19,788 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 20, 2020 17:42:12 GMT
None of this stuff is sustainable. Sorry, it just isn’t. This virus might result in some long term changes to how we interact with eachother in public spaces, for example water fountains as lynette says. but ultimately things WILL get back to normal because it has to. It is not sustainable to temp check everyone entering a venue. It is not sustainable to disinfect toilets after every use. It is not sustainable to SD in theatres. What will and must happen is that the infection rate comes down to the point where most people can start behaving normally. The people in high risk groups will have to be managed appropriately, and will have to manage their own risk of exposure. That might mean not going to the theatre. BOOM! Sorry but It is not the theatre’s responsibility to put loads of measures in place to accommodate the few. And I say that as someone in a high risk group. Life isn’t fair. Get used to it. But don’t stop the recovery of our economy and the theatre industry because some of us are scared of catching a virus. That is nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jun 20, 2020 18:14:17 GMT
After a conversation I was part of this morning,I am now very worried that the Panto season won’t happen this year.This may well sound a death knell for many regional theatres. Sad but true!
ALW and others with ideas to re-open theatres mean well,but some ideas could turn what is meant to be a pleasurable experience into a torturous,intimidating and stressful trial.
|
|
19,788 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 20, 2020 18:27:51 GMT
Which is ridiculous because 90% of the people going to Panto are not high risk. This really is ridiculous and as much as I fear getting the virus I can see how ridiculous it is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 18:42:52 GMT
Which is ridiculous because 90% of the people going to Panto are not high risk. This really is ridiculous and as much as I fear getting the virus I can see how ridiculous it is. I really hope that as deaths continue to fall (either through fewer infections or better treatments or both), people go to shops, pubs, restaurants and realise the sky doesn't fall, and we all inch back to normality, the world will look quite different by the end of July than it does now and opening theatres will look like a no brainer. I was in Winchester today - apart from the fact that people had to sit outside with takeaway drinks and food, it looked pretty normal. We probably do need to move cautiously, but at least we are moving.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 20, 2020 18:45:25 GMT
Just reading the amusing advice to Lloyd Webber re musicals: don’t sing. Love it. Talk about clueless. But other stuff in the piece mentions covering door handles. No, missing the point. Remove door handles. Either have automatic doors everywhere or people to open them for you. Cover the doors with something that can be removed every day. Put removable covers on stair rails - cling film- yes. And this goes for all venues not just theatres of course. RIP up the carpet and have easily washable flooring with material that absorbs sound. And if I may introduce my favourite topic, automatic flush on loos. And those constant water washing fountains, no taps. I’m afraid they have to spend the cash to get the cash. Auto loos, more attendants cleaning the loos down all the time. More loos, maybe those portocabins outside to allow for more people in the older theatres. No bars, sorry, but attendants can give out drinks and eats in packages paid for with prepaid vouchers. All common sense. We can’t expect to go back to what it was like before. I’m bemused that the impresarios haven’t already put this kind of thing into action and are not showing the public what the news arrangements are. A video tour of the self flushing loo, the no tap basin and the uniformed attendant would go a long way in building confidence. And dare I say it, fewer seats in the auditoria, imaginatively arranged so you are not a million miles from the next person, grouped seating perhaps and discounts for group bookings so you can go with a bunch of pals of family as people like to do for the big shows. Smaller venues could experiment with cabaret style seating like I think some of the cinemas have been doing, with small tables and food and armchairs. What the actors do I can’t say but if a socially distanced Romeo and Juliet is not an option, then let’s have testing and health checks available every week. Mind you I did once see a production of Tristan and Isolde where the two lovers didn’t get anywhere near each other. It was terrible of course but given the talents of our directors .... Yes, BB I am actually not seeing huge changes as being for ever but small changes and I think the layout of the audience is a small one for now whereas investment in facilities and personnel is more long term, could make theatre more attractive in the short term. We hope that this virus will join the rest and be manageable, like ‘ordinary’ flu is (except for some more vulnerable people) with vaccine, better society hygiene and knowledge etc etc. I’m thinking how the wealthy part of the industry could actually spend and become very much more attractive right now. I don't think taking temperature is viable or desirable. And to be honest I am disappointed by the amount and the choice of theatre that is being shown on the telly box. It isn’t likely to increase the future audiences. But this is another point for another thread perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jun 20, 2020 19:19:37 GMT
According to BroadwayWorld,Kinky Boots playing from August-November 2020 in South Korea so some good news internationally.
|
|
2,273 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by talkingheads on Jun 20, 2020 19:57:24 GMT
Which is ridiculous because 90% of the people going to Panto are not high risk. This really is ridiculous and as much as I fear getting the virus I can see how ridiculous it is. 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.
|
|
4,805 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Jun 20, 2020 20:34:23 GMT
Which is ridiculous because 90% of the people going to Panto are not high risk. This really is ridiculous and as much as I fear getting the virus I can see how ridiculous it is. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 20:41:45 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. Also - increasing evidence that it's far less relevant for children.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 20:55:24 GMT
Which is ridiculous because 90% of the people going to Panto are not high risk. This really is ridiculous and as much as I fear getting the virus I can see how ridiculous it is. 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. Children are low risk and there is nothing to stop adults wearing masks. Funnily enough you can still speak and be heard clearly with a mask on!
|
|
5,707 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.
|
|
2,273 posts
Member is Online
|
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.
|
|
4,805 posts
Member is Online
|
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.
|
|
4,805 posts
Member is Online
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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.
|
|
4,805 posts
Member is Online
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted 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.
|
|