Jump to content
 

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


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
21 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

A self-ban would be very original. You could give the reins to Phil for a day. I am sure he won't mind at all 

 

There would be a lot more "I've been banned from RMweb" T-shirt sales.

 

22 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The sooner they change their attitude, the sooner we can get back to some sort of normality.

 

We are never going back to "some sort of normality". The virus will always exist somewhere in the world.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People classically behave in the way that they perceive to be in their own best interests, and those of their very close family (gene-line).

 

Often our perceptions of our best interests are wrong (I know mine are sometimes!) so our actions are sometimes actually against our own best interests, but we don't know that until later, when our past actions catch us out.

 

So, in this context, why do a significant number of people behave in ways that imply that they  believe their own best interests lie in continuing to do un-covid-safe things?

 

Possible answers:

 

- humans are such social animals that people genuinely believe, and in some cases may be right, that they will be "driven mad" by not socialising ............. put another way the risk to their mental health is greater than the risk to their physical wellbeing;

 

- doing the safe things threatens their livelihood, or if not quite that extreme threatens their prosperity to a significant degree;

 

- the impetuosity of youth, where especially young blokes are hard-wired to take insane risks for 'social rewards' (admiration by the opposite sex, ideally swiftly followed by sex; being looked-up to by their mates etc.);

 

- the grumpy selfishness and/or resignation of old-age ("I'm gonna die one day soon anyway, so blowed if I'm gonna be treated like a sheep in the meantime.");

 

- a proportion of 'mature adults' are genuinely very limited in their capability to calculate where their best interests lie (they don't know what's good/bad for them);

 

- at the other extreme, a very small proportion of people (one or two percent maybe) are very clever indeed, and work like cold calculating engines, who can work out their own interests, balance risks etc very finely, and have little or no empathy, so can factor-out everybody else, sometimes even including their own family;

 

- people find it hard to do covid-safe things, because they cut against our social nature, so they 'burn out' and let their guard slip.

 

The way to steer people to do what is necessary is to convince them its in their own best interests - to very nicely appeal to our selfishness, to relieve them as much as possible of concerns about threats to their sanity and prosperity, and stoke up a bit of fear of social ostracisation. 

 

To me, HMG seems to have been quite poor in working some of these angles, and I think that is because they can't quite decide what it is that they want to steer people to do, for three reasons:

 

- they are struggling to work out what is in the country's best interests, which I guess anyone would under the circumstances;

 

- they don't know how to communicate effectively with "the people on the Clapham Omnibus";

 

- the PM particularly is still too hung-up on his need to be liked/loved, and his own liberterian mindset, so finds it really painful to  instruct people to do things they won't like doing ...... he hates delivering nasty medicine, so puts it off until the last possible moment, while Nicola Sturgeon for instance seems happier to pinch your nose and shove the spoon in your mouth.

 

Sorry ...... rambling-on as a way of working thoughts through in my own head.

 

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Neil said:

Yesterday a member of parliament  was pictured on a train to Paddington without a mask; apparently having 'forgotten' to put it on.

 

The MP was of course absolutely wrong not to have worn a mask (as he himself admitted), but the concerned member of the public who photographed him (obviously without his knowledge or permission) and then publicised the photograph was not so concerned as to politely request the MP to don his mask, or if he wanted to avoid confrontation, to ask the Guard to speak to the MP or even just make an announcement. And, of course, for all the whistle-blower knew, the MP might have been exempt from mask-wearing anyway.

 

Welcome to snitchland. 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 19/09/2020 at 15:03, ardbealach said:

On holiday in a cottage last week near Glenfinnan we went down to photograph The Jacobite.  Thinking we would have the place to ourselves for a picture of it on the viaduct, this was the sight that met us.  Social distancing eh?  (AM) 

IMG_0803.jpg

IMG_0808.jpg

If you want to observe social distancing going completely out the window, try the footpath up the hillside the other side of the viaduct. Last time I visited 5 years ago, there would may be a couple of dozen people up there, mainly railway photographers. Now you can expect a couple of hundred people up there! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

People classically behave in the way that they perceive to be in their own best interests, and those of their very close family (gene-line).

