Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Attending exhibitions - let's put some data behind it.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

Since we are railway based, how about some research into transmission on trains? They are crowded spaces after all:

 

https://www.rssb.co.uk/Insights-and-News/News/Innovative-data-methods-for-passenger-safety-during-the-Covid-19-outbreak

 

The initial results

Initial values have been produced for a simple train journey scenario involving a Class 800 carriage. The journey modelled involved loading 44 passengers onto a carriage, travelling for 30 minutes, alighting 22 passengers, boarding another 22 and then travelling another 30 minutes before alighting all passengers.

From this scenario we estimate that the risk of infection per passenger journey is around 1 in 11,000* journeys using the 0.05% population infection rate for England (from ONS). 

 

Impressive as it doesn't take into account cleaning or face coverings. Or the protection provided by a mahoosive rucksack. Apparently there has also been some very detailed work in Germany by DB that comes up with the same conclusion of low risk but I can't find a link to this.

 

The crowd levels tested are far lower than the scrum around some trade stands, but might be more applicable for a specialist or quiet local show.

 

So for someone travelling from Swindon to Paddington and back, 250 days a year, it would take 11 years for them to have a greater than even chance of contracting the virus. This doesn't take account of the fact that if they're commuting, they may well share the same carriage with the same people every day, which carries a lower risk than sharing a carriage with different people every day.

 

Of course, for those doing occasional weekend journeys on near-empty trains, the risk is much lower still.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If I’m following the thinking correctly, then containing the virus (with the aim of further reducing it), is dependent upon limiting the number of “human - human” and “human - surface - human” connections being made.

As someone who, of necessity, has been going shopping, I can imagine attending an exhibition with suitable public health measures in place later this year, and have replied accordingly.

But if that helps push the total number of connections being made above a safe level, such that other things - and I’m thinking specifically of schools as the example - are at risk of having to close again, then I’d need to think again.

However well managed an exhibition might be, and however well people follow the rules, there is going to be a small risk of transmission.

I’m not trying to go OT, but whether or not I would feel able to actually attend an exhibition would ultimately be decided by how I feel the general picture looks (I am in the fortunate position of having sight of good local authority data as a result of my job - this is not a ‘political‘ point in any way).  I appreciate there’s no way a survey could capture this, hence my comment, but I think it’s relevant to note that a decision like this would not just be about the exhibition and how I get there.

I think @woodenhead‘s observations from the coffee shop are quite helpful in this respect.

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

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

If I’m following the thinking correctly, then containing the virus (with the aim of further reducing it), is dependent upon limiting the number of “human - human” and “human - surface - human” connections being made.

 

 

& the dosage. The longer you spend near someone who is infected, the more particles you could inhale. This is why face coverings were introduced on public transport earlier than shops..because you could sit near somebody for a more significant amount of time.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how low the risk, 1:10,000 or 1:100,000, if you happen to be standing close to that 1, and they are not taking precautions, then the risk becomes 100% and then you can, unknowingly, pass it on to who know's who among your family and friends.  Add to that, not only the possible severity of the resulting illness (compared to a cold), but also the continuing after effects which they are now starting to appreciate, then why take any risk?

 

Public health is everyone's responsibility and other things (keeping schools open for one) are more important than going to Model Railway Exhibitions.

 

Jim

  • Like 1
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

I, along with many others look forward to attending MR exhibitions, at a liesurely pace, viewing the exhibits, chatting to friends, seeking out my preferred dealers, traders, without being viewed as a pariah. I also work at a number of exhibitions in Germany, many of which have been understandably cancelled, an exhibition due to be held near Stuttgart in October, will, now not take place. We, who work there have said the rules would hamper us in our work, likewise the traders, dealers have said no, many we deal with are those who have questions, they are also, fairly elderly, many who are hard of hearing need to lip read to understand, a face mask, puts paid to that. Clear visors are not permitted. The loss to the hospitality trade is significant. We have taken the decision to see how things will be next year, rather than going forward in the hope things will be okay. We need to be patient, I understand people chomping at the bit to get going, but not at any price. My own feeling is that things are not as bad as they are currently painted, however, no one wants to take responsibility for relaxing restrictions, ultimately they will have to, for the economy has been mightily and royally screwed.

 

Stay healthy,

 

Nigel

A paid up member of "Coffin Dodgers United".

