Jump to content
 

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


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Perhaps if we talked about heart disease in the same way we talk about Covid then more people would be on strict diets, jogging and generally treating their bodies with more respect. 

 

Whilst I don't doubt or question your figures and I agree that we don't get so agitated about things that carry on day after day - heart disease deaths, cancer deaths etc there is one BIG difference.

 

If someone has heart disease, I cannot catch heart disease from them

 

If someone has cancer, I cannot catch cancer from them

 

BUT

 

If that person has  COVID19, I can catch it from them

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

We all become statistics:

  • World Wars
  • Genocide
  • Starvation
  • Disease
  • Old Age

One day I will be added to one of those lists, I'm not trying to put down your fears but life is short, it is fragile and it cannot be lived in fear.

 

I've a relative who has had to shield since March, finally gets to go out, but ends up in hospital with a suspected malignancy, operation is due soon and given their age it's a risky op in general, so far all appointments on own as due to Covid no-one else can attend as support.  You'd think Covid is the only killer in the world, it isn't and that's all I am attempting to say.

Not a point of view I can subscribe to, it being very much of the Nigel Farage school

Edited by PenrithBeacon
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Not a point of view I can subscribe to, it being very much of the Nigel Farage school

That's not an apt comparision, as a child of immigrant background and a remainer, he and I share very little in common.

 

But if you've fallen on comparing me with him then I guess I won't be winning you over any time soon.

Edited by woodenhead
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I've drawn the wrong conclusions from your posts but why, when I agree with your remainder stance and I have brought up children in a mixed race family has that happened? I would never think of people as a stat and I'm utterly horrified by the incompetence that has brought about so much death and grief.

 

I think that to attend shows without a vaccine is to invite that death and grief into the family. I don't want that, I don't want my family to go through what so many have done this year. WHO may, or it may not, be correct in thinking that a vaccine will be available by the middle of of 2021 but there are so many teams of researchers working on this that it is highly possible that at least one of these projects will reach fruition by then or shortly after. We had better hope so if we want life as we have lived it to continue.

Edited by PenrithBeacon
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Could the trade shows be done outdoors in the style of a car boot sale?

 

Speaking for the SLS trade stand our book sales could not be done outdoors as the slightest amount of rain, drizzle, or even mist would wreck the products. The same will also apply to those traders selling anything not ready wrapped in cellophane. We have tried events where the trade is in marquees - horribly hot on a sunny day and miserably damp if it is wet. Also if outdoors any wind creates a different set of problems.

 

It could be done, yes, but I suspect a lot of traders would avoid taking up the option. 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Ok I've drawn the wrong conclusions from your posts but why, when I agree with your remainder stance and I have brought up children in a mixed race family has that happened? I would never think of people as a stat and I'm utterly horrified by the incompetence that has brought about so much death and grief.

 

I think that to attend shows without a vaccine is to invite that death and grief into the family. I don't want that, I don't want my family to go through what so many have done this year. WHO may, or it may not, be correct in thinking that a vaccine will be available by the middle of of 2021 but there are so many teams of researchers working on this that it is highly possible that at least one of these projects will reach fruition by then or shortly after. We had better hope so if we want life as we have lived it to continue.

 

Surely this debate is about our perceptions of the risk.

 

As an example I will shop at both our local small Co-op and the village P Office/Newsagent and also one of the big supermarkets over in Weymouth; however, I am avoiding the shops in Weymouth town centre unless it is the only option for a specific product. The reason, these stores are being responsible and the street/car park outside is low risk. The streets in Weymouth though are a busy and disorganised mess, people taking their masks off when not in the actual shops and the vast majority making very little attempt to social distance in the streets. I can't avoid going shopping, we have to eat, but I can choose the environment I shop in.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Ok I've drawn the wrong conclusions from your posts but why, when I agree with your remainder stance and I have brought up children in a mixed race family has that happened? I would never think of people as a stat and I'm utterly horrified by the incompetence that has brought about so much death and grief.

 

I think that to attend shows without a vaccine is to invite that death and grief into the family. I don't want that, I don't want my family to go through what so many have done this year. WHO may, or it may not, be correct in thinking that a vaccine will be available by the middle of of 2021 but there are so many teams of researchers working on this that it is highly possible that at least one of these projects will reach fruition by then or shortly after. We had better hope so if we want life as we have lived it to continue.