 

Often our perceptions of our best interests are wrong (I know mine are sometimes!) so our actions are sometimes actually against our own best interests, but we don't know that until later, when our past actions catch us out.

 

So, in this context, why do a significant number of people behave in ways that imply that they  believe their own best interests lie in continuing to do un-covid-safe things?

 

 

 

You are so right about perceptions.

 

Each winter we hear the warnings on TV and Radio to "avoid unnecessary journeys" or "only go out for essential journeys" in periods of adverse weather.  The problem is that "unnecessary" and "essential" are both very subjective terms, is going to the pub "essential"?  Well not for me, but I know it is for others. 

 

Likewise, many activities are "necessary" for a lot of people, but not for others.

 

jch

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5944 said:

If you want to observe social distancing going completely out the window, try the footpath up the hillside the other side of the viaduct. Last time I visited 5 years ago, there would may be a couple of dozen people up there, mainly railway photographers. Now you can expect a couple of hundred people up there! 

 

Rowling's fault.  

 

424EB787-4791-4C47-B072-57F1B47C967B.gif.3bb27dbe173dbf073f93b0a751f74bbc.gif

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

The MP was of course absolutely wrong not to have worn a mask (as he himself admitted), but the concerned member of the public who photographed him (obviously without his knowledge or permission) and then publicised the photograph was not so concerned as to politely request the MP to don his mask, or if he wanted to avoid confrontation, to ask the Guard to speak to the MP or even just make an announcement. And, of course, for all the whistle-blower knew, the MP might have been exempt from mask-wearing anyway.

 

Welcome to snitchland. 

 

 

I'm sorry but your logic doesn't hold up. An MP, particularly one whose party have drawn up guidance and regulations should take extra care that they comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. If the public are to be asked to take extra care over the next six months then it's imperative that MPs also take extra care otherwise the message becomes diluted. I'd also take issue with your attempt to shift responsibility to the member of the public who took the photo when it clearly isn't theirs to bear.

  • Agree 5
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you’re both right:

 

- an MP should lead by example; and,

 

- anyone who spots anyone not following the rules should approach that person (obvious potential for danger excepted) first, rather than use ‘shaming by social media’ as a first resort.

 

In my mind, both protagonists come out of this one smelling of manure.

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

It's very silly, if just one of those sightseers has the disease now they've all got it. And for what?

There is very little transmission risk in the open air. I'm not going to say any transmission is impossible but even if one were infected the chances of contagion are small. As has emerged since March, it's not a case of touch/sneeze and you've got it - the length of exposure (longer than 15 mins is seen as getting risky) and type of exposure (outdoor, fresh air = very low risk; indoor, enclosed, close together = high).

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, andyman7 said:

it's not a case of touch/sneeze and you've got it

 

Well, it might be, because that is all it takes.

 

What limiting contact duration, being outdoors in a breeze, a decent distance apart, wearing masks, endlessly washing our hands etc does is reduce the probability that live virus will get from person A to person B in sufficient quantity ("infectious dose") to cause trouble. 
 

Put another way, you don’t have to be coughed/sneezed on for fifteen minutes by an infected person to be at significant risk of catching it from them, the first cough/sneeze could be enough, but the less time you spend with that infected person, the less likely It is that they will cough/sneeze on you before you leave.

 

Also, given the nature of probability, on rare occasions trouble will strike, even though all factors are stacked against transmission, and on other rare occasions trouble will not strike, even though all factors are stacked in favour of transmission.

 

This seems to be a good bit of background reading https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422.full

 

EDIT to add PS: The article linked to is very good partly because it talks about "aerosol transmission", transmission through tiny droplets that linger in the air like fag smoke, rather than "big" droplets. This isn't much talked about in the UK, although I did notice that one of the "chief scientists" gave passing mention of it in the scary briefing the other day, but it could well be the real preventer of things like model railway exhibitions (on-topic for a second there!).

