The return of exhibitions - a further poll

[RJS1977]

1 hour ago, David Bigcheeseplant said:

Until some smaller shows have taken place I really feel we won't have any idea what the future of shows will be. The large shows Warley and the Warners shows really have a tricky choice to go ahead or not.  I am talking about autumn/winter exhibitions where there should be no government restrictions in place. All of these require huge amounts of money to be put upfront in deposits and other costs, which could result in massive losses if people either don't show or the logistics laid down make it impossible to adhere the exhibition to.   

 

Venues may enforce their own rules, which could scupper some shows taking place which is why Scaleforum and WycRail have had to cancel as limited time at at exhibits and one way systems where some of the rules laid down which would probably be hard to organise and impossible to police.

 

David

 

 

 

I've already pretty much decided I won't be going to Warley this year.

 

However, if it goes ahead, I may buy a ticket anyway as a contribution towards the event's costs in order to help ensure the possibility of there being an event in 2022.

[MJI]

I will go to Warley IF I HAVE to show my vaccination card.

 

If everyone in that hall is done, I will feel OK.

[The Stationmaster]

Personally I doubt things will get anywhere near 'past normal' until next year although I might be wrong.    Useful survey thanks Andy and i do like the idea of a one way system because at least it might stop me missing things at a show!.   One thing I would not be happy with (not just because of my age ) is reduction/elimination of access of things such as seating, catering and toilets BUT if they are retained some really good levels of cleanliness and sanitising will be required.  I'm not worried about taking care for myself but, as ever, it's the others who might be the problem.  Hence although it may be illogical in some respects I'd be more inclined towards smaller shows because the number of (human) risk factors would be reduced.

 

All of this suggests to me - still - that organisers have a lot of thinking to do about how they will present their shows. and what part they think they should play in mitigating risks by such things providing more 'breathing space' in the total show area and/or requiring the wearing of masks.  And no doubt their insurers might well impose their own conditions as a means of reducing their potential exposure to the financial consequences of various risks.  And, equally, shows where a high percentage of attendees arrive by public transport could well be in a very different place from those where most attendees arrive in their personal transport.  All of which  tends to make me incline towards a view that admission prices might well rise as part of, or a consequence of, any mitigation measures and suspected impact on attendances.  

 

When it comes to personal things and attitudes as so often 'Nearholmer' makes some very pertinent points about the availability of the information that would allow us to make properly informed decisions.  All we can currently establish are overall rates plus identifying the areas which are suffering most from high levels of infection.  For example we know that with the latest Indian/Delta variant  one set of recent figures showed that 26% of those who had died had received both vaccinations  - but beyond that we don't know anything about any other risk factors involved or how they might impact those of us who have had both vaccinations.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

25 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Personally I doubt things will get anywhere near 'past normal' until next year although I might be wrong.    Useful survey thanks Andy and i do like the idea of a one way system because at least it might stop me missing things at a show!.   One thing I would not be happy with (not just because of my age ) is reduction/elimination of access of things such as seating, catering and toilets BUT if they are retained some really good levels of cleanliness and sanitising will be required.  I'm not worried about taking care for myself but, as ever, it's the others who might be the problem.  Hence although it may be illogical in some respects I'd be more inclined towards smaller shows because the number of (human) risk factors would be reduced.

 

All of this suggests to me - still - that organisers have a lot of thinking to do about how they will present their shows. and what part they think they should play in mitigating risks by such things providing more 'breathing space' in the total show area and/or requiring the wearing of masks.  And no doubt their insurers might well impose their own conditions as a means of reducing their potential exposure to the financial consequences of various risks.  And, equally, shows where a high percentage of attendees arrive by public transport could well be in a very different place from those where most attendees arrive in their personal transport.  All of which  tends to make me incline towards a view that admission prices might well rise as part of, or a consequence of, any mitigation measures and suspected impact on attendances.  

 

When it comes to personal things and attitudes as so often 'Nearholmer' makes some very pertinent points about the availability of the information that would allow us to make properly informed decisions.  All we can currently establish are overall rates plus identifying the areas which are suffering most from high levels of infection.  For example we know that with the latest Indian/Delta variant  one set of recent figures showed that 26% of those who had died had received both vaccinations  - but beyond that we don't know anything about any other risk factors involved or how they might impact those of us who have had both vaccinations.

