probably end up not doing what is the right thing to do but what has the best optics.

I think you’re right about the optics, because ultimately that’s what it will be. As discussed a bit further up, it wouldn’t really be viable to prevent people who you’d travelled with (if testing positive) from entering as well. It would be virtually impossible for those coming by coach or train.
 

So you could have one infected person on a coach for five hours who infects 50 people. Those 50 get in, but the one who was positive at the time doesn’t. They get refused entry but 50 people go on to become positive 2/3 days later and infect loads of people.

So it really would be optics because it wouldn’t actually prevent much at all. 

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

People aren’t going to like me saying this, but it’s not going to be possible to completely eliminate the risk of covid-19 spreading within the gates. Assuming the festival is allowed to go ahead at all, the aim should be to reduce the number of infectious people entering the site to an acceptable level*

 

Option 1 is no testing at all. If infections have been driven to a low prevalence across society then perhaps this acceptably low number of infectious people can be achieved without any testing at all.

 

Option 2 is testing a few days before. You’re then banking that only a handful of people will catch the virus in the interim.

 

Option 3 is testing at the gate. This would probably minimise the number of infectious people entering the site but comes with its own issues as we’ve discussed ad nauseum.
 

*the “acceptable level” isn’t a fixed number though.  It really depends on whether covid is still hospitalising a significant minority of patients. If it’s been reduced to flu like levels due to vaccination of the vulnerable then there’s really no need to bother slowing the spread. 

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, henry bear said:

Yeah, I can't imagine a scenario in which we're all mass tested at the gate. I think it will be a case of showing proof of vaccination or recent negative test, with perhaps, at most, a temperature test on entry (and entry onto the coach, if applicable).

Yep, agree with this as most likely outcome. Probably without the vaccination option (as not enough people will have had their two jabs by June to warrant this).

Temperature tests are done widely despite being totally ineffective. That's the kind of theatre that will help the event to go ahead because the public will see that they are doing something.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

14 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

People aren’t going to like me saying this, but it’s not going to be possible to completely eliminate the risk of covid-19 spreading within the gates. Assuming the festival is allowed to go ahead at all, the aim should be to reduce the number of infectious people entering the site to an acceptable level*

 

Option 1 is no testing at all. If infections have been driven to a low prevalence across society then perhaps this acceptably low number of infectious people can be achieved without any testing at all.

 

Option 2 is testing a few days before. You’re then banking that only a handful of people will catch the virus in the interim.

 

Option 3 is testing at the gate. This would probably minimise the number of infectious people entering the site but comes with its own issues as we’ve discussed ad nauseum.
 

*the “acceptable level” isn’t a fixed number though.  It really depends on whether covid is still hospitalising a significant minority of patients. If it’s been reduced to flu like levels due to vaccination of the vulnerable then there’s really no need to bother slowing the spread. 

I think that’s just reality, no reason why anyone shouldn’t like you saying that if you ask me.

Cases dipped to very low levels in the summer, things relaxed somewhat, sure we still couldn’t go to festivals and sports events etc, but we could go back to the pub etc. Here we are in winter and infections have rocketed, so what we did in the summer obviously wasn’t risk free and caused infections to go back up, but we still did it and were encouraged to do so.
 

There will be a level where all other things can return to normality, but not without some risk, but that’s life. People unfortunately die at the festival most years, mostly from drug related incidents, but they don’t cancel the festival to protect us from ourselves, ultimately things are done to mitigate risk but the risk will still be there to an extent, which is considered an acceptable risk.

At a certain point Covid won’t be any different. One thing we know is that by the time the festival rolls round all elderly and at risk people will be protected. It will still carry a risk to people but so do many other things. The comparisons to flu are of course way wide of the mark, but there could be a point that via vaccination we reach a point where the two are not too dissimilar in terms of risk to the population, it could still hospitalise and kill you, but it probably won’t and normal life won’t be curtailed because of it.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[xxialac]

Just now, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I think you’re right about the optics, because ultimately that’s what it will be. As discussed a bit further up, it wouldn’t really be viable to prevent people who you’d travelled with (if testing positive) from entering as well. It would be virtually impossible for those coming by coach or train.
 

So you could have one infected person on a coach for five hours who infects 50 people. Those 50 get in, but the one who was positive at the time doesn’t. They get refused entry but 50 people go on to become positive 2/3 days later and infect loads of people.

So it really would be optics because it wouldn’t actually prevent much at all. 

