Jump to content

Music Festivals given go ahead from late May...


Chrisp1986
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Simsy said:

You're saying what I'm thinking. If they don't bring in vaccine passports until everyone (or at least all adults) has been offered a jab, and if uptake remains high, there's not much point using them domestically. We should have enough people jabbed to reach herd immunity.

Even when everyone has been offered a jab not everyone will have had one some people can't have it and they'll have the alternative of proving themselves safe with a test

6 minutes ago, Simsy said:

Completely understand if they're brought in for international travel. It's going to be years before the virus is suppressed globally, so proving your vax status to get into a country (and avoid quarantine when returning to UK) makes sense.

Yes if they're going to exist tonascess other countries it makes sense to make use of them internally where they can be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As they're being mooted mostly for indoor places the benefit is allowing access to indoor places in weaver watt than would otherwise be the case and not scientifically aquestiosble there's plenty of science to back up the limited effectiveness of vaccines and that transmission happens easier in enclosed spaces.getting life back to more normal isn't pointless. Were all desperate to get back to normal if we can. And this would help us take a bg step we can't safely take otherwise.

 

I think you've misunderstood what I'm trying (perhaps failing!) to say, Neil. I understand that the imposition of passports could be used as a tool to reopen different forms of venues. I'm saying that, scientifically, by the time they're introduced, their actual usefulness in disease control and prevention, given the U.K. trajectory and the sole justification of restrictions (health service protection) would be negligible. 

There will undoubtedly be a rise in cases with every step of unlocking. There 'should not' be a corresponding, unmanageable rise in hospitalisation and death, given the % of vulnerable vaccinated and the ongoing rise in general population protection. 

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bennyhana22 said:

I think you've misunderstood what I'm trying (perhaps failing!) to say, Neil. I understand that the imposition of passports could be used as a tool to reopen different forms of venues. I'm saying that, scientifically, by the time they're introduced, their actual usefulness in disease control and prevention, given the U.K. trajectory and the sole justification of restrictions (health service protection) would be negligible. 

 

 

Stopping cases rising again and the associated deaths from that isn't negligable

It's better we test unlocking in the safest ways we can than go too easy and regret it further lockdowns aren't reallyan option for control In the future

Just now, bennyhana22 said:

 

 

 

 



There will undoubtedly be a rise in cases with every step of unlocking. There 'should not' be a corresponding, unmanageable rise in hospitalisation and death, given the % of vulnerable vaccinated and the ongoing rise in general population protection. 

Ben

We know the vaccine isn't perfect if it proves better than current assumptions then vaccinpasslorts stop being as useful. And can be abandoned asap no on will want them to hang around when it needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

My argument would be, internally, by say, mid-July on current domestic trajectory, what is that 'benefit'? Any perceived safety benefit will be cosmetic at best and highly scientifically questionable at worst. 

Vaccine passports for being able to travel across borders where infection and vaccination rates may differ hugely from your own country? Sensible. 

 

 

The benefit is lowering risk and fears of risk

2 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

 

 


Vaccine passports to be allowed to move and mingle within your own borders? Utterly pointless. 

Ben

Not pointless they lessen risk within things people like to do. And allow people's jobs to restart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

The benefit is lowering risk and fears of risk

Not pointless they lessen risk within things people like to do. And allow people's jobs to restart.

Again, you're slightly misrepresenting what I'm saying, Neil. They only allow people's jobs to restart if the govt decide to impose them in order for people's jobs to restart. That and a scientific need for the passports are not necessarily the same thing...

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bennyhana22 said:

Again, you're slightly misrepresenting what I'm saying, Neil. They only allow people's jobs to restart if the govt decide to impose them in order for people's jobs to restart. That and a scientific need for the passports are not necessarily the same thing...

Ben

Riim not trying to misrepresent you I'm trying to counter what you are saying quite vaguely you talk about science without being explicit with what you're referring to so I have to take a guess at itrightright from the start there's Been the idea that big gatherings are more risky that doesn't appear to be the case from the facts of things which have happened people have tried too pin things on Cheltenham and failed. People won't feel comfortable to attend events like that without extra safeguards in place and passports can be that extra safeguards? Without people feeling comfortable to attend there is no job to restart.there is no scientific need not to catch the virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eFestivals said:

Ben you'd have loved an argument aboubout compulsory seartbelts the science was against them.the lives saved since shows that science as tosh.

Ha! Yeah I get you, of course. I'm not saying they don't have their uses, and if one of those is to increase public confidence and so facilitate an earlier and more successful recovery for the entertainment and hospitality sectors, then it's a no-brainer. My frustration is two-fold: (a) I don't believe that, medically, they will have a material impact by the time they're introduced and (b) I just cannot see this bunch of chumps doing anything other than making an absolute fuck-up of their development and implementation!

Ben
x

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

The point is that by mid-July there will be no justifiable 'need' to restrict activity for people being close together, any more than for any other infectious disease. We will not achieve zero COVID anymore than we will achieve zero any other infection. By mid-summer, the risk on a population level in terms of quantitative and qualitative impact on the NHS 'should' be negligible compared to, say, sepsis. 