I’m not sure anyone else has raised the question of ticket price thus far - would I be willing to pay a bit more to attend a show to help the organisers cover costs with reduced capacity?  I think I would, to support a local show or a smaller regional one I usually try and attend.  But I might have to only go to one show rather than two.

It could be argued that would help - economically speaking it means the higher price “chokes off” my extra demand, so helps manage within a capacity limit, but equally it could also be argued it makes it more difficult for events / traders to be viable.

 

Would I be willing to pay a bit more for a show which had to contain fewer exhibits / trade stands to meet requirements.  If I knew in advance I could make that decision on an informed basis.  Again, I probably would go to a local show if I could.

As Mike says, and I agree 100%: “organisers have a lot of thinking to do about how they will present their shows”

 

Whatever the ways forwards (and we might be about to find out more) I would say that those who organise, plan and host shows deserve a lot of understanding, patience and respect.  Keith.

 

 

 

[Not Jeremy]

2 hours ago, MJI said:

I will go to Warley IF I HAVE to show my vaccination card.

 

If everyone in that hall is done, I will feel OK.

 

Which cautious approach seems somewhat at odds with your ever so bold Avatar

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself....

[AY Mod]

Given today's confirmation, if ratified next week, there will be no !eval restrictions to holding a full-scale event.

 

How wise that is, how morally appropriate it may be and how viable in practice it is are completely different and obviously not a government or local authority concern any longer after 19 July.

[90rob]

3 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

Given today's confirmation, if ratified next week, there will be no !eval restrictions to holding a full-scale event.

 

How wise that is, how morally appropriate it may be and how viable in practice it is are completely different and obviously not a government or local authority concern any longer after 19 July.

 

So it becomes a personal responsibilty/let the buyer beware sort of thing...

[Gilbert]

2 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

Given today's confirmation, if ratified next week, there will be no !eval restrictions to holding a full-scale event.

 

How wise that is, how morally appropriate it may be and how viable in practice it is are completely different and obviously not a government or local authority concern any longer after 19 July.

I got the impression events and premises could set their own rules (joy) on things like masks and jab status and I expect public transport staff will be lobbying for masks on passengers under most circumstances so it could be an interesting summer..

 

[woodenhead]

3 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

Given today's confirmation, if ratified next week, there will be no !eval restrictions to holding a full-scale event.

 

How wise that is, how morally appropriate it may be and how viable in practice it is are completely different and obviously not a government or local authority concern any longer after 19 July.

If people are prepared to visit then the viability answer may be answered because without restrictions those planning exhibitions don't need to consider managing mask wearers, maintaining distancing, screens, taking temperatures or testing regimes for exhibiters and punters within the costs.  

 

It's whether people will visit and how responsible they can be which comes back to morals, more so of the punters.

[AY Mod]

2 minutes ago, 90rob said:

So it becomes a personal responsibilty/let the buyer beware sort of thing...

 

It largely is anyway already; imagine the roads, the workplace and society without laws - years ago someone decided it didn't really work.

[AY Mod]

3 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

the viability answer may be answered because without restrictions those planning exhibitions don't need to consider managing mask wearers, maintaining distancing, screens, taking temperatures or testing regimes for exhibiters and punters within the costs.  

 

It would be a show with few exhibitors if there was no supporting consideration of the safety of all if the conversations I've had this weekend with layout owners  are indicative.

 

Whether that sentiment will be the same in 3,6 or 9 months time is obviously indeterminable today.

[corneliuslundie]

But remember that we are here only talking about the changes in England.

Jonathan

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, corneliuslundie said:

But remember that we are here only talking about the changes in England.

Jonathan

 

Very true, I think Scotland will hold out a little longer than the Welsh Assembly may. 

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

It would be a show with few exhibitors if there was no supporting consideration of the safety of all if the conversations I've had this weekend with layout owners  are indicative.

 

Whether that sentiment will be the same in 3,6 or 9 months time is obviously indeterminable today.

And if people don't feel ready to exhibit then that is fine by me and we wait until they are ready, it's personal choice isn't it.  I wouldn't criticise anyone who still feels discomfort or fear about covid.

[Andy Hayter]

22 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

Given today's confirmation, if ratified next week, there will be no !eval restrictions to holding a full-scale event.