Lets look at what we both agree on then, we both recognise this virus causes death and suffering, where we differ is on how we perceive the risk.  I manage risk by looking at numbers and trying to ascertain the level of risk, you look at it from a more humanistic approach and to you my approach looks cold and hard, perhaps that is the case but it's how I deal with it.  If I don't use the numbers then my emotions run higher because of the media coverage of Covid, the numbers help me bring down the level of anxiety.  All I was trying to do, perhaps again clumsily, was introduce some numbers to see if if helped your concerns.

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Those who consider themselves immortal (there are clearly quite a lot of them, looking around) and the vaccine refuseniks/tinfoil hat brigade will then be welcome to take their chances with Natural Selection, as they will cease to constitute a hazard to me.

 

 

 

My problem with this is:

  • as someone with an often misunderstood long term health problem (Lyme Disease) 
  • as someone with a foot in the complimentary medicine world due to mainstream medicine being unable to acknowledge that they can't treat Lyme Disease without stepping outside the box
  • as someone with a foot in the orthodox medical camp - qualified as a "community first responder" (as opposed to a first aider) and therefore recognised by ambulance crews as a fellow professional rather than an amateur

I'm reading stuff on medical websites which suggest that the big pharmaceutical companies are riding roughshod over common sense precautions and best practice in their rush to be the first to gain the licence to put a vaccine on the market. 

 

Forget the tinfoil hat brigade, a fair number of mainstream medics I know are saying that they won't take the vaccine if they can get away with it.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Lets look at what we both agree on then, we both recognise this virus causes death and suffering, where we differ is on how we perceive the risk.  I manage risk by looking at numbers and trying to ascertain the level of risk, you look at it from a more humanistic approach and to you my approach looks cold and hard, perhaps that is the case but it's how I deal with it.  If I don't use the numbers then my emotions run higher because of the media coverage of Covid, the numbers help me bring down the level of anxiety.  All I was trying to do, perhaps again clumsily, was introduce some numbers to see if if helped your concerns.

 

Whatever numbers one puts on it, comparing fatality rates arising from non-contagious diseases to those from contagious ones is meaningless. 

 

The odds of one of the former getting me are purely statistical (barring any known lifestyle or heredity factors), whereas I can be sure of not succumbing to the latter if I successfully avoid catching them.

 

I therefore attempt to grade the relative risk associated with each desired activity. For example, a pint and Sunday lunch in the same, well managed, village pub, at the same time each week, and where I recognise 90% of the other patrons from previous visits, doesn't rattle my cage. A town centre coffee shop in midweek, with lord-knows-who passing through, most definitely would; and I don't crave the stuff enough to chance it. 

 

Ditto a model railway exhibition, where other attendees are likely to be drawn from an even more random sample of humanity, and where social distancing would be even harder to maintain.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

....For example, a pint and Sunday lunch in the same, well managed, village pub, at the same time each week, and where I recognise 90% of the other patrons from previous visits, doesn't rattle my cage. A town centre coffee shop in midweek, with lord-knows-who passing through, most definitely would; and I don't crave the stuff enough to chance it....

You may know the folks in the pub, but you’ve absolutely no idea of what they’ve been up to since last you saw them, they could have been engaged in higher infection risk activity than anyone in the coffee shop so the perception of lower risk in the pub is exactly that, a perception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, RANGERS said:

You may know the folks in the pub, but you’ve absolutely no idea of what they’ve been up to since last you saw them, they could have been engaged in higher infection risk activity than anyone in the coffee shop so the perception of lower risk in the pub is exactly that, a perception.

Agreed, but the customer throughput of the coffee shop I have in mind is probably ten times that of the pub, and I'm more likely to hear if any of the Sunday lunchers has gone down with it since last week....

 

Also, the distancing arrangements in the pub in question are about the best I've come across anywhere.

 

John 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

And that exposes the psychological assessment of risk.  People we know are (largely) sensible, don't take risks and we can be confident around them.

 

Elsewhere I have read of two parents who had to go out and work during the confinement period.  They were chided by their daughter, a doctor in a hospital for mixing with goodness knows who and risking their lives.

