5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 20, 2020 21:50:42 GMT
Would being in a theatre for a shorter time be something? So maybe just an hour’s entertainment suitably priced. We know so little of how the virus is transmitted and in particular how it works in children.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jun 20, 2020 21:53:09 GMT
But the amount of kids running round, noise, chatter, not to mention the call abd response nature of panto all don't lend themselves to social distancing or wearing masks. The suggestion that social distancing will still be needed in December is ridiculous to me. We need to get back to normal life. The way this country is going, of course social distancing will still be here in December! As long as there is no vaccine, social distancing will remain.
|
|
4,603 posts
|
Post by Mark on Jun 20, 2020 22:02:43 GMT
The suggestion that social distancing will still be needed in December is ridiculous to me. We need to get back to normal life. The way this country is going, of course social distancing will still be here in December! As long as there is no vaccine, social distancing will remain. To be honest, looks like its already gone...
|
|
|
Post by marcellus on Jun 20, 2020 22:43:13 GMT
The suggestion that social distancing will still be needed in December is ridiculous to me. We need to get back to normal life. The way this country is going, of course social distancing will still be here in December! As long as there is no vaccine, social distancing will remain. December/January/February are cold and flu season - thought to be because people spend more time indoors in close proximity to one another. Covid is transmitted in much the same way as colds and flu - coughs, sneezes, inhalation of exhaled spittle droplets. So, assuming there's no rollout of a vaccine by the autumn, I'm afraid it's very likely there'll be a "second surge" of Covid in winter 2020/2021 - simultaneous with the usual flu. In the UK the NHS regularly struggles to cope in winter in the past few years, and the UK government will need to try to minimise the extra strain on it from Covid. So I know it's not what we want to hear, but it's difficult to imagine UK theatres being allowed to stay open past November/early December of this year.
|
|
4,603 posts
|
Post by Mark on Jun 21, 2020 5:52:13 GMT
We may not ever have a vaccine. We can’t just shut down every winter because it’s circulating more because then there’ll be nothing left of this country. Protect the vulnerable, sure, but the rest of us need to get on with our lives.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jun 21, 2020 6:57:42 GMT
Protect the vulnerable, sure, but the rest of us need to get on with our lives. We're all vulnerable. This disease has a mortality rate of around 1% even for healthy people. That was one of the big flaws in the government's original plan: they assumed only people with preexisting health conditions were at risk, and they were wrong. I feel that people really aren't understanding the purpose of the lockdown. It's not to protect the vulnerable. It's to prevent the healthy from spreading the disease all over the place. As far as a disease is concerned the vulnerable are literally a dead end, because once someone has succumbed to a disease they're not going to be spreading it anywhere unless they turn into a zombie. A disease depends on the least vulnerable to survive, and the people with an attitude of "I want my life back no matter what the cost in other people's deaths" are exactly what it needs. We can't stay in lockdown forever, but we also can't risk a death toll between half a million and a million in the UK. Yeah, it means life sucks a bit for a while but at least you have a life that's able to suck. It's easy not to worry when it's not your life or that of someone you know on the line, but I bet all the people here who are so dismissive of the risk would feel very differently if they were on a ventilator with a 10% chance of dying and plenty of time to think "If only I hadn't...".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 7:55:59 GMT
Protect the vulnerable, sure, but the rest of us need to get on with our lives. We're all vulnerable. This disease has a mortality rate of around 1% even for healthy people. That was one of the big flaws in the government's original plan: they assumed only people with preexisting health conditions were at risk, and they were wrong. I feel that people really aren't understanding the purpose of the lockdown. It's not to protect the vulnerable. It's to prevent the healthy from spreading the disease all over the place. As far as a disease is concerned the vulnerable are literally a dead end, because once someone has succumbed to a disease they're not going to be spreading it anywhere unless they turn into a zombie. A disease depends on the least vulnerable to survive, and the people with an attitude of "I want my life back no matter what the cost in other people's deaths" are exactly what it needs. We can't stay in lockdown forever, but we also can't risk a death toll between half a million and a million in the UK. Yeah, it means life sucks a bit for a while but at least you have a life that's able to suck. It's easy not to worry when it's not your life or that of someone you know on the line, but I bet all the people here who are so dismissive of the risk would feel very differently if they were on a ventilator with a 10% chance of dying and plenty of time to think "If only I hadn't...". That simply isn't true