|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 8:47:11 GMT
Apologies for starting a new thread if this would be better placed in another one - mods please feel free to move. But it is in it's own right a topic of interest so thought would start one place to bring it all together.
My question is this - are there official hard and vast government rules that set out exact distances audience members should be from each other? Or is it very much open to interpretation. And has it changed since JCS and Sleepless and the Winter shows which are taking bookings now? I have been looking for the details of what is expected of theatres and I can't find them.
As people are doing different things. JCS and Sleepless of course had every other row off sale.
Then Songs For A New World was a funny one. It started as the same model with every other row off sale. Sold out. Then suddenly every row was on sale. The key difference is that people can now sit directly in front of and behind each other. They said it wasn't to do with money, they'd just 'realised' that actually this was safe. Daddy Shenton was of course very upset. A distance of 1m apart was mentioned repeatedly.
But what is 1m? I'd say 1m is the shortest distance between two people. In the arrangement it is clearly not 1m from person A's mouth to the back of person B's head in front. Or are they talking seat pitch like in planes? So 1m between the same point of seats in one row to the next?
I do think the Palladium fuss was overblown. But I think it would have helped if they were more transparent.
Then now, Les Mis and the Panto are following the every row and the nebulous 1m (between what) model. But Curve in Leicester have gone with the every other row off sale, truly distanced.
Why is this important? Well, economically I guess. We had a lot of shouting back in the day that social distancing means 25% capacity so theatres couldn't possibly open as it's not viable. Fair enough. But Les Mis now is getting to 70% ish capacity. If that sells out, which it has, this is a very workable and profitable model for a West End show. So it is good news.
Is everyone working to different rules, have the rules changed, are they specific anyway, or are they so nebulous you can kind of adapt them to please you.
My own position? I fully understand why people would be anxious about having someone directly behind them. Certainly if I knew person behind me had the virus, I would not want to be sat there. However, if this 'new' socially distancing (but to 70% capacity) allows shows to open, then I am all for it. Would rather that than nothing.
I just wish was all a bit clearer what is and isn't allowed!
|
|
354 posts
|
Post by properjob on Oct 16, 2020 9:14:33 GMT
A complication is that "row" isn't a standard unit.
If the theatre can move rows futher apart then they can move them to 1m apart. If they can't then the only way to do it is every other row. In the palladium the stalls were moved to be spaced out but the other floors weren't and so had to be sold every other row. I assume this is due to a sloped floor in the stalls but a stepped floor in the circle etc.
I think the relevant distance is mouth/nose to mouth/nose of someone else not in your bubble.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Oct 16, 2020 9:21:32 GMT
My issue was never the seating, it was getting to them. The idea of 1m is easily enforceable in principle, until that person in the middle of the row brushes past you to get to the toilet, or that person arrives late and had to go past everybody in the row to get to their seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 9:47:26 GMT
My issue was never the seating, it was getting to them. The idea of 1m is easily enforceable in principle, until that person in the middle of the row brushes past you to get to the toilet, or that person arrives late and had to go past everybody in the row to get to their seat. Yes, certainly at the Open Air was that with the alternate empty rows, most of the more agile audience members jumped into the row behind or in front to get to seat if they arrived late or to leave it if they had to go out mid performance, rather than brush past people. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 9:49:16 GMT
I think the relevant distance is mouth/nose to mouth/nose of someone else not in your bubble. I think it must be, as it's clearly not 1 metre face to back. But still, some theatres do back to back seating and some are avoiding it. Perhaps there are no official regulations re seating! |
|
354 posts
|
Post by properjob on Oct 16, 2020 10:11:01 GMT
My issue was never the seating, it was getting to them. The idea of 1m is easily enforceable in principle, until that person in the middle of the row brushes past you to get to the toilet, or that person arrives late and had to go past everybody in the row to get to their seat. But you have to consider the "time at risk" as well. There will be no exact figures but I belive the contact tracing app is using greater than 15mins as the threshold. You would have to be very unlucky to catch it/pass it on with a short contact as someone goes past espically if they have a mask to help catch sudden coughs and sneezes. That's different to being sat close to someone for a couple of hours at a time. |
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Oct 16, 2020 10:49:30 GMT
I know it’s not the same but it must be a similar principle, Covid secure office spaces must have people 1m apart if wearing masks, 2m if not AND not sitting face to face. So surely 1m must be the rule even if someone is just pointing at the back of someone’s head.
