2,024 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by distantcousin on Sept 9, 2020 10:25:54 GMT
That seems like a good idea, but as a provisional date it can still all go tits-up so I'm not really sure what great benefit there is with that provisional date. Anything can change at any time, so to say "why bother" because of that is basically an argument that no-one should ever plan anything in advance, which is nonsense. Having a date allows the relevant people and companies to allocate resources and justify spending so that they can get their venues and shows prepared. If they are then allowed to open, great, if not, then at least they can in some aspects be ready at shorter notice later on. Far from it. He is the only one being realistic and levelling with the public about the graveness of the situation.
No politician is going to do that - too much to lose - they want to be voted back in.
|
|
2,024 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by distantcousin on Sept 9, 2020 10:29:24 GMT
committees.parliament.uk/event/1878/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/The main push from Lloyd-Webber seems to be for a provisional normal re-opening date, so that events can plan to be ready to go on that date. That seems like a good idea, but as a provisional date it can still all go tits-up so I'm not really sure what great benefit there is with that provisional date. Government has no idea what will be happening in November - its up to the virus, how well umpteen other countries control their virus, and the behaviour of the people here spreading it.
Its a particularly silly demand for ALW to be making this week of all weeks when its becoming clear that things could go either way, and do it quickly - as with the current number of infections going up by a factor of two in days. And its more silly of him , when it may soon may become clear that relaxing on schools, universities and offices, at the same time, may be crassly irresponsible. We may already be relaxing too much. The demand only makes sense as an insurance ploy to trigger the insurance if the government changes the date , But what insurer is going to risk his money on the high probability of a second wave being avoided?
Nothing is going to make theatre safe enough - unless you go outdoors , or properly socially distance ,and mask and ventilate , or the vaccine turns up. And until the vaccine arrives , the audience may just not risk it, and the tourists will be absent.
The problem isn't helped by the suggestion in the Sunday papers that government is looking at a date in November when testing will replace distancing. This seems nonsensical as the testing capacity is struggling with the admin burden and unpredictability of existing testing demand - even when the capacity has reached 170k a day - which is more than almost any other country. With NHS staff , care staff , care home residents , teachers and pupils all arguing they should have regular tests , there's just not going to be the capacity to add tens of thousands of theatre goers daily. With current testing you also miss the developing cases- so testing beforehand doesn't keep the virus out , and getting the results back to the theatres would mean testing at too early a date to catch the virus. You would need almost instant testing that picked up transmissible levels of infection and ask people to come in the day or hours before to be tested , and then socially distance the testing queue and isolate the people in the queue and the testing staff if you found a case. It can't be done now, and it may never work.
The question is why the government might propose it, when they are simultaneously ruling out testing as an alternative for airline passengers . it looks like right hand and left hand having no brain to co-ordinate them, or a defective one..
All I can get from your posts is "coulds", "mights" and extreme level of risk aversion. We will never get back to normal if everyone adopts this attitude.
And theatre can be more or less kissed goodbye.
Huge cognitive dissonance going on in society right now regarding the lives vs the economy.
The economy IS life.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 9, 2020 11:21:07 GMT
Government has no idea what will be happening in November - its up to the virus, how well umpteen other countries control their virus, and the behaviour of the people here spreading it.
Its a particularly silly demand for ALW to be making this week of all weeks when its becoming clear that things could go either way, and do it quickly - as with the current number of infections going up by a factor of two in days. And its more silly of him , when it may soon may become clear that relaxing on schools, universities and offices, at the same time, may be crassly irresponsible. We may already be relaxing too much. The demand only makes sense as an insurance ploy to trigger the insurance if the government changes the date , But what insurer is going to risk his money on the high probability of a second wave being avoided?
Nothing is going to make theatre safe enough - unless you go outdoors , or properly socially distance ,and mask and ventilate , or the vaccine turns up. And until the vaccine arrives , the audience may just not risk it, and the tourists will be absent.