 

How wise that is, how morally appropriate it may be and how viable in practice it is are completely different and obviously not a government or local authority concern any longer after 19 July.

 

That personal responsibility also falls on the organisers.

 

If they are expecting a very large number of attendees, they may demand proof of vaccination - not a legal requirement but a proof of personal responsibility.  Operationally a nightmare unless tickets are sold in advance with that proof provided as part of the purchase process.  

 

More realistically they could - perhaps should - require mask wearing within the exhibition area.  Again no legal requirement but a prudent move by someone taking personal responsibility -  as an organiser. 

[Michael Hodgson]

 

13 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

I got the impression events and premises could set their own rules (joy) on things like masks and jab status and I expect public transport staff will be lobbying for masks on passengers under most circumstances so it could be an interesting summer..

 

 

That wasn't at all clear to me from the Downing Street broadcast.  The PM said there would be no restrictions on events requiring us to show proof of vaccination etc.  Immediately after that he said that organisations could use the app to show we weren't infected.   So presumably he meant there would be no legal restrictions on that.  The experts said they would still wear a mask in crowded places or as a matter of "common courtesy" to anybody who felt they ought to wear one.  The trouble with that is courtesy isn't all that common and it can't be enforced - I've got a democratic right to be as rude as I please. 

 

So if an exhibition organiser decides visitors should wear masks, what happens when somebody tells them to eff off?  Are they within their rights to chuck him out?  Will they need bouncers?  Will it result in fisticuffs and the old bill having to be called to enforce a law that is no longer the law? 

 

The same problem is going to afflict public transport of course.  I can see the courts having to deal with a lot of cases of affray.  I'll be interested to hear what the NHS directors have to say about patients/visitors who won't wear masks in hospital and to hear the advice the GMC will give the doctors about opening GP surgeries, especially as they still have a duty of care to the most vulnerable patients.

[47137]

Masks are social badges to let people show they care. They might as well wear a green lanyard or a poppy. A double jab is hugely more effective.

 

If show organisers want to do something useful they could keep the windows open and admit only adults. And if they wish to impose rules on visitors e.g. time limits or compulsory mask wearing, they need top make this clear in their pre-show advertising not at the door.

 

- Richard.

 

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

That personal responsibility also falls on the organisers.

 

If they are expecting a very large number of attendees, they may demand proof of vaccination - not a legal requirement but a proof of personal responsibility.  Operationally a nightmare unless tickets are sold in advance with that proof provided as part of the purchase process.  

 

More realistically they could - perhaps should - require mask wearing within the exhibition area.  Again no legal requirement but a prudent move by someone taking personal responsibility -  as an organiser. 

Given the main age groups attending exhibitions as highlighted by this poll, >90% of us will be double vaccinated and potentially boosted by the time exhibitions start again.

 

Mask wearing though may be prudent as would lots of hand gel dotted about the exhibition, no problem with that.

 

Unvaccinated people should be relatively well protected because they are surrounded by those who are - herd immunity at play.  I would also imagine that people who have health risks may choose to stay away just as they may choose to not go to a restaurant, the shops or other public space.

[AY Mod]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

what happens when somebody tells them to eff off? 

 

If it's a condition of entry and hey haven't got one on they'd be refused entry (unless satisfactory proof of exemption is offered), if they were seen without one in the event a steward would politely ask them to comply. If there was a refusal then security (if employed) would ask them to leave.

 

[RJS1977]

29 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

That personal responsibility also falls on the organisers.

 

If they are expecting a very large number of attendees, they may demand proof of vaccination - not a legal requirement but a proof of personal responsibility.  Operationally a nightmare unless tickets are sold in advance with that proof provided as part of the purchase process.  

 

 

I'm not sure it would be 'a nightmare'. Presumably someone will have to be on the door accepting either payment or pre-paid tickets. It should be easy enough for the person being admitted to show their jab card or NHS app at the same time. 

 

For those purchasing in advance, notification should be included either on the website and/or on the ticket saying 'You will need to show evidence of vaccination in order to be permitted entry'.

 

Of course, that wouldn't work at a really big show like Warley where the 'gate guardians' just glance at a ticket and tear it, and where the punters may well have been crowded outside the hall for the previous half an hour.

 

 

Arguably mask-wearing would be harder to enforce - what if someone removed their mask once inside? Whilst a member of the hosting club, exhibitor or punter may have 'a strong word' with them, it's a lot harder to eject someone from a show than to not let them in in the first place.