 

After the confinement and when things had started to settle down, the medical staff attended a party together - around 50 of them.  2 days later one of them tested positive for C19 and all went into confinement.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

After the confinement and when things had started to settle down, the medical staff attended a party together - around 50 of them.  2 days later one of them tested positive for C19 and all went into confinement.  

 

I think that demonstrates the problem - I understand that most people who have had Covid-19 have caught it from someone they know (family, friends and work colleagues) rather that from random strangers in a coffee shop, yet there's the perception that there is greater safety with the people you know.  Since you know them, you assume there is less need for social distancing and that's the biggest risk.

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

17 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Hopefully, your view will prove unduly pessimistic but, if not, the choice will lie between more of us gradually adopting the carefree defiance widely exhibited at our beaches and beauty spots this summer, or living in a permanent state of semi-lockdown and accepting that the hospitality industry will have to find its own level within a "new normal". 

 

 

Not really my view (which is irrelevant), but we don't have a working vaccine right now & there is a possibility we may not. A future vaccine is a very real possibility but until it is available, it is not a fact we can rely on.

It seems a little more than silly to make plans around something which may never materialise.

The situation regarding the virus is changing fairly rapidly & a regular re-assessment, maybe every month or so, with new knowledge very worthwhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I would never think of people as a stat

 

Neither have I. It sounds cold, but somebody has to. The lockdown cost lots of money & although it saved lives from Covid, it took lives due to mental health issues. Both of these carry stats which somebody has & needed to compare against each other.

 

12 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

 

I think that to attend shows without a vaccine is to invite that death and grief into the family.

 

That's a very polarised view. Is reality a little more complex?

There is another aspect which does not seem to have been given much attention: infection strength.

 

Many vaccines are weak forms of the disease itself. Enough to teach the immune system how to cope, but not too strong as to overwhelm it. When a stronger dosage hits, it is then recognised & dealt with more effectively.

Social distancing & (T)PPE has helped reduce infection but it also helps to reduce the strength.

 

We are seeing a much lower fatality rate among infections than we were. Is this simply because we are testing more even where we do not suspect any infection? Or is it that we are also detecting weaker infections which would not have previously been detected because the immune system is coping with it (to the extent that some see no symptoms at all).

There is not much doubt that measures being taken are preventing infection, but it is also likely to be that they are weakening infection to the point that immune systems are able to cope & prevent future infection.

 

That does not mean I feel we are now safe to go back to our old practises & habits, but it is always good to re-assess risks under the most current conditions instead of outdated ones.

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Not really my view (which is irrelevant), but we don't have a working vaccine right now & there is a possibility we may not. A future vaccine is a very real possibility but until it is available, it is not a fact we can rely on.

It seems a little more than silly to make plans around something which may never materialise.

The situation regarding the virus is changing fairly rapidly & a regular re-assessment, maybe every month or so, with new knowledge very worthwhile.

 

Agreed, but the people who ought to know seem to have clustered around an estimate that (at least) one is likely to become available by roughly the middle of next year.

 

So long as one does, that will create a degree of certainty that has been absent since all this started and then I can start making plans rather than deferring making plans, which is the case at present. 

 

That's not too far off, and given that no, or very few, exhibitions are likely to take place before then, it won't be a great personal sacrifice to forego attending them!

 

I've been judging the safety or otherwise of other activities on a case-by-case basis, going on available facts if possible, or on gut feeling driven by observation if not. I now pause in doorways, assessing what lies beyond, before deciding to enter.

 

I suspect everybody has been working out strategies to get us through these times, even the apparently reckless presumably consider their personal risk to be negligible and that the hazards to others created by their behaviour are not their problem.

 

If no vaccine does become available approximately within the expected timescale, there will be much re-thinking to be done by all, but continuing to be cautious for another 6-8 months is (for me) no big deal. 

 

John

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
48 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

 

 

We are seeing a much lower fatality rate among infections than we were. Is this simply because we are testing more even where we do not suspect any infection? Or is it that we are also detecting weaker infections which would not have previously been detected because the immune system is coping with it (to the extent that some see no symptoms at all).

There is not much doubt that measures being taken are preventing infection, but it is also likely to be that they are weakening infection to the point that immune systems are able to cope & prevent future infection.