The problem isn't helped by the suggestion in the Sunday papers that government is looking at a date in November when testing will replace distancing. This seems nonsensical as the testing capacity is struggling with the admin burden and unpredictability of existing testing demand - even when the capacity has reached 170k a day - which is more than almost any other country. With NHS staff , care staff , care home residents , teachers and pupils all arguing they should have regular tests , there's just not going to be the capacity to add tens of thousands of theatre goers daily. With current testing you also miss the developing cases- so testing beforehand doesn't keep the virus out , and getting the results back to the theatres would mean testing at too early a date to catch the virus. You would need almost instant testing that picked up transmissible levels of infection and ask people to come in the day or hours before to be tested , and then socially distance the testing queue and isolate the people in the queue and the testing staff if you found a case. It can't be done now, and it may never work.
The question is why the government might propose it, when they are simultaneously ruling out testing as an alternative for airline passengers . it looks like right hand and left hand having no brain to co-ordinate them, or a defective one..
All I can get from your posts is "coulds", "mights" and extreme level of risk aversion. We will never get back to normal if everyone adopts this attitude.
And theatre can be more or less kissed goodbye.
Huge cognitive dissonance going on in society right now regarding the lives vs the economy.
The economy IS life.
It's an almost impossible Catch 22. Yes the economy is life, but the economy isn't worth much if in order for it to work the virus spreads, numbers shoot up, we end up back in lockdown which will tank the economy further. In fact, the only modicum of sympathy I have for this Government (and believe me, it isn't much) is in how it is impossible to reconcile the two irrevocable facts that: A.) The economy needs to get going again and B.) If we open things up to get the economy going to a large extent, the virus spreads and we end up where we were months ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 14:41:25 GMT
Anything can change at any time, so to say "why bother" because of that is basically an argument that no-one should ever plan anything in advance, which is nonsense. Having a date allows the relevant people and companies to allocate resources and justify spending so that they can get their venues and shows prepared. If they are then allowed to open, great, if not, then at least they can in some aspects be ready at shorter notice later on. Far from it. He is the only one being realistic and levelling with the public about the graveness of the situation.
No politician is going to do that - too much to lose - they want to be voted back in.
I'm not sure why you are arguing against me given I am agreeing with ALW and you seem to be too... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 14:44:03 GMT
All I can get from your posts is "coulds", "mights" and extreme level of risk aversion. We will never get back to normal if everyone adopts this attitude.
And theatre can be more or less kissed goodbye.
Huge cognitive dissonance going on in society right now regarding the lives vs the economy.
The economy IS life.
It's an almost impossible Catch 22. Yes the economy is life, but the economy isn't worth much if in order for it to work the virus spreads, numbers shoot up, we end up back in lockdown which will tank the economy further. In fact, the only modicum of sympathy I have for this Government (and believe me, it isn't much) is in how it is impossible to reconcile the two irrevocable facts that: A.) The economy needs to get going again and B.) If we open things up to get the economy going to a large extent, the virus spreads and we end up where we were months ago. Except you are assuming that (a) the virus will spread the same way; and (b) it will have the same severe consequences in terms of sheer numbers of deaths as it did in March. The number of new cases now has to be seen in the context of an entirely different testing regime to the one we had in March, and it is equally important to look at the number of hospital admissions, which are low. This is not a situation akin to March, and the re-opening of the economy has to be seen and moved forward in that context, not an unfounded assumption that a second wave will be as bad as the first. |
|
2,504 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 9, 2020 15:29:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by marcellus on Sept 9, 2020 15:49:08 GMT