though, Matthew. It's not clear what precisely the mortality rate is but, assuming it's 1%, that's an overall average - the mortality rate will be much higher than that in over-90s and much lower than that in under 25s. For example, there have been around 30 deaths recorded related to Covid in the under 25s and there are 17m people in that age bracket. Whereas I saw an estimate that 1% of the entire population of people over 90 had died from the disease in the first four week period (not 1% of people over 90 who caught it, 1% of all over 90s), which is a horribly high figure. If you've got diabetes or are obese, you're at greater risk of having potentially fatal complications that if you haven't. Etc, etc. The risks vary widely, depending on some factors we understand and some that we don't yet. There is no one single steady mortality risk across the whole population. I'm not saying that means we shouldn't all be careful; but it's important not to make false statements.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jun 21, 2020 8:18:32 GMT
That simply isn't true though, Matthew. It's not clear what precisely the mortality rate is but, assuming it's 1%, that's an overall average - the mortality rate will be much higher than that in over-90s and much lower than that in under 25s. I was going by figures based on the experience in New York. It's true that there aren't precise figures available but the average mortality rate for people who are infected is 1.5% although, as you say, that includes the most vulnerable. What I can't find is the infection mortality rate strictly for people without preexisting health conditions. I've found the crude mortality rate for under-65s — 0.09% — but that includes all the people who were never infected. So it's likely to be somewhere in the 0.1% to 1% area, though probably towards the lower end of that range. But the point remains that there's no such division as "the vulnerable" and "the rest of us". There are some people who are considerably more vulnerable than others, but we're all vulnerable. Even 0.01% is a lot when you multiply it by the number of people who go to the West End in a week.
|
|
4,603 posts
|
Post by Mark on Jun 21, 2020 8:38:05 GMT
We will never know the true mortality rate as at the start, there were tens, potentially hundreds of thousands of cases which were never picked up in the UK (and everywhere else). Millions of people will be unemployed if another lockdown happens. I'm sorry, but disease is a fact of life and we really do have to just get on with it, whilst doing the best we can to "stop the spread"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 8:55:26 GMT
I think we're at a stage now where everyone will have their own perception of risk and comfort level, and we have to be kind to each other and respect the different choices we all make. For me, I am taking public transport, going to work in the office for a couple of days a week, meeting friends who share my comfort level in a non-socially distanced way, etc. When pubs and restaurants open in a couple of weeks, I'll be there like a shot and when theatres open again (and that had better be no later than autumn this year or I will properly kick off!) I will book every ticket I can get my hands on.
I completely respect people who want to or must move back to normality more slowly and I would fully support them getting the social and financial help they need for that decision. This has been a horrible, traumatic time for most people - but in different ways. For me, the trauma has been less the virus itself than its impacts and now that I can start to get past that I'm certainly going to.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Jun 21, 2020 9:27:33 GMT
But the point remains that there's no such division as "the vulnerable" and "the rest of us". There are some people who are considerably more vulnerable than others, but we're all vulnerable. Even 0.01% is a lot when you multiply it by the number of people who go to the West End in a week. That just isn't true though. There is a definite divide between the likelihood of certain groups getting a bad dose and not, and you can't deny that. That is the same reason that looking at an overall mortality rate is completely pointless. There is always going to be a risk of getting a bad dose, but the same could be said of the ordinary flu or many other viruses and diseases. People have to be allowed to determine their own risk level in that respect, and if they want to be cautious rather than sensible that is up to each individual. Provided people take appropriate precautions to minimise the risk of them spreading if asymptomatic (wearing masks in public places full stop is the easiest way to do that) then there is no reason whatsoever why people who are not in vulnerable groups cannot and should not start getting all aspects of the economy up and running again, and unfortunately like it or not it has to be for vulnerable people to decide how much they also want to join in. Having the virus as the sole focus of everything made sense a couple of months ago but it doesn't now, there are other just as alarming issues that we can't sweep aside now, whether people want to remain scared of one virus or not. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is reality.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jun 21, 2020 9:53:40 GMT
Breaking news-parts of West End to be closed to all traffic throughout the Summer so that chairs/tables can be put in streets for al fresco dining. Sounds interesting in theory.
