Exhibition cancellations (not much to do with that anymore!)

[Dunsignalling]

Unfortunately, I think that how soon it becomes possible and/or permitted to mount an exhibition and how soon one actually happens, may be two very different things.

 

Exhibitions, in general, need to generate a profit and rely on maximising attendance in order to do so. Social distancing as currently practiced probably makes that impossible and until something happens along to allow it to be abandoned it's unlikely to change. If your costs are unaltered and you can only physically get a third of the normal numbers through the door, the only way to make up the difference is to treble the cost of admission. 

 

I can't imagine social distancing at indoor venues being lifted without the advent of [1] a vaccine, [2] a quick and effective non-hospital treatment for all but the most vulnerable if one does contract the virus, or [3] the R number shrinking low enough for long enough (months rather than weeks). Better still, all three.

 

Whatever the government will allow in six, nine or twelve months time won't be the problem; that will be the, as yet unquantifiable, proportion of the potential clientele who remain far more cautious. At present, I'm "one of the above", and honestly don't envisage that changing for the rest of this year, though I'd love to be proven spectacularly wrong. 

 

Encouraging "us" out again will be key. Otherwise, the brutal truth is that the sums are unlikely to stack up.

 

John

Edited May 22, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[andyman7]

5 hours ago, AlexHolt said:

I think we've got to be realistic here. Just because we like toy trains doesn't mean exhibitions have to come back the moment lockdown restrictions ease/end. Sure we may want exhibitions to happen again but the reality is that its just not going to be safe enough for the foreseeable future. A number of exhibitors would be in the vulnerable category, as would a lot of the visitors. Whilst there has been progress over the last month there are still a large number of new cases per day. There could just as easily be a second wave and social gatherings such as model railway exhibitions don't do anything to help that. As much as people want exhibitions back the safety of the public takes priority over playing toy trains. 

 

Even if exhibitions did resume because organisers are desperate to get them going again, would the public feel safe? I think you'd definitely see a lot less people going to exhibitions because of the fear of contracting the virus. 

The definition of 'safe' can never be quantified. You might have an accident on the way to an exhibition but did that stop people going beforehand? In general no, because their own perception of the risk discounted that as a reason not to go. It may already be safe enough to hold an exhibition, but in the absence of any proof (and the risk that it may be otherwise), clearly peoples' confidence will be affected.

 

What I do hope is that assuming no rebound and clearer advice about what precautions should be taken and which should be relaxed, there icould be scope for smaller shows run entirely on the basis of exhibitors and attendees following appropariate advice (which of course may no longer involve a '2m' rule which is already greater than that applied in other countries). I don't disagree that safety comes ahead of toy trains, but I make the point that layout building and exhibiting involve a large range of risks (travel, power tools, lifting, electricity etc etc) yet these do not result in prohibition of said toy trains. So whilst there is no question at all of anyone (organiser, attendee or exhibitor) doing anything that they are uncomfortable with, I would not want to see such activities prohibited beyond the lifting of any comparable activity such as pubs, dining, museums etc. 

[Dunsignalling]

7 hours ago, andyman7 said:

The definition of 'safe' can never be quantified. You might have an accident on the way to an exhibition but did that stop people going beforehand? In general no, because their own perception of the risk discounted that as a reason not to go. It may already be safe enough to hold an exhibition, but in the absence of any proof (and the risk that it may be otherwise), clearly peoples' confidence will be affected.

 

What I do hope is that assuming no rebound and clearer advice about what precautions should be taken and which should be relaxed, there icould be scope for smaller shows run entirely on the basis of exhibitors and attendees following appropariate advice (which of course may no longer involve a '2m' rule which is already greater than that applied in other countries). I don't disagree that safety comes ahead of toy trains, but I make the point that layout building and exhibiting involve a large range of risks (travel, power tools, lifting, electricity etc etc) yet these do not result in prohibition of said toy trains. So whilst there is no question at all of anyone (organiser, attendee or exhibitor) doing anything that they are uncomfortable with, I would not want to see such activities prohibited beyond the lifting of any comparable activity such as pubs, dining, museums etc. 

Exactly. Exhibitions, even without taking into account any catering provision, pose very much the same problems as pubs, restaurants and museums if social distancing is necessary. Until and unless that requirement is significantly relaxed, if not removed altogether, all will have great difficulty in resuming activity in a financially viable way. 

 

For that reason, I'd expect all of them to start coming back into operation more-or-less together, when conditions allow. However, I doubt I'll be rushing down the pub the first day it reopens, just because Boris says I can, either.

 

We unconsciously apply the sort of risk analysis you describe to familiar activities, but this virus throws up factors we are not used to dealing with. Covid-19 is clearly easy to catch, hence the imposition of social distancing etc. The effects  are impossibly variable, ranging from not noticing it to dying. Individual severity is highly unpredictable outside of the groups in greatest and least danger and, to some extent, uncertain even within them.