It's an almost impossible Catch 22. Yes the economy is life, but the economy isn't worth much if in order for it to work the virus spreads, numbers shoot up, we end up back in lockdown which will tank the economy further. In fact, the only modicum of sympathy I have for this Government (and believe me, it isn't much) is in how it is impossible to reconcile the two irrevocable facts that: A.) The economy needs to get going again and B.) If we open things up to get the economy going to a large extent, the virus spreads and we end up where we were months ago. Except you are assuming that (a) the virus will spread the same way; and (b) it will have the same severe consequences in terms of sheer numbers of deaths as it did in March. The number of new cases now has to be seen in the context of an entirely different testing regime to the one we had in March, and it is equally important to look at the number of hospital admissions, which are low. This is not a situation akin to March, and the re-opening of the economy has to be seen and moved forward in that context, not an unfounded assumption that a second wave will be as bad as the first. Hospital admissions for Covid in England doubled between Monday 31st August and Monday 7th September. |
|
4,994 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 9, 2020 16:10:59 GMT
Except you are assuming that (a) the virus will spread the same way; and (b) it will have the same severe consequences in terms of sheer numbers of deaths as it did in March. The number of new cases now has to be seen in the context of an entirely different testing regime to the one we had in March, and it is equally important to look at the number of hospital admissions, which are low. This is not a situation akin to March, and the re-opening of the economy has to be seen and moved forward in that context, not an unfounded assumption that a second wave will be as bad as the first. Hospital admissions for Covid in England doubled between Monday 31st August and Monday 7th September. Makes me wonder how much Eat out to help out 'helped' the economy (both short and longterm) and also the recent rise in infections |
|
1,827 posts
|
Post by stevej678 on Sept 9, 2020 17:03:18 GMT
I guess The Lowry is being used for the indoor trial if it's happening in Salford. |
|
5,160 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 26, 2020 12:59:17 GMT
I'm going slightly off-topic (which isn't at all like me 🙂), but the news that Manchester is to get a new 23,500 capacity arena, at a cost of £350 million, is surely a massive vote of confidence in live entertainment. www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-54286498 |
|
4,994 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 26, 2020 13:19:41 GMT
I'm going slightly off-topic (which isn't at all like me 🙂), but the news that Manchester is to get a new 23,500 capacity arena, at a cost of £350 million, is surely a massive vote of confidence in live entertainment. www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-54286498I don't know the city very well but does it need two venues with similar seating capacity so close to each other? Back to Covid, I guess in 4-5 years most things will be back to normal and folk will be paying astronomical prices to look at video screens from afar... |
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 26, 2020 17:35:21 GMT
|
|
5,160 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 26, 2020 17:59:41 GMT
While we're on the subject, BurlyBeaR, how is The Factory coming along? Can't be far off being finished. |
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 26, 2020 19:34:39 GMT
|
|
4,994 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 27, 2020 7:58:29 GMT
So much creativity around at the moment from some venues, shame it's not from all.
Ive got friends in Glasgow who loved the paired down La Boheme with orchestra. An other in London at the drive in La Bohome with orchestra and chorus.
This weekend I was streaming from Southwark and Bristol and soon it will be Nottingham.
Monologues are a good way of testing the water and I'm sure the NT's panto will test the format somemore along with Southwark Playhouse and Hope Mill. Bravo to them for having a go and giving us some much needed culture in these strange times.
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Sept 27, 2020 21:26:51 GMT
All I can get from your posts is "coulds", "mights" and extreme level of risk aversion. We will never get back to normal if everyone adopts this attitude.
And theatre can be more or less kissed goodbye.
Huge cognitive dissonance going on in society right now regarding the lives vs the economy.
The economy IS life.