 

Take a poorly ventilated indoor space, fill it with people, none of whom need to cough or sneeze, but some of whom will be infected but not know it, will certainly be breathing, and probably talking loudly over the hub-bub, and there will soon be a light fog of aerosols in the place, carrying the bug. Breathe a few of them in, and you are on the fast-track to being infected yourself.

 

Aerosols are much less of an issue outdoors, especially in summer, because they get dispersed on the breeze, and the bugs in them get killed fairly soon by sunlight (if I have understood correctly)., and even without sunlight they die eventually when outside the body.

 

More background here - very interesting to see detail of the debate between scientists https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02058-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neil said:

 

I'm sorry but your logic doesn't hold up. An MP, particularly one whose party have drawn up guidance and regulations should take extra care that they comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. If the public are to be asked to take extra care over the next six months then it's imperative that MPs also take extra care otherwise the message becomes diluted. I'd also take issue with your attempt to shift responsibility to the member of the public who took the photo when it clearly isn't theirs to bear.

 

As I said in the first line of my original post: 'The MP was of course absolutely wrong not to have worn a mask'.

 

I agree that he should have worn a mask and should be setting an example, and I also agree that the onus should not normally be on any member of the public to police mask-wearing, whether of an MP or anyone else. But how sneaky is it to take a photo of someone, without their knowledge or permission, and then shame them publicly; Presumably the photographer knew full well who the MP was and was determined to expose them ? 

 

As i also said in my original post, if the photographer was really concerned about the health risk of the non-mask wearing MP, they could have politely mentioned it, rather than leave him to make the entire journey maskless. I suspect that political opinion and dislike was behind the photographer's actions, not any actual concern for public health. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Conjecture.

 

I could imagine that a good percentage of people would feel inhibited challenging someone in public about mask wearing, but that would be conjecture too. We're left with the fact that an MP 'forgot' to wear a mask at a time when we're all asked to take extra care and threatened with hefty fines if we transgress. The motivations of the photographer are irrelevant.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

With the National Festival of Railway Modelling in Peterborough now officially cancelled as per the World of Railway's website it means that all the Chiltern Model Railway Association member exhibitions scheduled for the remainder of 2020 that the CMRA have previously been notified about, are cancelled.

 

https://www.cmra.org.uk/diary.html

 

And we are now starting to get quite a few cancelled for 2021.

 

https://www.cmra.org.uk/diary21.html

 

Edited by adrianmc
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
36 minutes ago, adrianmc said:

With the National Festival of Railway Modelling in Peterborough now officially cancelled as per the World of Railway's website it means that all the Chiltern Model Railway Association member exhibitions scheduled for the remainder of 2020 that the CMRA have previously been notified about, are cancelled.

 

https://www.cmra.org.uk/diary.html

 

And we are now starting to get quite a few cancelled for 2021.

 

https://www.cmra.org.uk/diary21.html

 

Given the PM's not-entirely-opaque implication that nothing is likely to get better for six months, I'd think anything before April has become doubtful overnight.

 

John

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
19 hours ago, Giles said:

I should love to see a cultural shift from the importance and priority of 'my Rights'  to 'my Responsibilities'.


Well said and talking of which the NHS app has gone live and both links are in the second section of this story. 
So don’t discard it because of the earlier privacy furore, this is the new more anonymous version

NHS app

https://covid19.nhs.uk

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54270334

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

NHS app has gone live

 

I installed it this morning.  I only hope that there is a good uptake for it.  And that I haven't got to go to Salisbury to make it work.....

 

I'm still waiting for the RMWeb exhibition app that detects BO and rucksacks at long range.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Given the PM's not-entirely-opaque implication that nothing is likely to get better for six months, I'd think anything before April has become doubtful overnight.

 

John

 

I agree. What's more one might assume (always a dangerous thing to do) that that means he thinks it will be six months before the risk drops back down to where it was 3/4 weeks ago and that outlook (3/4 weeks ago)  was bad enough for large parts of the main demographic of exhibition attendees to be put off attending shows..

