COVID Cancellations — Page 28

BroadwayGirl107 said: "8787 said: "Broadway performer here who almost never comments on these boards but MUST chime in regarding this. To say unvaccinated people “shouldn’t be a part of the equation” is quite possibly one of the most reckless and ignorant things you could say. I have a baby at home who CANT be vaxxed because they are too young. The “equation” is much bigger than us doing a show for you. Many of us have families that we come home to after performing. To suggest that we should stop testing is ignorant and quite Trump-esque.
And to add another note regarding people staying home if they are sick….that can’t be relied upon. The Broadway industry is notorious for pushing people to perform while sick and injured. We as performers are conditioned to push through almost EVERY illness and injury in the book so to think that someone who is sick can be relied upon to call out is also ignorant. Testing and confirming cases is the only way to force people who are ill to stay out of the building.
I want to work. I have bills to pay. I love my job. But this is not just about the health of the people in the building, it’s also about the families we come home to."

Babies are the least likely to contract or have any serious reaction to COVID-19. They are probably more at risk of other diseases not being tested for in your work place.



While some suggested we should just stop testing, that isn’t my take right now. But I do believe the current protocols need revision and will continue to need revisions as things change. As variants become less severe, it will make less and less sense to send asymptomatic people home, lest we tests for traces of every possible infection that can cause a few days’ fever and then cease to gather as a society. It is not Trump-esque to open up a conversation to the possibility that we may need to reimagine and reconsider if our tactics are working or not, and discuss at what point we will be able to let go of testing and understand that vaccinated individuals have to the immune systems to handle the disease.


I also don’t know the policies in place: does one test warrant a cancellation? Or are shows cancelling when too many people have tested positive to go on? Can we employ additional industry members to prevent any long term closures?






"

First off, let’s not state things that we don’t know for sure as facts. The rate at which children are being hospitalized for COVID has steadily raised over the past few months and the effects of Omicron on children have yet to be seen. It’s very easy to theorize about these things but its quite another to have the fear realized with your own child that you are trying to protect, while trying to do a job you love.


Secondly, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you that the protocols need revisions. Revisions are being made CONSTANTLY as stability is a moving target with this thing. Also, to answer your question, there really aren’t many hard and fast rules regarding cancellations for the shows. Due to our bootleg Union, AEA, they have left a lot of protocols up to the individual producers of the shows so very different things are happening depending on the production. At my show, one test certainly didn’t stop the show. Not even two, three or five positive tests. It was actually a mixture of injuries, and non COVID related sickness along with positive tests that took us down. We just didn’t have the coverage. Which brings me to your last question about bringing in more coverage. You’d be hard pressed to find a show that isn’t bulking up their coverage. The problem though is that it’s not an instant fix. It takes time to get someone into the show and if a show loses too many people before being able to stack the deck, we still end up in the same situation. Shows like Wicked and Hamilton have a hefty deck due to multiple touring companies and countless people who have costumes and know the show. Many other shows don’t have that and have to hire new people. It’s a very complicated puzzle.

Miles2Go2: I’ve got to say that I reactivated this account after who-knows-how-long after being strictly a reader for years just to thank you for this comment. You are absolutely right. I work in a Broadway theatre and have, of late, been working closely with epidemiologists as we navigate a world in which live theatre and an active pandemic exist at the same time. (Some) folks seem to forget that theatre workers (performers and those not on stage) have full lives and responsibilities outside of the building. We’re doing everything we can to continue doing what we love in the safest way possible—taking care of each other as well as our patrons who, too, exist outside of our vaccinated, masked bubble.

Updated On: 12/19/21 at 08:38 PM

BroadwayGirl107 said: "ivy3 said: "

I mean, given the events of the past week, if indeed we’re talking something like 19 cases in a cast, I would cancel. If it’s one person? Or two? I’d send them home—probably for the entirety of the estimated incubation period and until they get negative tests back after that.