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

  • Administrators
38 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

No matter how low the risk, 1:10,000 or 1:100,000, if you happen to be standing close to that 1, and they are not taking precautions, then the risk becomes 100% and then you can, unknowingly, pass it on to who know's who among your family and friends.  Add to that, not only the possible severity of the resulting illness (compared to a cold), but also the continuing after effects which they are now starting to appreciate, then why take any risk?

 

The trouble with that is you can never go out of the door. Covid isn't the only infectious disease out there and there is no way to guarantee that you won't come into contact with someone. There were 9000 cases of TB in the UK last year, and that figure is rising. Measles can also have terrible consequences and cases of this are on the rise too. Hepatitis A and B are hardly a bundle of laughs either.

 

Humans aren't great at assessing risk, which is what a lot of this comes down to. It doesn't help that the science of transmission isn't fully understood yet, even by scientists, so what hope have the public got?

  • Like 3
  • Agree 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

I would not disagree from the viewpoint of the trader, but from the viewpoint of the exhibition manager it is bums through the door that matters. 

It depends I guess on the proportion of revenue from trade stand hire. It certainly helps our shows show a profit and every penny is going to be essential if the numbers through the door are down. 
I’ve heard all sorts of moans from certain traders about how x spot isn’t good enough and how they compete and try to leverage for their idea of a prime spot ;) There’s some right characters :) 
 

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

24 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

The trouble with that is you can never go out of the door. Covid isn't the only infectious disease out there and there is no way to guarantee that you won't come into contact with someone.

That is true, but none of what you are likely to catch from someone you meet , even in a crowded exhibition hall, is likely to have the same short or long term effects as this particular corona virus (Covid-19 is the disease it causes).

 

26 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

There were 9000 cases of TB in the UK last year, and that figure is rising. Measles can also have terrible consequences and cases of this are on the rise too. Hepatitis A and B are hardly a bundle of laughs either.

None of these would be a worry to me as I have been vaccinated against all of them, (with the exception of hep-A) hep-B as a requirement of my registration with the GDC, without which I would not have been allowed to practice.

 

I can't see either of these points as a valid argument in favour of taking the risk.

 

Jim

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

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I'm with you there. Looking at cold, hard numbers, the risk of becoming ill is very low. The numbers of people who are currently seriously ill is very low. Many times the number of people die each day from heart problems (450ish) than Covid (9 yesterday). 1 in 10,000 people tested is found to be positive and even then they often don't have symptoms.

 

BUT, like you, I am nervous. Months of propaganda from the government and a media desperate fro clicks/sales/viewers telling us that outside is death. Buses are death. Trains are death, has sunk in. Spend time on Twitter and the hysterical phrase "second wave" is everywhere. The concept of a "lock down" has morphed from everyone stuck inside to any restriction whatsoever. There is no logic to it, but it's certainly worked on me.

Unfortunately, the 1 in 10,000 statistic does not, and cannot, take any account of those who have the virus, with or without symptoms, but do not seek to be tested. Some reputable statisticians have estimated the true rate to be at least five times higher.

 

OK that's not massive in terms of adding to individual hazard, but it's still significant. If someone came up with numbers indicating the risk of getting some rare cancer had increased five-fold but that translated to ten UK cases a year instead of the usual two, you can guarantee the tabloids would plaster the first bit over the front page and tuck the important caveat well down the text.

 

I check my temperature daily before going out, but discount my long-standing minor cough, which arises from medication I take daily. I would get tested if it got worse as it would then tally with the advice which uses the word "new". However, none of that would matter a fig if I were to contract the thing asymptomatically (which I quite feasibly might have done already).

 

Until everybody gets tested, regularly, both for the virus and the antibodies that reveal past infection, I'm afraid I place little faith in the very limited base from which these statistics derive. Their only real value is in comparing what happened last week with earlier periods, thereby giving at least some indication of trends. 

 

John 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

The trouble with that is you can never go out of the door. 

I am by nature a "glass half full" person.  SWMBO is "glass half empty".  

 

I have always been willing to go out of the door.  Not only as a key worker to keep others (and now, in theory, everyone) moving but in order to shop and do other essential errands.  She has been first furloughed and then required to work from home; she is also classified as vulnerable but not in an extreme risk or shielding category.  