 

Therefore, I conclude that we will be looking at May at the very earliest before anything resembling an exhibition will be held.

 

One problem I can see , having been an exhibition manager myself in the distant past, is the total uncertainty as regards exhibitors.

 

Lets imagine an exhibition due to be held in early May.

 

20 traders booked - how many will still be in business in May? How many who are still in business will be fit enough and well enough to attend?  How many who are still in business, are fit and well but will be too nervous to attend an exhibition?

 

Ditto with layout owners - 25 layouts booked - how many will be fit and well and willing to attend a show in early May in the circumstances at that time?

 

As a layout owner myself and my next exhibition is in May, but I cannot 100% guarantee that I will be able/willing to attend that show in 8 months time because I don't know the circumstances will be in 8 months time. 

 

And here is the REALLY difficult bit - I won't be able to 100% guarantee that I will be taking my layout to that show until a few days before the show. OK, I can probably 90% guarantee a month before the show, probably 98% guarantee a week before but perceptions of the risk can change overnight.

 

I wouldn't want to be an exhibition manager now!!

Edited by TEAMYAKIMA
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:


Well said and talking of which the NHS app has gone live and both links are in the second section of this story. 
So don’t discard it because of the earlier privacy furore, this is the new more anonymous version

NHS app

https://covid19.nhs.uk

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54270334

 

 

 

One or two obvious snags with it though 

  • the many rural places where mobile coverage is still very poor,
  • non-mobile phone users can't use it anyway. Many will be the very vulnerable like my elderly mother, perfectly able to go shopping on her own etc., at 97 but never has got the hang of mobile phones and even if she did buy one and try again coverage in her village area is rubbish (as point above).
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don’t see that there’s a problem with the current method of keeping the bookings going and then making a go, no go nearer the time depending on what criteria they have on deposits etc. Even once we are able to restart I think people will understand a few late notice gaps and as happens already there are others who help out and step in to fill places. 
So far I’ve had four cancellations that have all rolled forward and so far none clash with other longer pre bookings which may also have to roll forward to accommodate this years being rolled forward. I’m certainly not going to complain if I get emails saying sorry your booking for 2022 is now 2023! ;) 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, john new said:

 

One or two obvious snags with it though 

  • the many rural places where mobile coverage is still very poor,
  • non-mobile phone users can't use it anyway. Many will be the very vulnerable like my elderly mother, perfectly able to go shopping on her own etc., at 97 but never has got the hang of mobile phones and even if she did buy one and try again coverage in her village area is rubbish (as point above).

I'd agree with that, we have to stand upstairs by the bathroom window to get a signal, and my mobile phone... makes phone calls , I believe it can receive text, but I've never used it..

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, john new said:

 

One or two obvious snags with it though 

  • the many rural places where mobile coverage is still very poor,
  • non-mobile phone users can't use it anyway.


It’s not about 100% coverage though :) it’s about getting as many as you can isolated faster so they don’t spread it to the more vulnerable. 
It doesn’t replace social distancing and sanitising it adds to the tools we have to protect everyone. 
 

https://covid19.nhs.uk
 

EDF1026A-C3E2-4277-8303-73A1A9EF1248.jpeg.e802732d559a1546c63622e3f3514177.jpeg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, TheQ said:

I'd agree with that, we have to stand upstairs by the bathroom window to get a signal, and my mobile phone... makes phone calls , I believe it can receive text, but I've never used it..

The app uses Bluetooth while you’re out to log possible risks, you then only need to check it before going out, it doesn’t need to be in reception all the time ;)

It’s no harder than checking the weather on your phone. 
 

We mustn’t get caught in the disparaging it because it doesn’t work on my phone. It’s an extra tool it doesn’t replace all the other things everyone should be doing. 
 

I have a friend who has a transplant and is in the high risk group. If I go to see them I limit my contact as much as possible and do my weekly shopping trip after I’ve been to see them. Every little bit of effort helps, the app just warns those who do have a smartphone to stay isolated so they don’t possibly infect others. It may work on some that are presently not taking thorough precautions 

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...