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on Oct 16, 2020 10:52:25 GMT
But you have to consider the "time at risk" as well. There will be no exact figures but I belive the contact tracing app is using greater than 15mins as the threshold. You would have to be very unlucky to catch it/pass it on with a short contact as someone goes past espically if they have a mask to help catch sudden coughs and sneezes. That's different to being sat close to someone for a couple of hours at a time. Exactly, I don't get the panic of being in close proximity to someone for a few seconds, especially when both parties are silent. Maybe for once it's good to not be polite and keep uttering "excuse me" and "sorry" while brushing past someone. Same in foyers, etc. Here I think the biggest problem is people standing around talking to each other for minutes (and expelling lots of aerosols at the time). Over here the regulation is that from the moment the theatre opens the outer doors, people have to head straight for their seats and not linger in foyers and on staircases. Another thing are air-conditioning systems. A good AC system can "move" the air within seconds, so even that person behind you breathing out the virus is no danger. However, I don't think any of the old listed theatres in the West End have such a system. Funny enough (if you can call anything in relation to Covid funny) Switzerland now had the first theatre-related Covid outbreak ... at a yodeling musical. A performer on stage was infected and spread it to cast members and audience alike. So do not yodel on stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 11:09:53 GMT
My issue was never the seating, it was getting to them. The idea of 1m is easily enforceable in principle, until that person in the middle of the row brushes past you to get to the toilet, or that person arrives late and had to go past everybody in the row to get to their seat. I'm sorry, but that's more than a bit paranoid - someone getting past you will be doing so for maximum two seconds, with a mask on (as you will also have) and probably not looking directly at you. And you can turn your head or get up if you want to. That situation is no different to walking past someone on the street, except it's actually safer because everyone is wearing masks and probably trying their best not to cough even if they have a tickle in their throat. It is no different to walking through a bus or a train to find an empty seat. Some people seem to think that "covid-safe" means no risk at all for even a millisecond, which it doesn't and it can't. At the end of the day, you choose to go or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 11:12:04 GMT
I think the relevant distance is mouth/nose to mouth/nose of someone else not in your bubble. I think it must be, as it's clearly not 1 metre face to back. But still, some theatres do back to back seating and some are avoiding it. Perhaps there are no official regulations re seating! There aren't actually any official regulations regarding distancing - it is all guidance, not actual law. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 11:13:50 GMT
Is everyone working to different rules, have the rules changed, are they specific anyway, or are they so nebulous you can kind of adapt them to please you. I think it has to be nebulous to a certain extent. Can you imagine how pissed off someone would be if the government said that people have to sit no closer than 150cm apart so they measure their seating and find out it's 148cm? It's up to operators to know their own venues and think about what they can do, not only to keep people safe but also to make sure those people feel safe. There's obviously no sharp dividing line between safety and danger so it really is up to everyone to understand risks and think for themselves, either to judge what they have to do with their own business or to decide how they feel when visiting someone else's business. Nothing is perfectly safe. It's just safe enough.
That's how everything else happens, after all. I'd bet 90% of people don't even know how to find laws and regulations and have certainly never read any. They just get by with a broad understanding of risks and a general strategy of not being a moron, and it almost always works well enough. There's no reason why this situation should be any different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 11:43:53 GMT
Is everyone working to different rules, have the rules changed, are they specific anyway, or are they so nebulous you can kind of adapt them to please you. I think it has to be nebulous to a certain extent. Can you imagine how pissed off someone would be if the government said that people have to sit no closer than 150cm apart so they measure their seating and find out it's 148cm? It's up to operators to know their own venues and think about what they can do, not only to keep people safe but also to make sure those people feel safe. There's obviously no sharp dividing line between safety and danger so it really is up to everyone to understand risks and think for themselves, either to judge what they have to do with their own business or to decide how they feel when visiting someone else's business. Nothing is perfectly safe. It's just safe enough.
