We need to talk about The Green Fields

[mattiloy]

3 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

In what way is this discussion fascist? It’s a big elephant in the room. It can’t be ignored that a large chunk of the festival (who help build and provide for the event) may have problems being able to come if you require a vaccine to attend.

To those who have rejected vaccines throughout their life and been a huge part of Glastonbury, what happens there if it becomes law to have been vaccinated to attend a major event?

The festival has been cancelled. By June 2022 the vast majority of people will have been vaccinated, probably sufficient for herd immunity, so the minority that don’t will be protected. If they are offered a vaccine and refuse it then thats upto them and I would presume They would assume all liability for the consequences. So such a law would serve no purpose other than arbitrarily punishing those with different beliefs. Maybe we should also not let jehovah’s witnesses go to events because they don’t accept blood transfusions.

Here is why its fash- many people in the general population of the festival may be antivax, most people in the green fields will probably get vaccinated. So to say lets fuck the green fields off is the wrong solution to a problem that probably wont even exist, and just serves as a vehicle for bashing those who you dont understand.

[Andy0808 v5]

22 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

My ex is bang into crystals, she’s always buying them for me for certain things and telling me when it’s a full moon to cleanse them. I think she genuinely believes in it all, but really for me as far as she’s concerned it’s just something that allows her to channel positive thoughts, or something to hang the positive thoughts on, a conduit if you will. There are obviously huge benefits to positive thinking, so if these things help people manifest these positive thoughts then so be it. 

I fully agree, on top of this.. I can’t imagine many people would change their entire mindset based on being accosted at Glastonbury. It’s such an interesting part of the festival that I wouldn’t want it to go, even if there are those who may be seen taking it too far.. their choice, and it’s hardly likely to change my view on it.

[DeanoL]

I'm not necessarily saying it should go - I started this thread to have the discussion. I do find it sort of interesting that many of those defending it are reacting to the idea of it being replaced far more stridently than when the inevitable "tear down the dance village and replace it with something better" threads turn up. Even for those that find it harmless, or even actively interesting, shouldn't be still be able to discuss if it's a good use of space? Is being inoffensive enough?

I still don't buy the idea that it's not harmful though. And it's not just about vaccines. The "when will this shit end" thread features people constantly criticising the government's response to coronavirus. for ignoring the science and instead just doing what they think is best, or acting out of their own self interest. And part of the reason they get away with that is because of idea that the medicine and science isn't always right. Because the scientists says homeopathy doesn't work, but I know it does work, so when the scientists say I shouldn't meet my family indoors, I know better about that too.

That's the grim reality for me: had alternative medicine not taken off so much in this country over the last ten years, had we properly regulated it and pushed back against it and certainly not made some of it part of the NHS (because it works as a placebo) then compliance with lockdown would have been higher and fewer people would have been dead. And I'm aware you can say that about a lot of things (had we actually funded the NHS, fewer would be dead, etc). 

It's not really about whether these people take the vaccine or not (although I'd argue if they refuse it they shouldn't be treated by the NHS should they catch COVID), it's about the overall mindset that it all encourages:

Quote

There are also more concrete harms. It's routine marketing practice for homeopaths to denigrate mainstream medicine. There's a simple commercial reason for this: survey data show that a disappointing experience with mainstream medicine is almost the only factor that regularly correlates with choosing alternative therapies. That's an explanation, but not an excuse. And this is not just talking medicine down. One study found that more than half of all the homeopaths approached advised patients against the MMR vaccine for their children, acting irresponsibly on what will quite probably come to be known as the media's MMR hoax. How did the alternative therapy world deal with this concerning finding, that so many among them were quietly undermining the vaccination schedule? Prince Charles's office tried to have the lead researcher sacked. A BBC Newsnight investigation found that almost all the homeopaths approached recommended ineffective homeopathic pills to protect against malaria, and advised against medical malaria prophylactics, while not even giving basic advice on bite prevention. Very holistic. Very "complementary". Any action against the homeopaths concerned? None.

By pushing their product relentlessly with this scientific flim-flam, homeopaths undermine the public understanding of what it means to have an evidence base for a treatment. Worst of all, they do this at the very time when academics are working harder than ever to engage the public in a genuine collective ownership and understanding of clinical research, and when most good doctors are trying to educate and involve their patients in the selection of difficult treatment options. This is not a nerdy point. This is vital.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2

That was written 14 years ago, but that last paragraph is more relevant now than it ever was.

[Gnomicide]

Interesting thread, it is something I've been thinking about this year particularly when reading about anti-lockdown gubbins going on in Glastonbury town.

My own view is that the crystal waving, gong banging protagonists are similar to the people running the church locations on site. I'm sure a lot of people get a great deal of comfort from it and as long as they don't try to push their views on people, let them get on with it.

The problem with both religion and "alternative healing" is that they can cause a great deal of harm in the hands of some people, particularly towards more vulnerable, gullible people.

Big fan of the view that people questioning an alternative point of view are nazis.

[kalifire]

3 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

There are obviously huge benefits to positive thinking, so if these things help people manifest these positive thoughts then so be it. 