Speaking of, that truly is the other big question mark for me. If we’re taking testing and spreading that seriously, perhaps these shows should be cancelling shows for full weeks instead. Isnt the estimated incubation period as long as 10 days? Does closing for a weekend do anything to curtail the spread if that’s the case?

Shows aren't canceling over one person testing positive, they're cancelling when they don't have enough people with negative tests to do the show. Most shows already have standbys/understudies/covers/swings on and are running until they simply can't staff a show. It's not like the whole cast is testing positive the same day, every day different people are testing positive. This means people are also cleared to come back on a rolling basis and not all the same day. If your Glinda tests positive but her 2 covers don't you can keep going with them until they both test positive and by then you may be at or nearing the day the first one can come back.


Other things I’d hope to consider are:

-additional swings and understudies (NOT ensemble members who understudy, but u/s who are on call).


This is certainly something to consider but takes a while to implement since these new people need to learn a whole show. Actors who aren't familiar with where scenery moves and how backstage traffic works can create dangerous conditions for themselves and others which is why they typically get rehearsals and put in rehearsals.


-freelance/temporary covers for crew and musicians. Do the unions allow this? I bet there are a lot of people who’d be willing to wait in the wings.


Musicians and crew have subs who can cover for them, they are usually paid on a per show basis. This means a lot of these people cover multiple places and/or work elsewhere in the industry. Musicians typically need to be tried out and approved. Crew need to be trained or things can become very unsafe. You don't want just anyone off the street flying actors and moving scenery. They can certainly work on building up their roster of covers or even pay for them to be employed only by one show and not covering other shows. But none of that will be fixed instantly.

In terms of people saying that shows are working up their coverage for cast and crew now, great, I guess I'm just shocked that it wasn't a prerequisite for reopening. And IMO Equity should be mandating deeper coverage.

BroadwayGirl107 said: "In terms of people saying that shows are working up their coverage for cast and crew now, great, I guess I'm just shocked that it wasn't a prerequisite for reopening. And IMO Equity should be mandating deeper coverage."

This betrays a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of the contracts and the roles of the parties to them.

MEOW................

Local news station covered the Broadway cancellations this week. 3 minutes of coverage and one sentence of “only 20 of the 40+ shows are cancelled this weekend”. Maybe if they would change their coverage to say just because some shows are cancelled, there’s many others that are still opened. Negative coverage doesn’t help the situation either.

adotburr said: "SantaCon is literally the worst thing for NYC. It’s a huge bar hop for college kids dressed as Santa and are drunk by 11am. Literally Santa’s are everywhere. It’s the one and only weekend I won’t go to NYC. It’s not even a fun people watching day since it’s just Santa’s you’re watching."

I ended up having to go out that day for groceries. They were out early. Just a nightmare. One guy stood in the middle of traffic like he was daring a car to hit him.

I do hope people go back to masking in crowds outside but I'm not optimistic given how many people still ride the subway unmasked or wearing their masks incorrectly.

Right now I have 2 shows booked each month for the next 3 months. I have the luxury of not minding cancellations as long as the tickets are refunded. At the moment I'm not thinking of cancelling anything but I hope there's a better understanding of omicron soon.

The League had a big meeting the other day - maybe an announcement is soon to come regarding the cancellation of so many shows? Hope there isn’t another shut down even if it’s for only a few weeks

JBroadway said: "unclevictor said: "The League had a big meeting the other day - maybe an announcement is soon to come regarding the cancellation of so many shows? Hope there isn’t another shut down even if it’s for only a few weeks"



Was this meeting before or after Charlotte St. Martin announced that they were NOT considering a shut-down?

https://broadwaynews.com/2021/12/17/broadway-league-not-considering-industry-shutdown-amid-covid-cancellations/"

Hmmm I’m not sure? But I guess there’s no shut down!

The meeting was before the announcement.

Hogan, can you be more specific about what you'd expect that to look like? What exactly do you mean by "managing coverage" and who would be qualified to do that?

Hamilton has cancelled all performances this week.