That's how everything else happens, after all. I'd bet 90% of people don't even know how to find laws and regulations and have certainly never read any. They just get by with a broad understanding of risks and a general strategy of not being a moron, and it almost always works well enough. There's no reason why this situation should be any different.
Oh I fully agree. It does just need to be safe enough. And of course these things can never be measured as a "% safe" and nothing in life is totally safe. What interests me is the huge difference in capacity from the 25% ish of alternate rows off sale and two seats between groups to what we are seeing now of every row on sale, one seat between groups; 75% ish capacity. So basically, if the prevailing mood is now that the latter is ok then we have made a huge stride forward and theatre can be viable and profitable. (But it makes me wonder why there was SO much "we can't operate at 25% etc etc" if nobody had ever asked them to. Though of course I do get that it's uncharted territory for everyone so things weren't exactly clear; but the 25% arm waving was extensive). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 11:47:45 GMT
(But it makes me wonder why there was SO much "we can't operate at 25% etc etc" if nobody had ever asked them to). Because most theatres probably still aren't profiting from the shows they are putting on (am I right in thinking Nimax have said they are operating at a loss?), and even if they are it won't be much. They may not legally have been prevented from operating a 25% capacity but financially they will have been as that wouldn't even have covered costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 11:54:08 GMT
(But it makes me wonder why there was SO much "we can't operate at 25% etc etc" if nobody had ever asked them to). Because most theatres probably still aren't profiting from the shows they are putting on (am I right in thinking Nimax have said they are operating at a loss?), and even if they are it won't be much. They may not legally have been prevented from operating a 25% capacity but financially they will have been as that wouldn't even have covered costs. Oh no I know that, and I agree, 25% impossible. But am saying am not sure anyone had asked them to operate at 25% - social distancing indoors can it seems mean up to 75%. |
|
5,160 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 16, 2020 12:01:26 GMT
I try very hard not to be a cynic, but maybe the 25% figure was being used when all those applications for grants were being made?
|
|
354 posts
|
Post by properjob on Oct 16, 2020 12:03:17 GMT
(But it makes me wonder why there was SO much "we can't operate at 25% etc etc" if nobody had ever asked them to). Because most theatres probably still aren't profiting from the shows they are putting on (am I right in thinking Nimax have said they are operating at a loss?), and even if they are it won't be much. They may not legally have been prevented from operating a 25% capacity but financially they will have been as that wouldn't even have covered costs. Also not everyone involved is being paid for thier work. Ayckbourn has wavied his fee for the Talking Heads and I belive the Les Mis writers have done the same. Now clearly people at the end of a long and successful career will be more than fine financially but it isn't sustainable long term as new writers at the beginning of their career need to be paid. Also a lot of what is being put on is using very small casts/and or previously presented shows which will need very little rehearsal. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 12:03:31 GMT
The theatre industry does have a habit of overstating the problems they face. When smoking was banned in indoor workplaces the theatre industry's response was to claim that this would make it impossible for them to put on any play where a character was smoking. What were they supposed to do? Use a fake cigarette and pretend?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 12:09:21 GMT
I try very hard not to be a cynic, but maybe the 25% figure was being used when all those applications for grants were being made? My hunch is also that the 25% stuff all came from theatres and was never mandated by government! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 12:11:32 GMT
Also not everyone involved is being paid for thier work. Ayckbourn has wavied his fee for the Talking Heads and I belive the Les Mis writers have done the same. Now clearly people at the end of a long and successful career will be more than fine financially but it isn't sustainable long term as new writers at the beginning of their career need to be paid. Also a lot of what is being put on is using very small casts/and or previously presented shows which will need very little rehearsal. I didn't quite follow all the hoo-hah re finances on the Les Mis thread. But they've sold out at 70% ish capacity at 100 quid for the average ticket. Given that it's a previously presented version with a familiar cast, then if they are not making a decent profit they have done something wrong! |
|
5,160 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 16, 2020 12:31:14 GMT
