Proms 2021 General topics

[teamsaint]

I think the 60/40 split referred to above suggests that the general public are still as confused as ever about what is and isn't required by law/recommended/advised - a confusion that also makes life very difficult for organizers, of course. Such uncertainty would certainly deter me from attending. I shall continue to wear a mask when in an enclosed space - a term which can, I think, be taken to include RAH. Never were the words 'better safe than sorry' more pertinent!
As far as the privacy issue is concerned, I accepted a long time ago that 'they' will find out whatever the want to know about me and there's little point in my trying to stop them. The fact that I have had 2 vaccine jobs is unlikely to make me more, or less, of a threat no national security or make it easier for somebody to empty my bank account, but it may help improve planning for the next medical emergency.

We are now heading off topic, but I do ( with respect) disagree with the argument that “ they already know all about us” as a good reason to go along with enabling a huge step- change in the direction of centralised collection of data in government hands,(via Digital ID) which will be , apart from anything else be very hard to reverse.
Planning for the next medical emergency can be done in other ways, surely ?

[kernelbogey]

To encourage a return to the topic of this thread, I find the information that showing one's 'jab card' appears to be adequate for entry to the RAH useful, as I imagine it to be to anyone still contemplating booking a Proms ticket. (This would also possibly reflect current policy at some other public venues, e.g art galleries.)

Regardless of the wider debate to which TS refers, for which other threads exist, I imagine that the RAH can justify a policy of requesting proof of vaccination to admit a ticket holder, in the same way that (say) admission might be refused to someone smelling of drink and clutching a can of export lager.

[LMcD]

To encourage a return to the topic of this thread, I find the information that showing one's 'jab card' appears to be adequate for entry to the RAH useful, as I imagine it to be to anyone still contemplating booking a Proms ticket. (This would also possibly reflect current policy at some other public venues, e.g art galleries.)

Regardless of the wider debate to which TS refers, for which other threads exist, I imagine that the RAH can justify a policy of requesting proof of vaccination to admit a ticket holder, in the same way that (say) admission might be refused to someone smellling of drink and clutching a can of export lager.

Are the wearing or non-wearing of masks in the RAH and the preconditions for admission, relating as they do to the more general question of privacy and data acquisition, not relevant on a thread entitled 'Proms 2021 General Topics'?

[Petrushka]

Are the wearing or non-wearing of masks in the RAH and the preconditions for admission, relating as they do to the more general question of privacy and data acquisition, not relevant on a thread entitled 'Proms 2021 General Topics'?

Only tangentially, in my view. The first two you mention do, the others you yourself admit relate to the 'more general question' and have been dealt with extensively on other threads.
We don't need to keep going over the same ground.

[Bryn]

Only tangentially, in my view. The first two you mention do, the others you yourself admit relate to the 'more general question' and have been dealt with extensively on other threads.
We don't need to keep going over the same ground.

What, as in "Proms 2021 General topics", the title of this thread.

[Petrushka]

What, as in "Proms 2021 General topics", the title of this thread.

'[T]he wearing or non-wearing of masks in the RAH and the preconditions for admission' do relate directly to the Proms. Privacy issues etc don't. I'm with PhilipT and kernelbogey on this.

[LMcD]

'[T]he wearing or non-wearing of masks in the RAH and the preconditions for admission' do relate directly to the Proms. Privacy issues etc don't. I'm with PhilipT and kernelbogey on this.

Little wonder that some former contributors no longer post, preferring to exchange views and news via PMs and/or email.

[Bryn]

'[T]he wearing or non-wearing of masks in the RAH and the preconditions for admission' do relate directly to the Proms. Privacy issues etc don't. I'm with PhilipT and kernelbogey on this.

Then it is rather overdue that the title of the thread was changed to something more limiting, or those that want to redefine "general" start a new, more closely constrained, thread.

[LMcD]

Then it is rather overdue that the title of the threat was changed to something more limiting, or those that want to redefine "general" start a new, more closely constrained, thread.

Who's threatening whom? I've often been lectured on the Forum, and criticized and insulted more than once, but actually threatened - well no, or not yet.

[Bryn]

Who's threatening whom? I've often been lectured on the Forum, and criticized and insulted more than once, but actually threatened - well no, or not yet.

Heh, heh. A most egregious typo, on my part.

[teamsaint]

It isn’t clear to me where the line between relevance and irrelevance should be drawn.
The RAH ( or is it the BBC ? ) have chosen to support proof of covid status as a condition of entry.
Prestigious and influential organisations taking this stance invite questions both on its public health benefits and its intimate connection to ( the very important IMO) issues around Digital ID and privacy.

For those really interested in the Digital ID issue, it is clear that the government sees implementation as being heavily reliant on the support of such powerful “ stakeholders”, as they are trying to do with the Premier League. And these initiatives are going to affect the whole dynamic around attendance at big events, amongst other things.
Apologies( esp to KB) if this still seems off topic. As most of you know, I think these issues are not just bureaucratic niceties, but part of really significant societal developments, which people such as those on this forum ought to be debating vigorously.

If somebody can demonstrate a compelling case for the public health benefit of these kind of restrictions , I’ll be all ears.

[PhilipT]

.. As most of you know, I think these issues are not just bureaucratic niceties, but part of really significant societal developments ..

I agree. Strongly. But - and I find it difficult to understand why some apparently intelligent people are deaf to this - such discussion belongs on another thread. Doesn't it?

[teamsaint]

I agree. Strongly. But - and I find it difficult to understand why some apparently intelligent people are deaf to this - such discussion belongs on another thread. Doesn't it?

Probably, yes , on balance. But hand on heart, given the significance of the issue, and the policy adopted by the RAH , it seems to me to have relevance here.
I’m happy to pick this up ( again!) elsewhere on the forum of course though I have expressed my views often enough for some people to be tired of reading them by now, whichever thread they are on

[kernelbogey]

It isn’t clear to me where the line between relevance and irrelevance should be drawn.
The RAH ( or is it the BBC ? ) have chosen to support proof of covid status as a condition of entry.
Prestigious and influential organisations taking this stance invite questions both on its public health benefits and its intimate connection to ( the very important IMO) issues around Digital ID and privacy.

For those really interested in the Digital ID issue, it is clear that the government sees implementation as being heavily reliant on the support of such powerful “ stakeholders”, as they are trying to do with the Premier League. And these initiatives are going to affect the whole dynamic around attendance at big events, amongst other things.
Apologies( esp to KB) if this still seems off topic. As most of you know, I think these issues are not just bureaucratic niceties, but part of really significant societal developments, which people such as those on this forum ought to be debating vigorously.

If somebody can demonstrate a compelling case for the public health benefit of these kind of restrictions , I’ll be all ears.

Yes, but.... Philip T got into the RAH showing his 'jab card' - so (and with respect TS) the argument about digital passports seems to me irrelevant here. (And for what it's worth I have chosen not to have the NHS app on my phone: so I'm in sympathy with some of your views on this.)

I also note your later (digital) olive branch.

[LMcD]

I agree. Strongly. But - and I find it difficult to understand why some apparently intelligent people are deaf to this - such discussion belongs on another thread. Doesn't it?

Ouch! That's the kind of comment that's caused better people than me to quit. It's only sheer bloody-mindedness that's prevented me from following their example - until now. I look forward to further off-Forum discussions, free from personal insults, with friends I've made over the last 4 years.