 

Thus, our analysis of what activities may or may not be "safe" is being carried out at a very conscious level. A vaccine, even one "only" capable of preventing severe symptoms, as mooted by Woodenhead, offers a way of managing the risks, and I think that'll be the only route back to "the old normal" in so many aspects of life.

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

[roundhouse]

6 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

However, I doubt I'll be rushing down the pub the first day it reopens, just because Boris says I can, either.

 

 

I certainly will be

 

But if its too busy / crowded / long queues then I will assess the risk and probably wont go in, much as I would do with any event including shows before or after lockdown. Much the same with all the huge queues for fast food, recycling centres, supermarkets, tourist hotspots etc.

[stan williams]

People mention Warley and other large shows fall into the problem of accommodation.

How many people do Warley provide accommodation for, do you allow exhibitors from the same club

to share a room or do you have to provide single rooms for every exhibitor.?

If its the latter. look at the costs and would there be enough hotels, Premier Inns, Travel Lodges within

easy driving distance ?

In my neck of the woods there is restricted parking in carparks around businesses ie one bay left empty

between vehicles.

How many people would be prepared to pay double the price of entry, to cover the extra costs ?

 

Stan.

[stan williams]

Sadly  Wigan Finescale have announced that their exhibition this October will not go ahead.

 

Stan.

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, stan williams said:

People mention Warley and other large shows fall into the problem of accommodation.... 

 

You said all that yesterday, the situation hasn't changed since then. 

[stan williams]

For some reason, the piece I mentioned yesterday came back up when listing the cancellation of

the Wigan Show.

Maybe my ignorance of how to use the internet !!

[andyman7]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

We unconsciously apply the sort of risk analysis you describe to familiar activities, but this virus throws up factors we are not used to dealing with. Covid-19 is clearly easy to catch, hence the imposition of social distancing etc. The effects  are impossibly variable, ranging from not noticing it to dying. Individual severity is highly unpredictable outside of the groups in greatest and least danger and, to some extent, uncertain even within them.

Indeed. But I live and work in London as was on packed tubes and trains etc in February and early March where it was very prevalent. I was fortunate enough either not to catch it or indeed to have been one of those that didn't suffer symptoms. My personal attitude to the risk is very much that reasonable measures such as hand washing, no handshaking, reasonable distancing etc plus the low general prevalance of the virus outside hospitals and care homes  (certainly in and around London) means that the actual risk now (as opposed to the perceived risk) is much lower than when we were all happy to mix and meet.

 

It's a bit like poeple who don't want to get on an aeroplane after a plane crash. The fact of the crash means that statistically you are likely to be safer - but the human mind doesn't work like that. I'm not sure that the 'only' acceptable route out of this is a vaccine which may not come to pass for years if ever, when in fact a few reasonable mitigations interms of personal hygiene and behaviour in practical terms reduce what is already a minimal risk for most people to a negligiible one.

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, andyman7 said:

I'm not sure that the 'only' acceptable route out of this is a vaccine which may not come to pass for years if ever, when in fact a few reasonable mitigations interms of personal hygiene and behaviour in practical terms reduce what is already a minimal risk for most people to a negligiible one.

 

We're stuffed if "personal hygiene" is a requirement. I don't just mean smelly people - there's plenty who don't bother with hand washing after a trip to the gents.

[TEAMYAKIMA]

13 hours ago, andyman7 said:

The definition of 'safe' can never be quantified. You might have an accident on the way to an exhibition but did that stop people going beforehand? In general no, because their own perception of the risk discounted that as a reason not to go. 

 

To a great extent I agree with you on that - but with one big difference.

 

If I have to get in a car or on a train to go to an exhibition I would (subconsciously at least) way up the risk - and then go - no problem! If something happens and I die as a result - then that's life and I took that decision to go - it's my responsibility if things go wrong.

 

But if going to an exhibition gives me covid-19 I could come back and give it to my wife - and I might survive but she might not - and that would be my responsibility and my burden for the rest of my life.

 

And it would please me no end if no-one describes that as 'negative' - that's how I feel and nothing will change that.

[Legend]

Just think back 6 months . We used to complain of back packs , Parking, entrance fees , programs included in costs , nothing running on a layout . All those things pale into insignificance . Wouldn’t you give your back teeth now to go to an exhibition !   I think it will be sometime yet , regrettably .

Edited May 23, 2020 by Legend

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

We're stuffed if "personal hygiene" is a requirement. I don't just mean smelly people - there's plenty who don't bother with hand washing after a trip to the gents.

I wonder how many other nasty illnesses have reduced as a result of better hygiene and less physical contact since covid came on the scene.

 

Certainly it has helped the sexual health practitioners but that's another story.

