"restrictions on mass gatherings"

[norainplease]

Me either!!

WoW.......your avatar always makes me smile, it is so sunny and shiney!!

[William of Walworth]

Apols for derail but I just had to pick up on something posted much earlier :

There was a time when I thought the Guardian was a cut above, until I read this load of bollocks last year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/apr/1...astonbury.urban

"As a black woman, I have always looked at the sheer whiteness of an event like Glastonbury and wondered what the attraction was. Sure, I enjoy a few bars of Coldplay, but would I risk a mudslide to see Chris Martin and co? I think not. I was almost tempted to go last year when the amazing Marley brothers were added to the bill, but this year is the closest I have ever come to picking up my tent and following the middle-class herd. Finally, Glastonbury is planning to showcase music I know the words to. This summer, I could be shouting the lyrics to Dirt Off Your Shoulder and 99 Problems as the sun started to set, with my brolly in one hand and a beer in the other.

Now, I won't even bother. One glance at the NME's website tells me all I need to know about just how inclusive Glastonbury still isn't."

When even the so-called quality press are printing someone's speculation based on something they read on the NME website, with ignorance and racism thrown in for good measure, you've got to wonder if you can trust any of the media!

[William of Walworth]

WoW.......your avatar always makes me smile, it is so sunny and shiney!!

[norainplease]

Heading for the weather thread NOW ....

[glastofever]

F%$K swine flu positive thoughs and a hot summer ahead.

[norainplease]

F%$K swine flu positive thoughs and a hot summer ahead.

Edited April 30, 2009 by norainplease

[bombfrog]

Ben Goldacre (Bad Science)

[William of Walworth]

I'm a little surprised by Ben Goldacre being so noncommital on this, I imagined he would be more sceptical about the media shitstorm over it all.

But because it's him, and because he has a fantastic track record of analysing proper science and real evidence intelligently, I'm respecting his caution about saying that so far, we just don't know yet where or how far this will go. His 'we need more evidence and we don't have enough yet to properly predict' is in keeping with his true scientist status ....

So healthy scepticism towards most of the hysterical media coverage is fair, but tis also probably sensible not to be too complacent, best not to completely dismiss any risk ...

Edited April 30, 2009 by William of Walworth

[Tugger2k]

I'm a little surprised by Ben Goldacre being so noncommital on this, I imagined he would be more sceptical about the media shitstorm over it all.

But because it's him, and because he has a fantastic track record of analysing proper science and real evidence intelligently, I'm respecting his caution about saying that so far, we just don't know yet where or how far this will go. His 'we need more evidence and we don't have enough yet to properly predict' is in keeping with his true scientist status ....

So healthy scepticism towards most of the hysterical media coverage is fair, but tis also probably sensible not to be too complacent, best not to completely dismiss any risk ...

[ukslim]

if were going to do it before can you come up with a number where its no longer a risk and actuallity?

Edited April 30, 2009 by ukslim

[William of Walworth]

OK, approach this paragraph with caution.

It's bundled into the bottom of a BBC story mostly about other aspects of a story not far short of a 'Swine Flu pandemic!!!1!!!1 OMG!!!1!! Let's PANIC!!!!1!!' type approach.

But it's worth being aware of one fact :

BBC latest : 'UK confirms eight swine flu cases'

Relevant paragraph --,as I say, buried well down :

The government's emergency committee Cobra, which was meeting again on Thursday morning, is also considering possible restrictions to large gatherings like concerts and sporting events.

Edited April 30, 2009 by William of Walworth

[Tugger2k]

each and every paragraph of that post starts with 'lets say', 'what happens', 'if' & 'now imagine' or words to that effect

sorry, i deal in facts - not fiction

i realise the point your trying to make - but no-one knows what and how things are going to pan out yet

so posting drivel (not you) threads about 'what happens if glastos cancelled' is about as useful as a chocolate teapot at this moment in time

edit - ukslims post, not WoW's

Edited April 30, 2009 by Tugger2k

[ukslim]

Look at the words 'considering possible restrictions' though, and think about them.