It's an almost impossible Catch 22. Yes the economy is life, but the economy isn't worth much if in order for it to work the virus spreads, numbers shoot up, we end up back in lockdown which will tank the economy further. In fact, the only modicum of sympathy I have for this Government (and believe me, it isn't much) is in how it is impossible to reconcile the two irrevocable facts that: A.) The economy needs to get going again and B.) If we open things up to get the economy going to a large extent, the virus spreads and we end up where we were months ago. Its not even the final choice. if the virus is running ,at present Bolton rates even, nationwide , there's going to be on average of 2 people with it in a 1000 seat audience , and more if you allow that that's only the detected rate, and you have people infected for 3 days before any symptoms, and people with no symptoms who haven't been detected in Bolton. Allow it to get to 50,000 daily cases nationally, by mid October, and you could have an average of about 7 actively nfectious people in any 1000 seater audience- more if they are infectious for more than 7 days. . Add on the risk from people in the train, tube,or restaurant you sit near, on route, and you will get what you had, even before lockdown. The sensible public will lock down and stay at home anyway. Te bottom line is that there is no choice between the economy and suppressing the virus. If you don't control it and reduce the risk it kills the economy anyway. |
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Sept 27, 2020 21:47:30 GMT
It's an almost impossible Catch 22. Yes the economy is life, but the economy isn't worth much if in order for it to work the virus spreads, numbers shoot up, we end up back in lockdown which will tank the economy further. In fact, the only modicum of sympathy I have for this Government (and believe me, it isn't much) is in how it is impossible to reconcile the two irrevocable facts that: A.) The economy needs to get going again and B.) If we open things up to get the economy going to a large extent, the virus spreads and we end up where we were months ago. Except you are assuming that (a) the virus will spread the same way; and (b) it will have the same severe consequences in terms of sheer numbers of deaths as it did in March. The number of new cases now has to be seen in the context of an entirely different testing regime to the one we had in March, and it is equally important to look at the number of hospital admissions, which are low. This is not a situation akin to March, and the re-opening of the economy has to be seen and moved forward in that context, not an unfounded assumption that a second wave will be as bad as the first. Sadly no The virus is now spreading 60% of the time among the 17-24 cohort, who may get a lighter attack, or an asymptomatic one. Thats the only reason hospitalisation rates have risen more slowly - and death rates come with a 2 to 3 week lag or more from infection so we haven't seen the results in deaths yet. There's no change in the virus's lethality. As more people get it, it inevitably gets access to and starts killing the older cohorts. Its already doing so, And, along the way, it kills some of the youngest people, and leaves others sick for life.
The new treatments, like dexamethasone , may cut a fifth of hospitalised death rates, but the other 80% will be just as dead , and a 60% survival rate isn't much of a prospect if you are wheeled into intensive care. The first wave was contained and eventually slowed to a minor level by lockdown. There's zero reason why a second wave without similar degrees of lockdown wouldn't cause similar or higher casualties - indeed fear of getting close to that is driving lockdowns in areas of France and Spain. The Israeli experience with a much more serious second wave - even with masks and distancing - m suggests that once the virus gets going , it takes a lot more drastic action to stop it. Stopping the rise now is essential, and that precludes loosening lockdown any more, and it means rolling back on ideas like back to the office, and probably repealing the stupid move to send students back on to campus.
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Sept 27, 2020 22:02:24 GMT
So much creativity around at the moment from some venues, shame it's not from all. Ive got friends in Glasgow who loved the paired down La Boheme with orchestra. An other in London at the drive in La Bohome with orchestra and chorus. This weekend I was streaming from Southwark and Bristol and soon it will be Nottingham. Monologues are a good way of testing the water and I'm sure the NT's panto will test the format somemore along with Southwark Playhouse and Hope Mill. Bravo to them for having a go and giving us some much needed culture in these strange times. Wish there was a better streaming answer . Things come and go, some excellent. But they go, and seem to fail to meet their potential demand and money raising potential, by becoming unviewable after 1 or 2 showings. I can see rights issues for shows , but it would be nice if the people putting out many streaming shows could produce more output and pay for it by letting people pay to view it for more time.
If shows are difficult, can we have more single cabarets and duets or play readings? Do we need an economical technical way of doing this and getting the needed bandwidth and capacity ? Or is it just a fact that even the best MT performers or actors even with thousands or tens, or hundreds of of thousands of twitter followers, don't produce a big enough audience to merit more online shows? its notable that the number of world class cabarets being done has declined over time, when there's a lot more potential subjects and many people who are capable of doing more than one show. If there is a bigger audience why is it not being realized- return on money or technology?
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 29, 2020 10:40:22 GMT
Streaming just isn’t the same as a live in-person performance.
There’s no getting around it. Cinema screenings were always second best but better than nothing. Watching something on a laptop screen is not as good as a cinema screening (even if you hook the laptop up to a TV screen).
I think perhaps we forget that people who make television programmes are very good at their jobs, and know how to do it in a way that grabs an audience sitting in their living rooms surrounded by distractions.* People who make Theatre are very good at grabbing the attention of an audience who are sat in the same room with them, which they can control the atmospherics of. They are different skillsets.