|
|
|
Post by marcellus on Jun 21, 2020 9:57:22 GMT
We will never know the true mortality rate as at the start, there were tens, potentially hundreds of thousands of cases which were never picked up in the UK (and everywhere else). Millions of people will be unemployed if another lockdown happens. I'm sorry, but disease is a fact of life and we really do have to just get on with it, whilst doing the best we can to "stop the spread" The issue is not just the mortality rate. Between 10% and 20% of people ill with Covid become clinically "severe" and require hospitalization. With those kind of figures, a second surge will overwhelm the NHS, especially if it comes in flu season, which in turn could increase the mortality rate.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jun 21, 2020 10:12:26 GMT
Provided people take appropriate precautions to minimise the risk of them spreading if asymptomatic (wearing masks in public places full stop is the easiest way to do that) then there is no reason whatsoever why people who are not in vulnerable groups cannot and should not start getting all aspects of the economy up and running again, and unfortunately like it or not it has to be for vulnerable people to decide how much they also want to join in. I absolutely agree with that. We can't stay locked down forever. What I'm taking issue with is the idea that people are taking their own risk, and that it's OK for the less vulnerable to get back to normal while only the more vulnerable have to take precautions. It's a collective risk, and even if there was a subset of the population for which there was provably zero risk that still wouldn't justify allowing them to ignore precautions because they would still be coming into contact with people for whom the risk wasn't zero. Beating a disease requires dealing with the transmission of the disease first. I'm certain we can beat this disease. A vaccine would make it easy but we can do it without a vaccine so long as we make sure the overall reproduction rate remains below one. We can drive this down until it's extinct in the wild, just like we did with smallpox. But we can only do that by being careful to keep the reproduction rate low. The effect on the economy now is nothing compared to what it would be if we're stupid enough to let a second wave happen.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Jun 21, 2020 11:23:48 GMT
It's a collective risk, and even if there was a subset of the population for which there was provably zero risk that still wouldn't justify allowing them to ignore precautions because they would still be coming into contact with people for whom the risk wasn't zero. But no one is talking about anyone ignoring precautions - we are talking about appropriate precautions rather than paranoia. There is no reason why the vast majority of people cannot now be working, shopping and socialising with sensible hand washing precautions, some distancing between groups and wearing masks if you can't distance. If anyone wants to be more careful than that it is their choice, but it isn't necessary for the vast majority of people. And it isn't just a collective risk, it is about assessing individual risk in the round, including a risk of spreading. Not everyone comes into contact with vulnerable people - I don't. The only vulnerable people I might potentially come into contact with are people at the supermarket, who have chosen to go out. That is their risk to judge. I wash and sanitize my hands frequently and wear a mask. Beyond that, I can't and shouldn't be expected to do anything else to further lower the risk of people I don't know and can't control. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own risk level. Otherwise I see no-one, so why should I not be taking my own risk and contributing to restarting the economy where I can because I can do so, whereas others at higher risk cannot. I disagree entirely that the economic impact might be less than the impact of a second wave. The economic impact is already severe and will take years to resolve, long after people have otherwise forgotten about the virus if a treatment or vaccine is found, and I make no apology for looking at the wider picture rather than just the virus itself.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jun 21, 2020 12:04:58 GMT
Social distancing going down to one metre from Tuesday:
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 21, 2020 13:14:29 GMT
Social distancing going down to one metre from Tuesday: Well. that means none at all. Two metres translated to ‘about a metre’ for most people, it appeared, so one metre will translate to ‘not touching someone else if I can avoid it’ It’s as though England actively wants to turn out like Florida.
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Jun 21, 2020 13:38:16 GMT
Social distancing going down to one metre from Tuesday: Why does this bloody government insist on announcing policy behind a sodding paywall!? It is absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by baguette on Jun 21, 2020 13:38:21 GMT
France has worked with 1m social distancing since March and it's working OK here. There is a big emphasis on hand washing and mask wearing as well. Let's try to stay positive.
What worries me about that picture in the Telegraph is the two people have hand to hand contact (and they have terrible taste in lager as well!)
ETA Is there a UK Dept of Culture report on supporting the theatre industry due on Monday or did I dream that one?