We shouldn't give Alan Ayckbourn too much credit. It was a relatively easy decision for him to waive his royalties for Talking Heads...especially as it was written by Alan Bennett. 🙂
|
|
354 posts
|
Post by properjob on Oct 16, 2020 12:42:24 GMT
We shouldn't give Alan Ayckbourn too much credit. It was a relatively easy decision for him to waive his royalties for Talking Heads...especially as it was written by Alan Bennett. 🙂 In the unconvincing words of Captain Mainwaring. "I was waiting to see who would be the first to spot that" |
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Oct 16, 2020 13:42:04 GMT
My issue was never the seating, it was getting to them. The idea of 1m is easily enforceable in principle, until that person in the middle of the row brushes past you to get to the toilet, or that person arrives late and had to go past everybody in the row to get to their seat. But you have to consider the "time at risk" as well. There will be no exact figures but I belive the contact tracing app is using greater than 15mins as the threshold. You would have to be very unlucky to catch it/pass it on with a short contact as someone goes past espically if they have a mask to help catch sudden coughs and sneezes. That's different to being sat close to someone for a couple of hours at a time. Asi understand it, the app has a 15 minute threshold for being within 2m of someone who has tested positive (approximately - the technology isn't capable of measuring the distance particularly accurately), or 30 minutes if you were between 2m and 4m away. So on that basis, the threshold for 1m would be 7-8 minutes. Actually probably less, as I suspect there's an exponential increase in risk as you get closer to someone. In any case, being 1m away from someone for 2 hours would certainly exceed the threshold. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 13:44:40 GMT
In any case, being 1m away from someone for 2 hours would certainly exceed the threshold. Only if you aren't wearing masks. The thresholds don't take account of mitigation measures, which the theatres have in abundance. And either way it proves the point that passing people for a few seconds getting to and from your seat is not a heightened risk. |
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Oct 16, 2020 13:50:12 GMT
In any case, being 1m away from someone for 2 hours would certainly exceed the threshold. Only if you aren't wearing masks. The thresholds don't take account of mitigation measures, which the theatres have in abundance. The contract tracing app doesn't know about mitigation measures. I don't know what happens if you are contacted by a contract tracer and tell them, "It's okay, we were wearing masks." (I'm not making a joke. Having now thought of it, I'm honestly wondering if they take that into account.) |
|
433 posts
|
Post by alison on Oct 16, 2020 14:22:58 GMT
I think it has to be nebulous to a certain extent. Can you imagine how pissed off someone would be if the government said that people have to sit no closer than 150cm apart so they measure their seating and find out it's 148cm? It's up to operators to know their own venues and think about what they can do, not only to keep people safe but also to make sure those people feel safe. There's obviously no sharp dividing line between safety and danger so it really is up to everyone to understand risks and think for themselves, either to judge what they have to do with their own business or to decide how they feel when visiting someone else's business. Nothing is perfectly safe. It's just safe enough.
That's how everything else happens, after all. I'd bet 90% of people don't even know how to find laws and regulations and have certainly never read any. They just get by with a broad understanding of risks and a general strategy of not being a moron, and it almost always works well enough. There's no reason why this situation should be any different.
Oh I fully agree. It does just need to be safe enough. And of course these things can never be measured as a "% safe" and nothing in life is totally safe. What interests me is the huge difference in capacity from the 25% ish of alternate rows off sale and two seats between groups to what we are seeing now of every row on sale, one seat between groups; 75% ish capacity.
So basically, if the prevailing mood is now that the latter is ok then we have made a huge stride forward and theatre can be viable and profitable.
(But it makes me wonder why there was SO much "we can't operate at 25% etc etc" if nobody had ever asked them to. Though of course I do get that it's uncharted territory for everyone so things weren't exactly clear; but the 25% arm waving was extensive).BIB - as far as I'm aware, any production that has sold with all rows occupied is able to do so because they've moved the rows so that there is 1m between them - which is why Songs For a New World had people in all rows of the stalls, but had to leave alternate rows empty in the circles as they couldn't be moved. The info for the Les Mis concert claims the same, that they have resat all the rows for distancing. Your average theatre won't have that space between rows already, so unless they're in a position to move rows then they're forced to keep alternate rows empty. |
|
