If youre struggling to get by financially,go out get a normal temporary job for a while!
Damn, that really sucks.Most of the big festivals attract a crowd from places all over the Earth, so I guess that's a definite no. Clubs are still problematic - clubs were opened in Serbia for a month or so (in June), and we've hit a second peak since. Until people get vaccinated, nothing is permanent.
What do you think of the controversy surrounding the Chainsmokers concert at New York City? According to the New York governor himself, this concert will be investigated. Yikes.Exactly this.
I've seen many DJs participating in this. But face the fact that large (dance) festivals are amongst the last kind of events that will be re-openened.... for a reason obviously.
Better yet, go back to school or maybe pick up a book to learn something and pick up another skill to learn. They are accustomed to that kind of lifestyle hence why they are complaining.Cos theyre 'desperate' to play out again - isnt this a bit of selfish POV with some parts of the world still in lockdown? If youre struggling to get by financially,go out get a normal temporary job for a while!
If youre struggling to get by financially,go out get a normal temporary job for a while!
Easier said than done? It's not as if the Job market is booming at the moment.
Theres loads in the warehouses.
Can you honestly say that the risk of infection is lower at a gym than it is a festival?
There aren't in excess of 10000 people in the gym, close to each other.
There absolutely is. Speaking from the UK we have 1 big gym company called Pure Gym which operates 260 gyms. If 100 people visit a day then that's 26,000 people per day all touching the same 20 pieces of equipment over and over again across the country. Thats just one gym company, there are 1000's of others. It's essentially 50,000+ per day interacting in small places, sweating and sharing the same equipment. Festivals don't even come close to this level of interaction. With all the gyms in the UK I would guess over 100,000 people per day interacting.
And in terms of health systems collapsing, again I can only speak for the UK, but the critical bed rate is less than 0.001% so at this stage of the pandemic that cannot be an excuse.
That's what I was thinking. The level of spread described in @Hensmon's post could be true if a substantial population at each gym visited different gyms, but generally people stick to their own gym. Rather than 100,000 infecting one another at once, you really just have hundreds of people infecting one another at hundreds of locations. Not exactly the same, but my bet is that infecting 100,000 in the second scenario would take much longer.Your math is wrong. Not at the same time, and not at the same location, and not the same equipment.
I don't think the numbers being in one place or spread out over multiple places is relevant, you could even argue the latter is worse. My point overall is that 100,000+ people may be going to the gym every single day in the UK, which is a huge number per week, in an environment which encourages the sweating and the sharing of a handful of equipment. If people are going to make the case that's safe, whereas going to festival is unsafe then I i'd like to see the criteria for the seperation, but have a feeling any attempt to define that will fail. Collecitvely gyms outweigh festivals in terms of people in rooms per day....by far.