*There’s a reason why daytime TV is in short 5-minute segments with frequent recaps - it’s made to be easy to follow for people who are doing something else at the same time (looking after children, doing housework). There’s a reason why adverts are louder than the programmes, and use catchy music - advertisers know that you get up to make a cup of tea/go to the loo/wander out of the room during the ad break. There’s a million and one things baked into TV formats that make them successful for home viewing that theatre doesn’t have.
|
|
4,032 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Sept 29, 2020 12:28:32 GMT
Watching something on a laptop screen is not as good as a cinema screening (even if you hook the laptop up to a TV screen). Isn't that a matter of personal preference? I'd rather watch something on my laptop than at a cinema. I've never been much of a cinema fan. The volume is usually too loud for my taste & I find close-ups when faces are shown many times larger than life to be somewhat disconcerting. And that's before going into the annoyance of being surrounded by other people (often eating & drinking) vs being able to be on my own in my bedroom. |
|
355 posts
|
Post by properjob on Sept 29, 2020 20:52:08 GMT
I keep finding myself getting more and more distracted during streamed shows now the novelty has worn off. I find it helps to turn the lights off and I might have to start turning my phone off or leaving it in another room or threaten to report myself to the bad behaviour thread.
I saw a matinee and an evening show of the Talking Heads at the bridge (so 4 monologues in total). Two out of the four I had already watched TV version but I found the live versions so much better as I found myself much more closely engaged.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 29, 2020 22:16:08 GMT
Watching something on a laptop screen is not as good as a cinema screening (even if you hook the laptop up to a TV screen). Isn't that a matter of personal preference? I'd rather watch something on my laptop than at a cinema. I've never been much of a cinema fan. The volume is usually too loud for my taste & I find close-ups when faces are shown many times larger than life to be somewhat disconcerting. And that's before going into the annoyance of being surrounded by other people (often eating & drinking) vs being able to be on my own in my bedroom. Of course personal preference will play a part. I am happy for you that you are able to enjoy the streaming experience. But, respectfully, I don't think your preference is the typical one. You have told us many times about your phobia and how it affects your behaviour and comfort level in public places - I suspect that your preference will be predicated in part upon the effect of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 1:25:10 GMT
Isn't that a matter of personal preference? I'd rather watch something on my laptop than at a cinema. I've never been much of a cinema fan. The volume is usually too loud for my taste & I find close-ups when faces are shown many times larger than life to be somewhat disconcerting. And that's before going into the annoyance of being surrounded by other people (often eating & drinking) vs being able to be on my own in my bedroom. Of course personal preference will play a part. I am happy for you that you are able to enjoy the streaming experience. But, respectfully, I don't think your preference is the typical one. You have told us many times about your phobia and how it affects your behaviour and comfort level in public places - I suspect that your preference will be predicated in part upon the effect of that. I suspect for many people not being surrounded by noisy patrons in a cinema is a huge plus of streaming at home. That and the fact the gin/wine/tipple of choice can very easily be re-filled. I miss live theatre, but I don't miss the cinema at all. |
|
4,032 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Sept 30, 2020 12:15:27 GMT
Of course personal preference will play a part. I am happy for you that you are able to enjoy the streaming experience. But, respectfully, I don't think your preference is the typical one. You have told us many times about your phobia and how it affects your behaviour and comfort level in public places - I suspect that your preference will be predicated in part upon the effect of that. Given the extremely extensive Bad Behaviour thread we have on the board, I don't think my dislike of people eating/drinking/chatting/moving around mid-performance is unusual or can entirely be put down to my having Asperger's & OCD. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 1, 2020 10:45:37 GMT
Awesome. So we’re not finding that streaming theatre is struggling to find the same audience as cinema screenings and live performance pre-lockdown, then.
Great, no worries for anyone in the theatre industry - everything can just move to streaming to get the money in and keep people employed.
No?
(Yes, I’m feeling sarcastic today.)
|
|