[Gwiwer]

Hayle MRC / Duchy Railroaders virtual exhibition replacing the event scheduled for this weekend is under way.  Paypal link for use if you wish.  I feature twice in the program though the name is wrong!  We're not professionals at this game yet!!! 

 

 

https://www.paypal.me/haylemrcvirtualexhib?fbclid=IwAR1f5niklNN53_55AApxUK0eyb_cMDxO6tb-6ETb3POJ0MCkxvJEQVBc5gY

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, andyman7 said:

 

It's a bit like poeple who don't want to get on an aeroplane after a plane crash. The fact of the crash means that statistically you are likely to be safer - but the human mind doesn't work like that. I'm not sure that the 'only' acceptable route out of this is a vaccine which may not come to pass for years if ever, when in fact a few reasonable mitigations interms of personal hygiene and behaviour in practical terms reduce what is already a minimal risk for most people to a negligiible one.

Perhaps I can interest you in buying my foolproof method of winning at roulette !

If we ever needed a better public understanding of statistics then that time is now.

 

Under most circumstances the fact of a recent plane crash has no bearing one way or another on the probability of another happening in any particular succeeding period. If flying with a properly run carrier in a well regulated  regime any accident is effectively a random event and the nature of a truly random even is that the chances of it ocurring are not influenced by past occurences- hence the reference to roulette.

There can be exceptions to that such as the 737 Max or Comet 1 and the analysis of an accident may lead to a general safety improvement in a particular area but that's usually a fairly slow steady process. It won't change the risk you face whether you take a flight the day after or six months after an accident.

 

The evidence I've seen so far suggests that face masks can provide a small reduction in transmission though that's easily outweighed if people feel they're protected and therefore less diligent about social distancing. Regular hand washing a 10-20% reduction overall. Both may be important in reducing the overal transmission rate but not enough to make me prepared to enter a crowded tube carriage, pub or model ralway exhibtion unless I had no choice.  I do have a reasonably good understanding of relative risk and at the moment there is a small but statistically significant chance that any person I encounter may be infectious. At my age that carries some risk of acquiring a life changing and possibly fatal illness. When that risk becomes truly negligible then I'll recognise that but it's entirely a matter of risk management. weighing the benefit against the risk. I've had to use public transport a couple of times in the past fortnight but was able to use a route and time that minimised social contact.

 

Perception is important of course. Those who choose to drive instead after a bad train crash will certainly increase their risk of accidental death or serious injury quite significantly.

 

[RJS1977]

With regards to reopening of museums, I think that could vary depending on the type of museum. Now that people are allowed to travel to outdoor venues anywhere in England, I can see no reason why largely outdoor museums like Amberley, Weald & Downland Open Air Museum, etc can't reopen now, provided appropriate limits on the number of visitors who can enter both the site as a whole and individual buildings on the site are in place. Even indoor museums such as the NRM could reopen fairly easily, again with appropriate limits on visitor numbers.

 

Visitors to those types of museums are typically less tightly packed than those to pubs/restaurants etc.

 

Unlike temporary model railway exhibitions, these museums either own their premises or are renting them so that element of their costs remains whether they are open or closed. By contrast, a model railway exhibition only has to pay its hall hire costs if it actually takes place.

 

Though personally as a non-driver I'm still limited to places I can walk to (and back again). I would have very few qualms about catching an X40 bus to Wallingford or a stopper to Didcot (both of which are almost empty at weekends even without covid) but as things stand, those modes of transport are still officially off-limits for non-essential journeys.

[andyman7]

7 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Under most circumstances the fact of a recent plane crash has no bearing one way or another on the probability of another happening in any particular succeeding period. If flying with a properly run carrier in a well regulated  regime any accident is effectively a random event and the nature of a truly random even is that the chances of it ocurring are not influenced by past occurences- hence the reference to roulette.

 

Yes of course - I didn't include the point that particularly with air crashes (which are in any case rare events), the cause almost inveitably results in a change of operating procedure or some such which does alter the statistical probability.

The main observation that your well argued post supports is that knowledge of the current pandemic has its limitations now - but it has come on in leaps and bounds in just 3 months, and I suspect that in 3 months time there will be much more certainty about what does or deosn't cause re-infection rates to rise - not least because we have the worldwide comparison of different countries' practices and experiences. And it makes a massive difference to one's own choices depending on whether they (or someone they live with) are high-risk.

 

[caradoc]

11 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

I would have very few qualms about catching an X40 bus to Wallingford or a stopper to Didcot (both of which are almost empty at weekends even without covid) but as things stand, those modes of transport are still officially off-limits for non-essential journeys.

 

Similarly with trains; I would not hesitate, if it was allowed, to get the train from Neilston into Glasgow. I have the luxury of being able to travel off-peak, when all trains are, or rather were, booked to be 4-car Class 380 sets, and even before the pandemic I would never have anyone sat next to me.

