COVID Cancellations — Page 33

Not sure if this was announced yet or not, but on Ticketmaster it looks like TINA's next performance is now not until 12/25.

Luminaire2 said: "I don’t fully understand how shows are deciding when to cancel and for how long - in terms of positive cases.


At this point we know how the virus spreads, and usually how long it is contagious. If someone tests positive, shouldn’t the entire show cancel / cast be quarantining? Even if everyone else tests negative after the one cast / crew is positive, it can take up to 3 days before another positive develops.


How are the shows managing this? As it sort of feels like they are bringing in the coverage, while it’s very likely someone else would also be infected and spreading to more cast / crew."

CDC guidelines says if you are vaccinated and exposed, you don't need to isolate if you are testing negative / asymptomatic. So as long as someone test negative, they can perform. Like you said it can take 3 days for them to test positive but they can perform during that time period.

I do think it is day by day basis as well. For some shows there are just too many cases and they cannot do the show so they cancel. It is also possible some cancel as a precaution. They know there is an outbreak among the company and others will test positive too so they are just waiting for it to run its course.

For other shows it seems to be the approach of "how many people tested negative today and can we do the show with them"?

HogansHero said: "Luminaire2 said: "If someone tests positive, shouldn’t the entire show cancel / cast be quarantining?"

No that is not the protocol.

"


But if covid takes 1-3 days to develop enough to create a positive test, and members of the company have been exposed, are they not just intentionally exposing others and creating more risk?


A negative test doesn’t necessarily mean someone does not have covid, and I assumed caution would be taken for all close contacts when someone tests positive.

Doing a little reading clearly I am a bit behind on how it works for us fully vaccinated individuals, seems if you are a close contact, you are supposed to wear a mask indoors for 14 days, take a test 5-7 days after exposure, and monitor for symptoms, but do not necessarily need to quarantine.


Clearly Omicron which results in way more infections in the vaccinated means the strategy developed needs to be rethought.

LizzieCurry said: "Last night's Stars in the House was very informative about testing protocols, closures, etc on Broadway. It's 2.5 hours, but if you can spare the time, at least watch in segments.

https://youtu.be/7RTdnCB6keM"


This may be a big ask, and you can ignore, but do you know any time stamps of sections worth watching that discusses some of the important stuff?

Tag said: "Luminaire2 said: "LizzieCurry said: "Last night's Stars in the House was very informative about testing protocols, closures, etc on Broadway. It's 2.5 hours, but if you can spare the time, at least watch in segments.

https://youtu.be/7RTdnCB6keM"


This may be a big ask, and you can ignore, but do you know any time stamps of sections worth watching that discusses some of the important stuff?"

The entire thing is worth watching."


In that case, let me buckle up!

Miles2Go2 said: "Luminaire2 said: "But if covid takes 1-3 days to develop enough to create a positive test, and members of the company have been exposed, are they not just intentionally exposing others and creating more risk?

A negative test doesn’t necessarily mean someone does not have covid, and I assumed caution would be taken for all close contacts when someone tests positive.

Doing a little reading clearly I am a bit behind on how it works for us fully vaccinated individuals, seems if you are a close contact, you are supposed to wear a mask indoors for 14 days, take a test 5-7 days after exposure, and monitor for symptoms, but do not necessarily need to quarantine.

Clearly Omicron which results in way more infections in the vaccinated means the strategy developed needs to be rethought."

Another complication I believe is that most productions are mainly using rapid tests. That makes sense because you can receive results quickly. But what you gain in speed, you trade for accuracy. I believe that while improvements have been made, rapid tests still return more false positive (and false negative?) results than the PCR (which take 1 to 3 days to get results of and can’t tell you a person’s current status, but only their status when they were tested - to 3 days ago). So while rapid tests probably make more sense, it doesn’t make sense to do as I believe you’re suggesting: cancel a few to several shows over any positive tests (even if you have people who can cover for them) as it could turn out those were false positives. Especially as most shows are struggling financially right now. Someone please correct me if my logic is flawed. "


I don’t want them to have to cancel. I’m just thinking out loud here. It feels like they are going to be in an endless cycle, as theoretically going off just negative results, when there is a confirmed positive in the company, is sort of just delaying the inevitable.


Meanwhile also putting more people at risk, including the audience.

Updated On: 12/21/21 at 01:45 PM

It seems clear that the league members are not of a single mind on this and, in the absence of leadership, things are a mess and only going to get worse. My hunch is that there will be a hiatus and that it will take AEA being proactive to bring it about. It's a shame, because there are important understandings on both sides (all sides actually) that are not being addressed so that we are going to end up with something that feels like a crash landing. My hunch, also, is that by the end of tomorrow, maybe sooner, we will be arguing about how it was done rather than what was done.

Some shows are using rapid PCR tests as well now.

There are 21 shows as of 2 p.m. Circa the window of, say, 4:30-6:30 p.m., when casts return and/or tests are tallied, we may know better how those 21 are faring, heading into this week, since few shows played Monday night.

Updated On: 12/21/21 at 02:04 PM

In mid 2020 everyone was asked when they thought covid would be over. My guess was 80 percent normal early summer 2022, a prediction so pessimistic it was totally ignored. So now I'll go from making the most pessimistic prediction on this board to the most optimistic and repeat 80 percent normal early summer 2022. You can bet against it but not too much.

Kad said: "I'm more curious about the shows that haven't canceled at all due to Covid yet. It seems like it's been largely the same group of shows struggling with this, while others have avoided it."

I thought about this as well. My first inclination is that the shows that are having to cancel quite often are mostly shows with a large cast/ensemble? That may be a wrong assumption on my part but that’s just my perception.

My other thought is that some shows have more of a cautious stance where they cancel out of our abundance of caution whereas other shows have more of a taste for risk and only cancel if they absolutely don’t have enough negative cast members/crew to go on. So while I’ve been tempted to think that shows like company or Caroline or change or assassins off Broadway are doing a better job of managing the pandemic maybe they just have a bigger taste for risk? Not saying that’s true and don’t wanna start rumors but just my random thoughts. Lol

Miles2Go2 said: "Kad said: "I'm more curious about the shows that haven't canceled at all due to Covid yet. It seems like it's been largely the same group of shows struggling with this, while others have avoided it."

I thought about this as well. My first inclination is that the shows that are having to cancel quite often are mostly shows with a large cast/ensemble? That may be a wrong assumption on my part but that’s just my perception."

Phantom and Mormon haven't paused, right? At least on Broadway. Those aren't small casts. (Hopefully I didn't just jinx anything.) And congrats to Diana for never pausing for their entire run!

Miles2Go2 said: "a better job of managing the pandemic [vs.] maybe they just have a bigger taste for risk?"

I think it's about management. And risk management is a big part of things. [Simple example: if you can't reliably test in time, that's a failure of management. if you can't reliably test in time, you have no alternative to cancelling. If you haven't managed coverage, that's a failure of management. If you haven't managed coverage, you have no alternative to cancelling.] No one is going to give away 6 figure revenue if they have a choice. Good management is making sure you can make the optimal choice when you need to. That's what I am seeing.