 

Agree with absolutely all of this other than that one infected coachgoer infects 50. Especially if some windows are open and everyone is wearing masks that person is more likely to infect 1 or 2. If they block off seats (and run more coaches), would be even less risky. There are tools that now model this kind of risk.

Also worth noting that you probably won't start to infect others until about day 3, 4 or 5 after infection, which helps a bit.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

Just now, xxialac said:

Agree with absolutely all of this other than that one infected coachgoer infects 50. Especially if some windows are open and everyone is wearing masks that person is more likely to infect 1 or 2. If they block off seats (and run more coaches), would be even less risky. There are tools that now model this kind of risk.

Also worth noting that you probably won't start to infect others until about day 3, 4 or 5 after infection, which helps a bit.

Yes that was an extreme example, it wouldn’t be anywhere near 50, most likely the people immediately around you I’d say 4-5 wouldn’t be implausible though in a long coach journey. 

[kalifire]

I agree that it's not possible to have a COVID-free festival in 2021. It's going to be there, and it's going to spread among the crowd. The outdoors will help mitigate the spread but crowd proximity will have the opposite effect. With a crowd of 135k plus, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of people to contract COVID-19 at Glastonbury.

Most of them probably won't even suspect they have it until the Saturday/Sunday, so the impact on the festival itself wouldn't be crippling, but the fact remains that the organisers would be knowingly sending an unquantifiable number of people back into the wider world, where they will spread a virus they may not have contracted were it not for their event.

I know I'm repeating what so many others here have said, but the viability of the festival happening will surely come down to whether all vulnerable groups can be vaccinated before June. In this article, a timeframe of April 2021 is given for the most vulnerable groups to be vaccinated (those 65 and over). Sounds good, but in the same article, it's forecast we'll have to wear face masks until late next year. Is Glastonbury with masks possible?

I'm still doubtful that the festival will go ahead. I think the build is entirely possible, but the event itself is right at the end of the spectrum when it comes to numbers and on-site testing is a complete non-starter. I would imagine the decision has already been taken in principle, and they're holding out to see whether some miracle in vaccination rollout and restrictions gives them a lifeline.

[Fuzzy Afro]

4 minutes ago, kalifire said:

I agree that it's not possible to have a COVID-free festival in 2021. It's going to be there, and it's going to spread among the crowd. The outdoors will help mitigate the spread but crowd proximity will have the opposite effect. With a crowd of 135k plus, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of people to contract COVID-19 at Glastonbury.

Most of them probably won't even suspect they have it until the Saturday/Sunday, so the impact on the festival itself wouldn't be crippling, but the fact remains that the organisers would be knowingly sending an unquantifiable number of people back into the wider world, where they will spread a virus they may not have contracted were it not for their event.

I know I'm repeating what so many others here have said, but the viability of the festival happening will surely come down to whether all vulnerable groups can be vaccinated before June. In this article, a timeframe of April 2021 is given for the most vulnerable groups to be vaccinated (those 65 and over). Sounds good, but in the same article, it's forecast we'll have to wear face masks until late next year. Is Glastonbury with masks possible?

I'm still doubtful that the festival will go ahead. I think the build is entirely possible, but the event itself is right at the end of the spectrum when it comes to numbers and on-site testing is a complete non-starter. I would imagine the decision has already been taken in principle, and they're holding out to see whether some miracle in vaccination rollout and restrictions gives them a lifeline.

 

This is a pretty big no-no for me. I’m certainly not one of those raging anti-maskers that views them as an assault on freedom, I’m personally glad that they’re mandatory in areas like shops and trains where distancing and contact tracing can be impractical. But I don’t particularly enjoy wearing them so I tend to minimise time spent in areas where I need to wear a mask.

 

For example, I do more online shopping now than I previously would because that’s preferable to shopping with a mask. I might choose to walk 45 minutes instead of a 15 minute train journey with a mask.

 

I could understand if festivals wanted to use masks to try and reduce spread inside the gates, but for me personally it would ruin my enjoyment sufficiently such that I’m not spending hundreds of pounds to attend a masked festival. 

[Harry49]

At the moment to travel to some countries you have to provide a negative test certificate within an agreed date before travel. Eg 48 hours.

as festival is a holiday I would have thought that will be likely solution. Extra cost £100-200 a pop, leave it to people to decide whether they think it is worth it. Maybe roll over those who want to. It will still sell out.
Hardly ideal or fair but can not see another solution unless vaccinations have been rolled out to a large percentage of population.

my bother law is a gp practice manager and They are forecasting Sept for under 50s. First vaccines were last week.