Therefore, no justification. And anti-COVID measures in hospital cannot be described simply as 'a failure'. In the initial stages of the pandemic, we were shit. Now, we're not. Trust me, I spend all day every day making sure that we're not...

Ben

This 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

I'm saying that, scientifically, by the time they're introduced, their actual usefulness in disease control and prevention, given the U.K. trajectory and the sole justification of restrictions (health service protection) would be negligible. 

There will undoubtedly be a rise in cases with every step of unlocking. There 'should not' be a corresponding, unmanageable rise in hospitalisation and death, given the % of vulnerable vaccinated and the ongoing rise in general population protection. 

I assumed they were going to cover the "iffy" period between opening up the highest risk mass events on 21st June and either the end of July when everyone has had 1st dose or September time when everyone has gone through twice. That will be when we know that there definitely isn't an unmanageable increase in hospitalisation rates. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

My argument would be, internally, by say, mid-July on current domestic trajectory, what is that 'benefit'? Any perceived safety benefit will be cosmetic at best and highly scientifically questionable at worst. 

Vaccine passports for being able to travel across borders where infection and vaccination rates may differ hugely from your own country? Sensible. 

Vaccine passports to be allowed to move and mingle within your own borders? Utterly pointless. 

Ben

Best go apply for an opening on Downing St’s Pr team cause theyll hire you straight away. 
 

We can get into the whole insurance side of things, but you’ll likely say its a bunch of shite. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Could also get into the whole thing of you living in a country that has a lot more surveillance than others outside of China or Russia. Better go back to flip phones if you think freedoms are being infringed upon.

Edited by Suprefan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

Best go apply for an opening on Downing St’s Pr team cause theyll hire you straight away. 
 

We can get into the whole insurance side of things, but you’ll likely say its a bunch of shite. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Could also get into the whole thing of you living in a country that has a lot more surveillance than others outside of China or Russia. Better go back to flip phones if you think freedoms are being infringed upon.

Yeah @bennyhana22, ya massive Tory!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

Ha! Yeah I get you, of course. I'm not saying they don't have their uses, and if one of those is to increase public confidence and so facilitate an earlier and more successful recovery for the entertainment and hospitality sectors, then it's a no-brainer. My frustration is two-fold: (a) I don't believe that, medically, they will have a material impact by the time they're introduced and (b) I just cannot see this bunch of chumps doing anything other than making an absolute fuck-up of their development and implementation!

Ben
x

While paying their mates a hefty fucking fortune to implement it. Probably before aborting their efforts and using software that’s already available. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Suprefan said:

Best go apply for an opening on Downing St’s Pr team cause theyll hire you straight away. 
 

We can get into the whole insurance side of things, but you’ll likely say its a bunch of shite. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Could also get into the whole thing of you living in a country that has a lot more surveillance than others outside of China or Russia. Better go back to flip phones if you think freedoms are being infringed upon.

Without being that guy, and in no way intending to be discourteous, old pal, are you fucking joking?!

Ben
x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, gibble said:

... and they've cited the lack of government support as the reason for cancellation. I'm hoping it's not the case but I guess a lot of others will follow.

I can foresee a mid-late summer littered with festival organisers wistfully reflecting on the fact that they could have run their events, but the shameful lack of govt underwriting just left them in such a precarious position that they had to pull the plug.

@Suprefan - I hope that's not tarnishing my Tory credentials in your eyes 😉

Ben

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, gibble said:

... and they've cited the lack of government support as the reason for cancellation. I'm hoping it's not the case but I guess a lot of others will follow.

 

5 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

I can foresee a mid-late summer littered with festival organisers wistfully reflecting on the fact that they could have run their events, but the shameful lack of govt underwriting just left them in such a precarious position that they had to pull the plug.

@Suprefan - I hope that's not tarnishing my Tory credentials in your eyes 😉

Ben

Totally agree, and there are more cancellations to come. Even events later in the season, into August/September will just not take the risk.
It's too much of a gamble for them, risk everything on trying to operate this year after already missing out in 2020, or play safe for 2022 and secure the long term future of their event. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

I can foresee a mid-late summer littered with festival organisers wistfully reflecting on the fact that they could have run their events, but the shameful lack of govt underwriting just left them in such a precarious position that they had to pull the plug.

@Suprefan - I hope that's not tarnishing my Tory credentials in your eyes 😉

Ben

Agreed, i know its a huge risk but I fully believe we'll have a summer full of festivals, sadly the fluidity of the situation is going to make it hard for organisers to take the risk, could the government be pressured into it like they have other things? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moovin festival is on the August bank holiday weekend but they've decided to throw a nice little all day-er mid July as 'they simply couldn't wait' till then. 

Always wanted to go Moovin as its just down the road but August bank hol is already stacked with options. Will definitely be checking this out though.

image.thumb.png.9bdd503342a36b7ce200ceab09fd2fb7.png

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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...