 

I am more than ready to get back to something like normal life - even the so-called "new normal" - and have the good fortune to live in one of the least-infected areas of England.  One can attempt to prove anything with statistics and I accept there are limitations and differing interpretations available in all published figures.  We do, however, have a known infection rate of 2.5/100,000 which has  only changed twice that I am aware of since first reaching 1.  It then became 2 and is now 2.5   Statistically the chances of meeting the 2.5 people (more precisely 5/198,000 population) isvery small; the chance of becoming infected by one of them is even smaller.  The likelihood of there being more that 5 people in that population carrying an infectious form of the virus is probably slight at worst.  However other places vary very greatly.   

 

SWMBO has said she will not be going out anywhere until it is for a vaccination.  She has had almost daily walks and now walks weekly with a work-friend so is mingling with one person outside our home "bubble" and therefore in theoretical contact with more.  She has been to the dentist since they re-opened and used the train but it set her anxiety back by a week.  

 

Here is one of the dilemmas this situation has caused.  Some of us feel far more comfortable than others and some are in less-infected areas than others.  But SWMBO is only as safe as I am and I mingle with hundreds - probably thousands now - of people at work every day.  Mostly at greater than 1m and almost always only in passing with no actual form of contact or spoken interaction.  But that is the job and I have potentially been close to a number of infectious people.  According to the ongoing advice I am unlikely to have become infected because I haven't been in close personal contact with any of them for an extended period of time, nor in a confined space, nor speaking with each other.  

 

I am ready to go to smaller public events which would include model railway exhibitions.  I am not quite ready to consider the likes of Warley even if it were available.   And SWMBO will not let me go anywhere near any of them for quite some time to come which we both find frustrating for different reasons.  C'est la vie.  We have to learn to manage these things.  The world has changed for us all.  

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Part of this is revising our behaviours to move within what we perceive as acceptable risks. I am happy to shop in the village, the users of the few shops we have and the P Office are generally following the guidelines and the streets are not packed. However, unless I have to do so I won't be visiting the nearest town centre again in a hurry, I have been over once this summer to visit the local model shop and one other high street chain store, inside the shops was fine, unfortunately it was a busy day and the people in the streets outside had no idea about social distancing. I won't be going back until after the summer holiday rush has gone by.

 

Local pubs - have been out a couple of times to our usual local, all trips made early evening when the regulars were comfortably distancing but am avoiding later in the evening visits when the pub is likely to be busier. (The time we used to go)  I have walked past some of our other neighbouring pubs and  you could see through the window they were packed with no social distancing.

 

Why have I posted this - well in relation to model railway events even if our local club does go ahead with their medium sized 31st October show I won't be going. I declined the option of a Society promo' stand space back in March due to the perceptions of COVID risk and won't go as a punter either. If their usual pre-Christmas open day runs in December, for that there is a much lower perception of risk, wearing a mask for perhaps an hour I can cope with, so I might go. Big shows are out for me as of now, we have the SLS Promo stand provisionally booked for two in March & April 2021 so at some time a decision will have to be made regarding go/no go but for it to be a go decision, with two full days of mask wearing whilst doing face to face selling as a perspex barrier screen is impractical, a lot will have to change before then.

 

Edited by john new
To make better sense.
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

We do, however, have a known infection rate of 2.5/100,000 which has  only changed twice that I am aware of since first reaching 1.  It then became 2 and is now 2.5

 

Where does this figure come from? The Office for National Statistics estimates an infection rate of about 0.07% (70 per 100,000) at the end of July:

 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/31july2020

 

This is about 1 in 1500, so the likelihood of at least one visitor to an exhibition being infected is high enough to be of concern.

 

 

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

4 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

The trouble with that is you can never go out of the door. Covid isn't the only infectious disease out there and there is no way to guarantee that you won't come into contact with someone. There were 9000 cases of TB in the UK last year, and that figure is rising. Measles can also have terrible consequences and cases of this are on the rise too. Hepatitis A and B are hardly a bundle of laughs either.

 

Humans aren't great at assessing risk, which is what a lot of this comes down to. It doesn't help that the science of transmission isn't fully understood yet, even by scientists, so what hope have the public got?