 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

We're stuffed if "personal hygiene" is a requirement. I don't just mean smelly people - there's plenty who don't bother with hand washing after a trip to the gents.

And, having washed ones hands, exiting the gents means using the same door handle as those who didn't, quite possibly negating the effort. I've therefore been using sanitising gel after leaving for a couple of years.

 

Now we know what's involved in proper hand washing, I also wonder how effective it's been in the past.....

 

John

[RJS1977]

1 minute ago, caradoc said:

 

Similarly with trains; I would not hesitate, if it was allowed, to get the train from Neilston into Glasgow. I have the luxury of being able to travel off-peak, when all trains are, or rather were, booked to be 4-car Class 380 sets, and even before the pandemic I would never have anyone sat next to me.

 

 

Sorry, yes, the "stopper" I referred to is a train! As far as I'm concerned the only risk of picking up an infection on either is through touching an infected surface and then inadvertently touching my face (says he scratching his nose!) Personally I'd regard that risk as negligible, especially if I sat downstairs on the bus (no need to hold the handrail), worked the door buttons on the train with my elbow, and wiped the train table with a wet wipe.

 

(Incidentally I'd be even less concerned about travelling on a lightly loaded heritage train - or in a compartment carriage - as the number of passengers using it over the previous few days would be much reduced so less risk of a live virus being on a surface). 

[Dunsignalling]

10 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Similarly with trains; I would not hesitate, if it was allowed, to get the train from Neilston into Glasgow. I have the luxury of being able to travel off-peak, when all trains are, or rather were, booked to be 4-car Class 380 sets, and even before the pandemic I would never have anyone sat next to me.

 

Agreed, on my last trip into Exeter the week prior to lockdown, I shared an entire coach in a class 159 with precisely four other people.

 

Mind you, as the usual purpose of such journeys are pub lunches with friends, repeating it right now would be purely academic.

 

John

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Guest Half-full]

1 hour ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

 

To a great extent I agree with you on that - but with one big difference.

 

If I have to get in a car or on a train to go to an exhibition I would (subconsciously at least) way up the risk - and then go - no problem! If something happens and I die as a result - then that's life and I took that decision to go - it's my responsibility if things go wrong.

 

But if going to an exhibition gives me covid-19 I could come back and give it to my wife - and I might survive but she might not - and that would be my responsibility and my burden for the rest of my life.

 

And it would please me no end if no-one describes that as 'negative' - that's how I feel and nothing will change that.

Obviously no-one would want that, however the various strains of winter flu kills more people each year than COVID has during the pandemic, and can just as easily be picked up at an exhibition and passed on.  We are lucky that there are vaccines against the flu, but not every strain!

 

If we were to live our lives taking out every risk, we'd never get out of bed!

 

I had pnuemonia at the tail end of last year, about 7 weeks I was laid up.  Would I go to an exhibition in say August?  Yes, I would, even though I could be considered at risk, Im at just as much risk driving to the exhibition!

 

 

[Gwiwer]

42 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

I can see no reason why largely outdoor museums like Amberley, Weald & Downland Open Air Museum, etc can't reopen now, provided appropriate limits on the number of visitors who can enter both the site as a whole and individual buildings on the site are in place

One of the problems they face is the arrangements to enter and pay.  Most have an entry lane system of some sort which acts as both a queuing system and security check.  Not many have wide multiple entrances.  Then there is the car parking which can be tightly packed.  

 

If one restricts entry to a smaller number of people in total then alternate car park bays could be coned / taped off to avoid adjacent parking.  But then the total number paying to enter may not be sufficient to ensure revenue covers the costs of staffing.  It may be more cost-effective to have staff remain on furlough and the site closed.  In addition to which catering often supports the total budget and operation; with little or no catering option and possibly no public toilets open then the locations have little choice but to await further easing of government conditions.  

 

I cannot speak for any specific location but I know this to be a main reason why certain open-air spaces are still closed such as Kew Gardens.  

[Gwiwer]

49 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

bus ... or ... train .....  ....... as things stand, those modes of transport are still officially off-limits for non-essential journeys.

Within England not actually off-limits now but the government asks that other options for your journey be considered first.  

[Legend]

Well the key is a vaccine , but we have to accept that could be a year or two off , if at all. We may never get a vaccine . Given that , what we have to do is drive the rate of infection down  to minimal levels . So that when someone gets it we can immediately contact trace everyone that’s been in contact . Only then will the public have confidence to go out , knowing that it’s Statistically unlikely the person that’s beside you on the train or standing beside you at exhibition has it .  I think that’s the key . Despite some aspects being relaxed we are a long way from generating that level of confidence that the person beside you hasn’t got it . I’m afraid I won’t be stepping on a train or attending a public event until we have driven this disease down to minimal levels , such that any outbreak is newsworthy and not the norm.  I think we will get there , but just not for a while .