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 21, 2020 13:48:03 GMT
France has worked with 1m social distancing since March and it's working OK here. There is a big emphasis on hand washing and mask wearing as well. Let's try to stay positive. No, let's call the government out for weak messaging - weak messaging which has already cost thousands of lives, and which will cost more before this is over. For 1m social distancing to work, we need the majority of the population to get behind wearing a mask outside their homes. From what I see outside MY home - I live in a town centre, above a pedestrians-only shopping street - that's not going to happen any time soon, even with stronger messaging from the government (and we aren't going to get stronger messaging from the government because the government's messaging is designed to give themselves plausible deniability rather than to promote public safety, but that's a separate rant). We've become such an inherently selfish society that people can't seem to be bothered to take measures that aren't simply designed to protect themselves. Respect for other people, I'm afraid, is a concept that seems to elude an awful lot of us. For a start, it's a concept that certainly eludes anyone who leaves their home right now without a mask on.
|
|
|
Post by clair on Jun 21, 2020 14:30:27 GMT
Masks should be worn inside shops, on public transport or in crowded areas but various friends working in NHS have said they don't need to be worn all the time - if out for a walk and not near others then we should be getting fresh air as well. Also I'm trying not to judge those without, yes some people are just selfish but there are many who cannot wear them constantly for health reasons, some (including me) suffer from claustrophobia and wearing a mask is extremely difficult. I wear it if in close proximity to other but certainly not if in a park or on a walk which is what I've been advised by the GP, as long as I don't cough/sneeze over someone and am not close to them that is considered to be fine.
|
|
2,548 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jun 21, 2020 14:30:36 GMT
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 21, 2020 14:46:43 GMT
various friends working in NHS have said they don't need to be worn all the time - if out for a walk and not near others then we should be getting fresh air as well. In a park or countryside well away from other people is one thing. As I said, I live in a town centre above a pedestrianised shopping street. Anybody out walking where I live without a mask has no respect for other people. It's THAT simple.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jun 21, 2020 14:48:12 GMT
Nick Hytner from The Bridge on Andrew Marr(about 52 mins in)- ‘Whole Arts sector on brink of financial ruin and without govt support,Panto season will not run...’
Optimism and positive wishful thinking on sites like this are to be applauded,but only those at the cutting edge of the industry know how bad things really are.
If the RSC’s Greg Doran is saying next March for the WE,then he must have inside information to justify such a statement.
|
|
2,277 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Jun 21, 2020 14:51:07 GMT
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jun 21, 2020 14:58:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jun 21, 2020 15:00:44 GMT
Masks should be worn inside shops, on public transport or in crowded areas but various friends working in NHS have said they don't need to be worn all the time - if out for a walk and not near others then we should be getting fresh air as well. Also I'm trying not to judge those without, yes some people are just selfish but there are many who cannot wear them constantly for health reasons, some (including me) suffer from claustrophobia and wearing a mask is extremely difficult. I wear it if in close proximity to other but certainly not if in a park or on a walk which is what I've been advised by the GP, as long as I don't cough/sneeze over someone and am not close to them that is considered to be fine. The only way people will wear masks is if it is made a fineable offence to be in public not wearing one, that is the sad truth. Advice is just that and people are ignoring it.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 21, 2020 15:16:07 GMT
Masks should be worn inside shops, on public transport or in crowded areas but various friends working in NHS have said they don't need to be worn all the time - if out for a walk and not near others then we should be getting fresh air as well. Also I'm trying not to judge those without, yes some people are just selfish but there are many who cannot wear them constantly for health reasons, some (including me) suffer from claustrophobia and wearing a mask is extremely difficult. I wear it if in close proximity to other but certainly not if in a park or on a walk which is what I've been advised by the GP, as long as I don't cough/sneeze over someone and am not close to them that is considered to be fine. The only way people will wear masks is if it is made a fineable offence to be in public not wearing one, that is the sad truth. Advice is just that and people are ignoring it. ...which in turn means people are - stupidly - cutting off their nose to spite their face, because just about the quickest way to get the rate of infection down, short of keeping everybody locked up in their homes indefinitely, is for everybody to wear a mask outside their homes. Put simply, the fewer people who wear masks, the longer it'll be before we can start thinking about setting out a concrete timeline for getting back the things we all miss.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 21, 2020 15:25:29 GMT
Signed and tweeted, and I note it's passed the threshold for a debate, which is good.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 15:33:16 GMT
Grateful to be in the company of so many theatre lovers who also are such knowledgeable epidemiologists, sociologist, and public policy analysts.
|
|