 

As someone who has shielded with my family (wife and two young children) for the last 5 months, with supplies bought to our house by close family - there would be no way on this planet would I even consider going to a railway event this year.  Firstly there are spikes in the virus at certain locations, and the public come to shows from far and wide (nevermind traders and exhibitors from many parts of the country who would most likely stay in the same hotels), in another month or so we are coming towards Autumn when things are expected to get worse, then there is the issue of getting close to layouts to view them (plus getting near exhibitors), trade stalls would be very difficult for people to peruse in a meaningful way, to maintain social distancing of 2m - only three people/groups from same household would be able to stand at a 4 metre long layout, then there is catering, cleaning ...... and the very real risks of short notice cancellation due to restrictions depending on Covid situation.  Whilst I know it is potentially a financially dire situation for many clubs, a poor turn out or late notice cancellation would possibly be much more damaging in the longer term.

 

Regarding risk - then its wholly down to people's perception, circumstances and the tangibility of the risk/illness to them.  It does not help either, when senior figures have been found out to be breaking lockdown rules and that you could drive a Boris Bus between some areas of the government guidance.  I've been out and about since Monday to go to work.  I think people are starting to have covid fatigue - and are starting to take risks and letting their guard down (which is why we are getting spikes) -believing the worst is over, risks are lower and probably thinking that if they get it, they know they will feel really rough for a couple of weeks, but they have a very good chance of pulling through so just enjoy yourself and see what happens (and in reality over a life time something like cancer is probably much more likely to kill you).  But in contrast for those who are classed as clinically extremely vulnerable and their families - then regrettably there is no option but to be cautious, especially as the virus shows no physical symptoms in its early stages, so if you have no choice but to be around others, then you have to attempt to minimise potential risks because you cannot see them.  If the person at risk does get it - then they are likely to become seriously ill and most at risk of dying.  Its a bit like AIDS/HIV adverts in the 1980's - don't die of ignorance!  But unfortunately people around the world have, and are.

 

To end on a positive note - then throughout the pandemic so far - model railways have appeared to remain quite boyant, and people have been resourceful in finding new methods to continue to enjoy their hobby responsibly.  That should give us all some comfort for the hobbies long term future.  Some may even be getting a 66731 from the postie very soon- a wonderful tribute to a great gentleman and in support of the NHS - whose superb staff, like many other key workers have been selflessly helping others during these unprecedented times.

 

Best wishes to you all, enjoy your model railways and I hope you all continue to remain safe,

 

C.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

For local sense of proportion, I do reccomend www.inyourarea.co.uk

It details daily cases in your postcode.


in my area, weve had around 50 cases since July, but 1000 cases prior.

This gave me (us) oodles of confidence in going out, and cases rise about 1 per day, rising to 1.5 per day in the last few weeks... theres 200k people in my area.. so we feel currently safe, especially as Croydons 4 miles away (1mn plus) and it went 10 days without a case at one point, which is quite an achievement. Its not bad everywhere. 
I would risk assess as you go, but long term planning is a chalkenge.

 

The local results are somewhat reccomended for mental sanity. Make hay whilst the sun shines and take advantage of the windows as they emerge. Doesnt help when it comes to medium or long term plans, but short term it feels great...

For example,. Tonight my daughter and I saw 701005 on the first test run of the class, last night was 37025 and 37421, with 2 cases in 24 hours, and 30 since mid July.. it didnt feel high risk standing on a bridge for smelling the fumes of this pair...

 

 

 

on the way back we passed Broadway in Wimbledon, restaurants were packed, queuing outside..are they wreckless or carefree..?


Would I book a restaurant seat next month.. how could I possibly know... and thats the same  model railway exhibition dilema.

 

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve noticed more than a few posts in this thread using a logic that follows the idea that as case numbers/risk is low, it’s possible to get out and do more/go to exhibitions etc. The problem with this is the logic is flawed. The reason the risk and case numbers are so low at present is because we aren’t going to exhibitions or doing many other things that would otherwise increase the transmission of the virus. If we start doing them, the levels will rise again. 

 

We are likely to see significant additional restrictions through the autumn and winter, so I can’t see it even being a case of choosing whether to attend an exhibition for quite some time; it simply won’t be allowed.

 

I can’t see myself attending one until late-2021 at the earliest really.

 

David

  • Like 3
  • Agree 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
26 minutes ago, bmthtrains - David said:

The problem with this is the logic is flawed. The reason the risk and case numbers are so low at present is because we aren’t going to exhibitions or doing many other things that would otherwise increase the transmission of the virus. If we start doing them, the levels will rise again. 