Yes. If it people find that doing something for which there's no objective evidence is helpful, what's the problem? Truth isn't a pre-requisite for value, and the placebo effect can be a powerful thing. Look at prayer - what's that if not the mindful focus of positive thoughts? There's never been any evidence that it actually achieves anything, but it's a powerful ritual indulged in by billions.

In terms of all the alternative, counter-culture stuff being present at Glastonbury, surely that's exactly where it belongs. As long as people aren't proselytizing or using it to exploit people for money (step forward, Noel Edmonds), I don't see the issue.

[gizmoman]

6 hours ago, DeanoL said:

I'm not necessarily saying it should go - I started this thread to have the discussion. I do find it sort of interesting that many of those defending it are reacting to the idea of it being replaced far more stridently than when the inevitable "tear down the dance village and replace it with something better" threads turn up. Even for those that find it harmless, or even actively interesting, shouldn't be still be able to discuss if it's a good use of space? Is being inoffensive enough?

I still don't buy the idea that it's not harmful though. And it's not just about vaccines. The "when will this shit end" thread features people constantly criticising the government's response to coronavirus. for ignoring the science and instead just doing what they think is best, or acting out of their own self interest. And part of the reason they get away with that is because of idea that the medicine and science isn't always right. Because the scientists says homeopathy doesn't work, but I know it does work, so when the scientists say I shouldn't meet my family indoors, I know better about that too.

That's the grim reality for me: had alternative medicine not taken off so much in this country over the last ten years, had we properly regulated it and pushed back against it and certainly not made some of it part of the NHS (because it works as a placebo) then compliance with lockdown would have been higher and fewer people would have been dead. And I'm aware you can say that about a lot of things (had we actually funded the NHS, fewer would be dead, etc). 

It's not really about whether these people take the vaccine or not (although I'd argue if they refuse it they shouldn't be treated by the NHS should they catch COVID), it's about the overall mindset that it all encourages:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2

That was written 14 years ago, but that last paragraph is more relevant now than it ever was.

"And part of the reason they get away with that is because of idea that the medicine and science isn't always right." - it's not, science is constantly evolving and re-examining existing beliefs, the other point is the influence of the big pharma companies, there are many examples of their bad behaviour, they simply can't be trusted to be honest and impartial, they have products to sell. There are logical reasons to be sceptical of them.

"(although I'd argue if they refuse it they shouldn't be treated by the NHS should they catch COVID)" - Why? because they have put themselves in a position of danger? By that logic you wouldn't treat skydivers who land hard, mountain climbers who fall, or, more festi related, people who overdose on illegal drugs, they took the risk so by your logic they should pay for their treatment. You need to accept that other people have different views to you and they have the right to their beliefs no matter how much you disagree. Unless someone's else's beliefs are having a direct negative effect on you then you have no justification in trying to restrict their freedoms.

[MrZigster]

Attended a Marcus Brigstocke Cabaret performance where he suggested The Healing Fields should be renamed "The Field of Lies". Got a big laugh from the majority of people in there.

And Josh Widdicombe joked on The Last Leg this Friday (referencing the cancellation) that it should be held to account as it's obviously not working.

Like others, I personally find it a great place to go should you need a break from it all to chill out and/or a bit of peace and quiet. And I always try to fit in a massage at some point each festival. A good one feels like a proper workout, except you just lie there and let someone else stretch your muscles for you.

[guypjfreak]

It really annoys me when you see these anti vaccine no masks people.. They had a rally down here and put two old bill in the covid wards... Its like smoking.. If you believe its OK crack on but not in my face.. 

I suppose those 300 ravers last night were hoping that a very special type of crystal would keep them safe lol... 

[DeanoL]

13 hours ago, gizmoman said:

"And part of the reason they get away with that is because of idea that the medicine and science isn't always right." - it's not, science is constantly evolving and re-examining existing beliefs, the other point is the influence of the big pharma companies, there are many examples of their bad behaviour, they simply can't be trusted to be honest and impartial, they have products to sell. There are logical reasons to be sceptical of them.

Yeah, the tactics used by the less scrupulous alternative medicine people and those used by big pharma are pretty much similar / exactly the same : misrepresenting trial data, leaning on publication bias, badly conducted trials, etc. In many cases big pharma is just as anti-science as the alt medicine lot. I've never claimed they were entirely science-driven either and if GlaxoSmithKline had a field at Glastonbury I'd probably be moaning about that as well.  

Quote

"(although I'd argue if they refuse it they shouldn't be treated by the NHS should they catch COVID)" - Why? because they have put themselves in a position of danger? By that logic you wouldn't treat skydivers who land hard, mountain climbers who fall, or, more festi related, people who overdose on illegal drugs, they took the risk so by your logic they should pay for their treatment. You need to accept that other people have different views to you and they have the right to their beliefs no matter how much you disagree. Unless someone's else's beliefs are having a direct negative effect on you then you have no justification in trying to restrict their freedoms.

People are breaking the lockdown rules and not wearing masks. They're then going out and spreading COVID to other people, and those people are dying. Some of those people are people I know. Personally I consider the death of my family members to be at least a minor negative effect on me, and they would probably argue it was a pretty negative effect on them.