[Splatt]

I really think the likelihood of Glastonbury being cancelled is low at present (and I'll be bloody upset if it was). However I think people should realise that if it is, then it would be for a very good reason & should it happen we'd actually have a lot more to worry about that missing our week of fun at Worthy Farm.

[Tugger2k]

I really think the likelihood of Glastonbury being cancelled is low at present (and I'll be bloody upset if it was). However I think people should realise that if it is, then it would be for a very good reason & should it happen we'd actually have a lot more to worry about that missing our week of fun at Worthy Farm.

[srvman]

its a lot or horlicks to be honest, google the average number of deaths for actual normal flu its in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, id imagine more people in the last few weeks have died due to actual flu, than this pig thing

on a side note, im making a flag of a pig sneezing, with a speech bubble saying "achoo!" ,,,,reckon its not offensive

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

[ukslim]

each and every paragraph of that post starts with 'lets say', 'what happens', 'if' & 'now imagine' or words to that effect

sorry, i deal in facts - not fiction

[William of Walworth]

Edited April 30, 2009 by William of Walworth

[Tugger2k]

True, but they're "what ifs" at the moderate end of what might happen given what's already been witnessed in Mexico.

Well, hardly anything we do here is all that useful. It's just banter to keep us keyed up until the big weekend innit? It's not much of a "what if" really anyway. If it's cancelled, we suck up our disappointment and do something else that weekend.

[Ed209]

What people seem to be missing is the difference between potential disaster and definite disaster.

Everyone saying "SARS and bird flu turned out to be a lie" - that's nonsense. They were real threats that had the potential to kick off. Steps were taken. Luckily the dice rolled our way and disaster was averted.

Let's go for a mild scenario. Let's say that for most Britons, the effect of the flu is a week in bed on prescription medicine feeling like shit - most people don't die. Let's say it's loose, and spreading at a moderate rate that the NHS is just about coping with. Let's say they do the sums and reckon that 0.01% of the population is infected but not yet showing symptoms. Obviously it's not evenly distributed - there are clear areas and hot clusters.

Now what happens if 100,000 people from all over the country (and abroad) converge on a field in Somerset? The statistics of epidemiology are difficult, but let's do the naive thing and guess that 0.01% * 100,000 = 10 infected people are on the site. Crammed shoulder to shoulder with strangers in the dance tent... moving from one dense crowd to another for three days. Coughing near people who's immune systems are weakened from lack of sleep, exertion and overindulgence. I don't find it hard to imagine that in 3 days 20,000 people would get infected. And those 20,000 people all go home at the end of the festival to pass on the virus to people there.

Of course they don't show symptoms until a week later, when they'll start swamping health workers.

Whereas, if those 100,000 people stayed at home and did their normal thing - even if they go on buses and visit supermarkets, whatever, the virus has fewer chances to spread, by a massive factor.

Now, imagine you're some NGO policy maker, and someone comes to you with that scenario. 20,000 plus ill people costs the NHS £x and the economy £x in lost work. Stopping large gatherings costs the economy £x and causes public dissatisfaction. Pick one. The right answer depends on the figures at the time.

There are three positions being taken:

1. "Disaster is imminent": these people are very likely (but not certain) to be proved wrong.

2. "There is a risk": these people cannot be proved wrong - if I tell you there's a 1/6 chance of a die rolling a six, then roll a five, it doesn't mean I was wrong.

3. "It's all definitely a fuss over nothing": These people can't be proved right. Although they'll act as if they have been if the threat doesn't play out. There are lots of them though, and they'll have egg on their faces if the virus hits badly.

[William of Walworth]

True, but they're "what ifs" at the moderate end of what might happen given what's already been witnessed in Mexico.

Edited April 30, 2009 by William of Walworth

[Tugger2k]

If it's cancelled, we suck up our disappointment and do something else that weekend.

[William of Walworth]

i admire your relaxed stance - but if was cancelled i get the feeling the only thing we'll be allowed to do is stay in our houses

Edited April 30, 2009 by William of Walworth

[Tugger2k]

... which it you think about it logically, means that the entire UK population would be in quarantined house arrest.

Hardly at the HIGH end of the likelihood range is it?

(Question not aimed at you Tugger, more at any pessimists or panickers ..... )