Nicely put! The question is why aren’t officials pointing exactly this out in the media! 
It’s hard as hell for those of us who live alone because the social life is so stunted but the info is there if you let logic override selfish impatience. 
What’s galling is the mass gatherings  aren’t helping those industries that are suffering so badly because they reopen them get closed down again with local spikes. If people followed the guidelines better and made a widespread effort to adhere then the confidence in trying some events would be higher. Currently my expectation is that only around 50% would take it seriously enough and the other 50% carry a much higher risk to the rest of us because their flawed idea of protection is based on the rest of us doing things. 
The same selfishness applies to the additional costs and hours being suggested for shows. It’s fine to say longer hours to get near usual numbers in but how do you enforce the flow around a show when some will insist on staying at the ‘feature layouts’ because that’s what they paid to see? Also exhibitors will get tired if hours are longer and then be driving home even more tired. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
14 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

The trouble with that is you can never go out of the door. Covid isn't the only infectious disease out there and there is no way to guarantee that you won't come into contact with someone. There were 9000 cases of TB in the UK last year, and that figure is rising. Measles can also have terrible consequences and cases of this are on the rise too. Hepatitis A and B are hardly a bundle of laughs either.

 

Humans aren't great at assessing risk, which is what a lot of this comes down to. It doesn't help that the science of transmission isn't fully understood yet, even by scientists, so what hope have the public got?

 

Sorry Phil but I really have to take issue on your take on this. Going out of the door is fine, the virus doesn't flourish in fresh air - but does in the stuffy crowded confines of an exhibition hall. Yes there are lots of infectious diseases out there - but for the vast majority, such as those you mention like TB, measles etc, a vaccine is available to all. There is no vaccine YET for Covid 19. If there was we wouldn't be having this debate.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

Since we are railway based, how about some research into transmission on trains? They are crowded spaces after all:

 

https://www.rssb.co.uk/Insights-and-News/News/Innovative-data-methods-for-passenger-safety-during-the-Covid-19-outbreak

 

The initial results

Initial values have been produced for a simple train journey scenario involving a Class 800 carriage. The journey modelled involved loading 44 passengers onto a carriage, travelling for 30 minutes, alighting 22 passengers, boarding another 22 and then travelling another 30 minutes before alighting all passengers.

From this scenario we estimate that the risk of infection per passenger journey is around 1 in 11,000* journeys using the 0.05% population infection rate for England (from ONS). 

 

Impressive as it doesn't take into account cleaning or face coverings. Or the protection provided by a mahoosive rucksack. Apparently there has also been some very detailed work in Germany by DB that comes up with the same conclusion of low risk but I can't find a link to this.

 

The crowd levels tested are far lower than the scrum around some trade stands, but might be more applicable for a specialist or quiet local show.

 

I've picked on Phil's post as it has a clear focus on the risk of becoming infected in a particular situation. For many years I was a union safety rep and one of my tasks was to look at risk assessments and challenge where appropriate. In this case the risk of catching the virus is only one half of the equation, the other is the potential consequence. As we know that the older you are the more severe the symptoms become then how risky a given situation is varies with age. Put simply this is the basis of the government's shielding advice. Other factors such as health issues also increase risk. Looking at the typical exhibition demographic it becomes clear that it's a riskier enterprise than reopening schools not because of infection rates but the potential consequences of being infected for a largely older group of attendees.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would now go to a small exhibition wearing my face mask and taking a bottle of sanitiser with me. I have been with the grandchildren to several events where we have had to queue at a safe distance from other families, and keep as far apart as possible at the venue. 

 

I would go specifically for the model exhibition rather than the trade stands, unless I happened to see something I particularly wanted; and if others had similar intentions the finances of the show would probably not be sustainable if traders stayed away due to lack of potential business. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a further element to consider. I have been looking at air-bourne transmission, in regard to ventilation systems within my own discipline. I am a Theatre Consultant and NOT an M&E Consultant, butby the nature of my job, i have to learn something of the other disciplines. 

There in contradictory advice. From our own Government, the basic advice is "open windows, and keep working - service the HVAC as normal", however, a study in Europe confirms that the virus has already been transmitted to others with no direct contact, via the air-stream of a restaurant's ventilation system.

