Public Money Killing Private Enterprise

[Martin C 81]

On 14/09/2020 at 18:36, gamezone07 said:

interesting and revealing OP, more like this please

 

must have lots of disposable then, even local gigs can soct now.

Most were at West Street Live - free entry shows (and lots of interesting bands) 

[DerbyTup 10]

On 30/08/2020 at 17:08, tinfoilhat said:

Cracking post. I’ve a horrible feeling that a lot of venues won’t reopen at Easter. Hope I’m wrong.

 

Ive read a trade magazine with an admittedly very small poll and it’s a similar picture nationally, no theatre of any size will open up this side of spring as with social distancing, it’s not profitable. That said, the French, with covid cases going through the roof, are contemplating opening theatres with no social distancing!

Allow me to just add a little perspective to what you've put...

 

The French, have seen a sharp increase in new coronavirus infections, from 500 a day in July to 7,000 a day last week.  Despite this huge increase, the numbers of patients becoming seriously ill or dying from it had remained stable until about a week ago.  In the last week there has been a small increase in the number of patients admitted to intensive care and the number of deaths attributable to the virus.  Whilst the increase is not large, it does appear that there is a general trend of slight increases in both.  

 

Considering the huge increases in the number of new infections seen, the increases in patients admitted to intensive care and deaths are very, very small indeed. I would have expected to have seen far greater numbers than that, if the virus was causing serious illness in those who have contracted these new infections. It further underlines that the majority of people contracting the infection, will not suffer serious illness as a result. A very small minority will - and those are the same ones that we know about, with other co-morbidities and underlying conditions.  

 

These same people will remain vulnerable even if, and when, a vaccine becomes available.

 

Do we restrict everyone on the pretext of protecting the few? Or do we make the few fully aware of the risks and get them to protect themselves and let everyone else get on with their lives?

 

If we believe that it is better, morally, medically, whatever, to restrict everyone because of the threat from this coronavirus, then should we do the same for seasonal flu, which killed 12 times more people than coronavirus in the UK last month?

And where should we draw the line?

At what point do we consider what the implications are for people with other health conditions by having such a focus on coronavirus, and what damage will be done to people's lives because of the economic impact on society?

 

So, we are not going to open our theatres then?  OK fine.  Personally, I think we should.  I think we should get on with life and allow people to make their own choices. 

 

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

On 16/09/2020 at 08:30, DerbyTup said:

Allow me to just add a little perspective to what you've put...

 

The French, have seen a sharp increase in new coronavirus infections, from 500 a day in July to 7,000 a day last week.  Despite this huge increase, the numbers of patients becoming seriously ill or dying from it had remained stable until about a week ago.  In the last week there has been a small increase in the number of patients admitted to intensive care and the number of deaths attributable to the virus.  Whilst the increase is not large, it does appear that there is a general trend of slight increases in both.  

 

Considering the huge increases in the number of new infections seen, the increases in patients admitted to intensive care and deaths are very, very small indeed. I would have expected to have seen far greater numbers than that, if the virus was causing serious illness in those who have contracted these new infections. It further underlines that the majority of people contracting the infection, will not suffer serious illness as a result. A very small minority will - and those are the same ones that we know about, with other co-morbidities and underlying conditions.  

 

These same people will remain vulnerable even if, and when, a vaccine becomes available.

 

Do we restrict everyone on the pretext of protecting the few? Or do we make the few fully aware of the risks and get them to protect themselves and let everyone else get on with their lives?

 

If we believe that it is better, morally, medically, whatever, to restrict everyone because of the threat from this coronavirus, then should we do the same for seasonal flu, which killed 12 times more people than coronavirus in the UK last month?

And where should we draw the line?

At what point do we consider what the implications are for people with other health conditions by having such a focus on coronavirus, and what damage will be done to people's lives because of the economic impact on society?

 

So, we are not going to open our theatres then?  OK fine.  Personally, I think we should.  I think we should get on with life and allow people to make their own choices. 

 

 

I think we should. Im going to take a lot of convincing that it’s safer to fly than watch a play.

 

But equally, the gap between the number of infections, the number of hospitalisations and deaths can be quite long.

[catmiss 12]

On 16/09/2020 at 08:30, DerbyTup said:

Allow me to just add a little perspective to what you've put...

 

The French, have seen a sharp increase in new coronavirus infections, from 500 a day in July to 7,000 a day last week.  Despite this huge increase, the numbers of patients becoming seriously ill or dying from it had remained stable until about a week ago.  In the last week there has been a small increase in the number of patients admitted to intensive care and the number of deaths attributable to the virus.  Whilst the increase is not large, it does appear that there is a general trend of slight increases in both.  

 

Considering the huge increases in the number of new infections seen, the increases in patients admitted to intensive care and deaths are very, very small indeed. I would have expected to have seen far greater numbers than that, if the virus was causing serious illness in those who have contracted these new infections. It further underlines that the majority of people contracting the infection, will not suffer serious illness as a result. A very small minority will - and those are the same ones that we know about, with other co-morbidities and underlying conditions.  

 

These same people will remain vulnerable even if, and when, a vaccine becomes available.

 

Do we restrict everyone on the pretext of protecting the few? Or do we make the few fully aware of the risks and get them to protect themselves and let everyone else get on with their lives?

 

If we believe that it is better, morally, medically, whatever, to restrict everyone because of the threat from this coronavirus, then should we do the same for seasonal flu, which killed 12 times more people than coronavirus in the UK last month?

And where should we draw the line?

At what point do we consider what the implications are for people with other health conditions by having such a focus on coronavirus, and what damage will be done to people's lives because of the economic impact on society?

 

So, we are not going to open our theatres then?  OK fine.  Personally, I think we should.  I think we should get on with life and allow people to make their own choices. 

 

 

As an older person with a health condition rendering me as extremely vulnerable to the virus I agree with your perspective but am concerned about similarly vulnerable younger people who may have to for go economic and social well-being to remain virus free. I’ve also spoken to older vulnerable people who want to enjoy what remains of their life and are prepared to play Russian Roulette with the virus. Both groups have the right to make their choices but could end up costing the NHS a fortune 

[nikki-red 307]

Can we keep this on topic please? There’s obviously a big current thread already discussing the virus.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

Sky Arts is now free to air on Freeview (11) and Free Sat(147) for those who are missing their concerts and performances. 

The on demand service is still subscription only.

 

 

[alchresearch 214]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Sky Arts is now free to air on Freeview (11) and Free Sat(147) for those who are missing their concerts and performances. 

The on demand service is still subscription only.

 

 

Also free (SD only) on Virgin Media basic channels package