 

 

And hospitals have learnt what works and doesn't work in the treatment of the disease..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just been thinking about another slightly different aspect.

 

This issue of holding an exhibition affects several distinct groups who have different motivations and I say this on the assumption that any show in the near future will require social distancing, masks etc.

 

1. Clubs and others who stage shows - money. Clubs and companies make money from exhibitions and so I can see why they would want to move to a scenario where shows are possible

 

2. Traders - as above

 

3. Visitors - they pay a few pounds and are entertained/educated

 

4. Then there are exhibitors, layout owners etc - we don't make money out of shows. Taking a layout to a show often costs us money indirectly. Exhibitors are 'paid' by having fun, social interaction etc.

 

Personally, speaking as someone who has a layout which needs a team of six to work together in a confined space, I cannot see how exhibitors like me would get anything from exhibiting until a 'normal' way of life returns. Running a big layout at a show is WORK and if we don't get the payback of social interaction I can see a number of exhibitors not wanting to bother until 'normality' returns.

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

Running a big layout at a show is WORK and if we don't get the payback of social interaction I can see a number of exhibitors not wanting to bother until 'normality' returns.

Hard work but not ‘work’ as we aren’t paid ;) That’s what many have said when people said get screens fitted to your layout etc, it’s a big expense, more to transport and more hard work for an uncertain result. 
Many shows pay your expenses from the cash taken so there’s a real possibility that if you attend a show that sees poor attendance they might not get enough to pay your expenses. That happened to a friend a few years ago but the club honoured it by sending cheques out from their account as they took the hit rather than get a poor reputation on the circuit. 
Being patient to see what the next 12 months bring is all the experts asked for when they suggested 12-18months minimum expected for vaccines back March. At least we should have an idea by then how trials are going to make planning the future easier. 
 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Neither have I. It sounds cold, but somebody has to. The lockdown cost lots of money & although it saved lives from Covid, it took lives due to mental health issues. Both of these carry stats which somebody has & needed to compare against each other.

 

 

That's a very polarised view. Is reality a little more complex?

There is another aspect which does not seem to have been given much attention: infection strength.

 

Many vaccines are weak forms of the disease itself. Enough to teach the immune system how to cope, but not too strong as to overwhelm it. When a stronger dosage hits, it is then recognised & dealt with more effectively.

Social distancing & (T)PPE has helped reduce infection but it also helps to reduce the strength.

 

We are seeing a much lower fatality rate among infections than we were. Is this simply because we are testing more even where we do not suspect any infection? Or is it that we are also detecting weaker infections which would not have previously been detected because the immune system is coping with it (to the extent that some see no symptoms at all).

There is not much doubt that measures being taken are preventing infection, but it is also likely to be that they are weakening infection to the point that immune systems are able to cope & prevent future infection.

 

That does not mean I feel we are now safe to go back to our old practises & habits, but it is always good to re-assess risks under the most current conditions instead of outdated ones.

 

Some interesting theories Pete, but they are just that; theories.

 

An alternative scenario:

The first wave rapidly got into hospitals (pre-segregation of C19 and non-C19) and care homes.  It attacked those weakest in society.  The death rate and hospitalisation rate we saw then is therefore an overstatement of the death and hospitalisation rate in the population as a whole.

 

I the second wave, it is the younger less vulnerable group of society that has been shown to be less likely to need hospitalisation and much less likely to die.  

 

Additionally there is an enormous time lag between the infection setting off and people ending up in hospital, let alone dying.   I did some rather simple calculations based on the virus having free run and an infection rate of 3 (probably much higher than currently).  Taking asymptomatic cases into account a single person would have infected over 6000 people after 7 weeks but the number of hospitalisations would be around six!  One of the reasons for that is simply that the 4000 infected in the last week would not have developed symptoms let alone become ill enough to need hospitalisation.  That 7 weeks is a huge time lag between infection in a group and the impact on hospitalisation.  Lower infection rates will stretch still further that time lag.  Don't however be fooled that the virus is necessarily less virulent because of the delays in cause and effect.

 

The recent increase in cases should at least make people, who think we can just start to free up further and have exhibitions in the near future, just have a second think about that.  

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...