A problem occurs when air is fed at one side of the room, and is extracted at the other side, so the air is drawn through the space. Ideal normally - but not if an infected person or persons is at the up-stream end of the flow. This is also a problem for many theatre's, where we supply around 7 litres of air per person per second - vast quantities- and this is frequently fed from over-head diffusers, and also extracted at high level - thus creating all sorts of streams in various directions. I suspect that many large exhibition spaces may have similar systems.

 

The few Professional Risk Assessments I've seen intended to cope with the virus and working with it do not understand or address air-handling or it's interelation with the design of the building, and have limited themselves to "opening windows" which in a modern building is not necessarily adequate. Air-handling should be run at 100% Primary air, with no recycling, and professional opinion should be sought as to whether the filters can be upgraded. Do make sure Risk Assessments are comprehensive, and don't be afraid to question them!

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

Last month I went with my cousins to an outdoor water sports centre. In my opinion, the centre have done a very good job of being COVID compliant; pre-booking is mandatory, all the equipment is disinfected and sanitised after each use and the number of visitors on site is reduced to help enforce social distancing.
 

In the last few years on average I have attended about four or five exhibitions a year, sometimes less due to the location of the school I was at and supposed to be sitting A levels at this year (until they were cancelled). With the exception of 2017, I have attended Warley every year since 2016, and probably would have attended again this year if the COVID crisis wasn’t around. I am not in the ‘at risk’ category, but my grandmother and one or two other elderly members of my family have been shielding, and that would make me be very cautious about attending exhibitions. 
 

I suspect one of the factors which led Warley to be cancelled was how people crowd round the layouts and trade stands, especially the Bachmann sales stand. It would be a lot different to the usual set up at shows, but could traders have just display items on the tables in front, and then when someone asks for a product they bring one out from a box or underneath the counter? This would minimise the number of people touching surfaces such as loco boxes, as you often find that people might move other boxes out of the way to have a rummage underneath for other locos/coaches etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, Roger Sunderland said:

Sorry Phil but I really have to take issue on your take on this. Going out of the door is fine, the virus doesn't flourish in fresh air - but does in the stuffy crowded confines of an exhibition hall. Yes there are lots of infectious diseases out there - but for the vast majority, such as those you mention like TB, measles etc, a vaccine is available to all. There is no vaccine YET for Covid 19. If there was we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

You are missing my point. When I say "go out of the door" I mean go to an event. Any event. There is a risk element in anything. We kill around 9 people a day on the roads and yet driving and crossing them is generally considered safe. People die from food poisoning and germs spread by faulty air conditioning units. Bits fall of roofs and kill people. We rationalise the risk of all this and carry on. We can't see Covid, and the pandemics that will follow, so our decisions are informed largely by a media machine pumping out bad news for clicks.

 

Vaccines are IMHO, a red herring. Spend any time on social media and you will find large numbers of people shouting about how they will refuse to take them. Reasons range from the vaguely logical to the absolutely tin-foil-hat crazy. Add to that the much larger number of people who will quietly wait until they see if it's OK, and I doubt we'll get to 25% immunised. Wait until the first reaction to the jab makes screaming headlines in the papers, and it will (you couldn't give a plain bread roll to a million people without at least one reaction and a vaccine is far more complex) then the numbers being jabbed will fall through the floor.

 

I confess that the more I read here, the more I believe that the model railway show, along with any mass-participation event, in physical form, is dead and buried.

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

  • RMweb Gold
5 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Vaccines are IMHO, a red herring. Spend any time on social media and you will find large numbers of people shouting about how they will refuse to take them.

 

6 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

and I doubt we'll get to 25% immunised. Wait until the first reaction to the jab makes screaming headlines in the papers,

Well like I said before once / if we have a vaccine my risk will be significantly reduced but there’s also a period where those immunised will start to take less precautions increasing risk for those not immunised. 


Once the vaccine is generally accepted to be widely available if people choose to go to a show without being immunised then that is their decision. 

The organiser holding a show the first month of immunisation will have to expect a low turnout because probably only a low percentage will have actually got it. Two to three months after it’s available, which would be the minimum for reorganisation of a date anyway, I expect those that want it would have had the opportunity and I think things will return to what we consider normal. 