Edited July 5, 2021 by RJS1977

[Gilbert]

The sum total of the recent posts is that it's a mine field although I certainly don't agree that masks are simply social badges to let people show they care....

[Bernard Lamb]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

 

That wasn't at all clear to me from the Downing Street broadcast.  The PM said there would be no restrictions on events requiring us to show proof of vaccination etc.  Immediately after that he said that organisations could use the app to show we weren't infected.   So presumably he meant there would be no legal restrictions on that.  The experts said they would still wear a mask in crowded places or as a matter of "common courtesy" to anybody who felt they ought to wear one.  The trouble with that is courtesy isn't all that common and it can't be enforced - I've got a democratic right to be as rude as I please. 

 

So if an exhibition organiser decides visitors should wear masks, what happens when somebody tells them to eff off?  Are they within their rights to chuck him out?  Will they need bouncers?  Will it result in fisticuffs and the old bill having to be called to enforce a law that is no longer the law? 

 

The same problem is going to afflict public transport of course.  I can see the courts having to deal with a lot of cases of affray.  I'll be interested to hear what the NHS directors have to say about patients/visitors who won't wear masks in hospital and to hear the advice the GMC will give the doctors about opening GP surgeries, especially as they still have a duty of care to the most vulnerable patients.

Ryan Air and Easy Jet both say that masks will still be mandatory and a condition of carriage. I expect the unions in LU and several other areas to be asking very serious questions in respect of employees safety. Some insurance companies are also not likely to lift the restrictions on the use of various premises. I have a church  hall booked for regular meetings from September to December and the conditions have been agreed even if the law allows for relaxation of social distancing and other restrictions. The insurance terms for the organization is also not likely to change before the end of the year at the earliest. It is all going to get very messy.

Bernard

[BobM]

Evening Guy’s hope all are well?

With the almost certain prospect of many restrictions being lifted and an attitude from government ‘you’re on you own mate’ now policy ensuing it will be incumbent upon us all to have a care for each other’s potential unease at large events should any of us choose to attend?

Warley Show often occurred with two other major event’s attracting many thousands to the NEC on that weekend, the trains into International crammed to the gunnels in the mornings. Even though I am double vaccinated and probably by November ‘boosted’ too as will many others at that time, I would be very reluctant to stand so close to folks in the lobbies of trains and passageways of the NEC whether fully vaccinated or not at this present time? I hope that my mindset will be altered by subsequent changes in the national situation, pig’s may fly but I have my doubts sadly.

Take care my friends Bob

[RJS1977]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Ryan Air and Easy Jet both say that masks will still be mandatory and a condition of carriage. I expect the unions in LU and several other areas to be asking very serious questions in respect of employees safety.

 

On LU, I would say that there is a big variation in risk depending on location and time of day (as indeed there is for much of the rest of the transport network).

 

I've travelled large sections of the Tube for fun on occasional Saturday afternoons in the five years or so prior to the pandemic, and I would say that unless there is a big event on like football, or Notting Hill Carnival, or similar, the above-ground sections of the Underground are often pretty quiet off-peak and many stations either just have one staff member in a perspex booth, or none at all (I've lost count of the number of times I've accidentally demagnetised my ticket and had to crawl under the barrier!).

 

The 'deep lines' in Zones 1 and 2 are another matter altogether!

[Andy Hayter]

44 minutes ago, 47137 said:

Masks are social badges to let people show they care. They might as well wear a green lanyard or a poppy. A double jab is hugely more effective.

 

 

 

- Richard.

 

 

 

Not quite true.

Double mask wearing (as in both parties wear a mask) by the infected and the potential victim reduces the chances of infection to below 5%.

This is marginally beaten by the Pfizer vaccine and just beats the AZ vaccine.

So mask wearing is much more than just a badge.

 

However - and I have held off commentating on this until now - I am appalled by the British attitude to mask wearing. 

 

In France entry to any public building, visit to the doctor or nurse, the vet, any shop etc.  indeed in some cities and departements (counties) anywhere in the outdoor public area will be met with a sign  "masque obligatiore" (You must wear a mask).  No lanyards, no doctors exemptions, no letters from mum - Johnny should be excused mask wearing today - no mask = no entry.