[xxialac]

Glastonbury with voluntary masks, yes but not mandatory.

I think on the other hand over 65s can be jabbed by June...just about. 

Yes, the festival will increase infection rates but you could say the same about any economic activity.

There are lots of businesses that depend on close proximity to survive and they too will send the same number of infected people back into the world. This may be over some weeks or months rather than in 5 days but the outcome is the same.

Ultimately everything makes it worse. But as the R rate goes down and number vaccinated goes up you can open up more and more.

I'd guess around May/June/July is around the time festivals will be greenlighted. It feels tight...

 

[zahidf]

I'm staying positive that by next summer there will be enough vaccinations and enough people sick of lockdown that we won't be having restrictions. Under 50s will go out at there own risk.

 

[xxialac]

2 minutes ago, Harry49 said:

At the moment to travel to some countries you have to provide a negative test certificate within an agreed date before travel. Eg 48 hours.

as festival is a holiday I would have thought that will be likely solution. Extra cost £100-200 a pop, leave it to people to decide whether they think it is worth it. Maybe roll over those who want to. It will still sell out.
Hardly ideal or fair but can not see another solution unless vaccinations have been rolled out to a large percentage of population.

my bother law is a gp practice manager and They are forecasting Sept for under 50s. First vaccines were last week.

Good points but if they accept a LAMP test that's only £80 and by June will probably be £20 or less.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

I’d imagine if it came to some sort of test 48 hours before, it would be specifically co-ordinated by the event, with the cost of the test most likely partially subsidised. It won’t be a case of just go and get your own random test.  

[xxialac]

Just now, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I’d imagine if it came to some sort of test 48 hours before, it would be specifically co-ordinated by the event, with the cost of the test most likely partially subsidised. It won’t be a case of just go and get your own random test.  

Sounds good in practice but people live all over the UK (/world!) and that's just not practical.

I think they might have a partnership with e.g. Boots for a small saving but basically by then the world will have got its act together and there will be internationally recognised QR codes.

[zahidf]

DCMS in their press release about their loans seems to be indicating that theatres will be back full capacity by April 2021

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-than-165-million-in-repayable-finance-announced-to-support-major-arts-and-heritage-institutions-as-culture-fund-marks-1-billion-milestone

£300 million in grants and £100 million in loans will also be available to support organisations’ transition back to usual operating mode from April 2021. 

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

DCMS in their press release about their loans seems to be indicating that theatres will be back full capacity by April 2021

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-than-165-million-in-repayable-finance-announced-to-support-major-arts-and-heritage-institutions-as-culture-fund-marks-1-billion-milestone

£300 million in grants and £100 million in loans will also be available to support organisations’ transition back to usual operating mode from April 2021. 

That would be massive. 

For Glastonbury to happen IMO full crowds at theatres, cinemas and football stadiums need to be normalised by about April. Then it doesn't seem like such a big leap to a festival.

[Leyrulion]

This definitely won't be popular but if you had to get tested on the gate I think I'd be making use of the government's free PCR test a few days before to make sure I didn't have it. 

Can't afford to get a lift down and then potentially fork out for a train back. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Leyrulion

[Copperface]

12 minutes ago, zahidf said:

DCMS in their press release about their loans seems to be indicating that theatres will be back full capacity by April 2021

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-than-165-million-in-repayable-finance-announced-to-support-major-arts-and-heritage-institutions-as-culture-fund-marks-1-billion-milestone

£300 million in grants and £100 million in loans will also be available to support organisations’ transition back to usual operating mode from April 2021. 

"support organisations’ transition back to usual operating mode from April 2021"

More like a graduated and gradual transition to normal starting from April, not full capacity in April, which ties in with everything we've seen before. April as a start on a long road to something like we know as normality.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Copperface

[henry bear]

44 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

This is a pretty big no-no for me. I’m certainly not one of those raging anti-maskers that views them as an assault on freedom, I’m personally glad that they’re mandatory in areas like shops and trains where distancing and contact tracing can be impractical. But I don’t particularly enjoy wearing them so I tend to minimise time spent in areas where I need to wear a mask.

The 'na na-na na-na-na-na's' at the end of Hey Jude won't be the same if we're all standing there in our scrubs

[Leyrulion]

1 hour ago, kalifire said:

I would imagine the decision has already been taken in principle, and they're holding out to see whether some miracle in vaccination rollout and restrictions gives them a lifeline.

Well this went down like a bucket of cold sick. 😂