Until we know there is a vaccine and it’s effectiveness things are uncertain. Certainly the advances in treatment have been spectacular and they are still learning at a ferocious rate. None of this was unexpected by the experts and the vaccines are looking very promising to bring it into line with flu. As they’ve said it will not be eradicated but it can be brought down to the acceptable risks levels Phil mentioned. 

15 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

There is a risk element in anything.


 

So give it time and this . . .

16 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

confess that the more I read here, the more I believe that the model railway show, along with any mass-participation event, in physical form, is dead and buried.

 

 Is kinda falling into the despondency fueled by this ;)

 

16 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

our decisions are informed largely by a media machine pumping out bad news for clicks.


News is treated like entertainment these days to catch people’s attention. Surely it’s not beyond the ability of many more journalists to devote that same level to the story balance rather than the headline that gets them in?

Again it’s laziness because the click is the statistic of exposure that they can show to advertisers, or in the case of the BBC the government, to get money in. Unfortunately the content clicked onto isn’t rated for its quality in a similar way!

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

2 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Nicely put! The question is why aren’t officials pointing exactly this out in the media! 

That's the difference up here in Scotland. The FM is constantly pointing out (some would say as nausiam) that we have got levels low because of the sacrifices everyone has been making and we have to keep our guard up. We are the first line of defence. Meanwhile the PM and his side kicks appear to be running around like headless chickens. As to journalists, they never let the truth or reasoned judgement get in the way of a dramatic headline. 

 

I stress that I have no political allegiance. 

 

Jim 

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

16 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

 

Well like I said before once / if we have a vaccine my risk will be significantly reduced but there’s also a period where those immunised will start to take less precautions increasing risk for those not immunised. 


Once the vaccine is generally accepted to be widely available if people choose to go to a show without being immunised then that is their decision. 

The organiser holding a show the first month of immunisation will have to expect a low turnout because probably only a low percentage will have actually got it. Two to three months after it’s available, which would be the minimum for reorganisation of a date anyway, I expect those that want it would have had the opportunity and I think things will return to what we consider normal. 


Until we know there is a vaccine and it’s effectiveness things are uncertain. Certainly the advances in treatment have been spectacular and they are still learning at a ferocious rate. None of this was unexpected by the experts and the vaccines are looking very promising to bring it into line with flu. As they’ve said it will not be eradicated but it can be brought down to the acceptable risks levels Phil mentioned. 


 

So give it time and this . . .

 

 Is kinda falling into the despondency fueled by this ;)

 


News is treated like entertainment these days to catch people’s attention. Surely it’s not beyond the ability of many more journalists to devote that same level to the story balance rather than the headline that gets them in?

Again it’s laziness because the click is the statistic of exposure that they can show to advertisers, or in the case of the BBC the government, to get money in. Unfortunately the content clicked onto isn’t rated for its quality in a similar way!

agree, don't forgt the politicians are also twisting the news to suit themselves.

One thing about vaccines. If this pandemic was likke that portrayed in the film 'Contagion', which a lot of people have now watched and possibly think it is what ishappening, then a vaccine might help everyone, but this is more like flue, worse for some, butI will definitely not use a vaccine for this. I have a stong immune system, and back in the 80s I did have a flue vaccine as it was being offered . One year late I had bad flu, and I hhad not sffered fro flu before, or certainly notbadly. Last November I had a bout of what I thought was flu, but the symptoms were identical to C19. I was more concerned about my wife as colds tend to go on her chest and she is borderline asmathic , but she only had the losss of taste and smell(more obvious to he as she has very strong sense of smell which makes it difficult for me to use paint or glue in the house!). Now we both survuved, probably not immune but our immune systems have shown their ability to handle it and have probably leant to deal with it in future.

My point is not everyone is the same. We might have a greater percentage of people in the hobby who might be affected but we don't know. The scientists don't know, but polticians and the media continue to spew out info as if it was scientifically proved.

As a mathematician it annoys me how the numbers they keep reporting are misused. Daily figures reported are only relevant compared to number tested. Double those tested and not surprising number positive doubles, and that is not taking into accout other social factors. It has made itimpossible to compare numbers taken at different times and also in different countries.

As for future of exhibition, maybe this is a opportunity for a ethink. Insead of using traditional venues, often now school, why not use shopping centres. Taking the hobby to the people might actually get more interest in the hobby. Nothing new in the idea. I might also help shopping malls get a few more people in. More 'smaller' mini exhibitions, in effect pop up ones. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...