observations 12/21

Casting computer Watson Waltz must have blown a tube or melted a circuit. It seems NYCB has had to cancel tonight's performance due to a COVID outbreak. [Edited to add: and tomorrow's performances as well] If they need someone to drive Marie's bed or pull that rope that attaches to the Sugarplum Fairy's balancing floorplate, Haglund will volunteer.

Let's get this show back up on its legs, folks! Wobbly as they might be, let's do it! Left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot...

 

 

Comments

[Solor]

Please be careful in how you describe things. According to the NYT, "several people involved in the production tested positive." This is not the same thing as a "COVID outbreak"; we don't know if anyone has gotten sick (hopefully not), or do you know otherwise?

[Haglund]

Careful, I am.

From CDC:

OUTBREAK: The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) defines an outbreak as “a higher
than expected number of occurrences of a disease
in a specific location and time.” The CDC recommends
that each state or locality further define outbreaks
“relative to the local context.”
SETTING-SPECIFIC OUTBREAK: Setting-specific
outbreak refers to the location or venue other than
a household where a specified number of positive
cases has been confirmed. It is used to suggest an
increased risk of infection in that setting for a certain
period of time. For example, the CDC defines a workplace-
specific outbreak as follows: two individuals who received
a diagnosis of COVID-19 are found to work in the same
office and only one or neither of them was listed as a
contact for the other. "

https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NGA_Covid-19-Outbreaks_State-Reporting.pdf

NYCB definitely has an outbreak by definition:

"When looking at workplaces specifically, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) defines an outbreak of the new coronavirus as "two or more laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 cases among workers at a facility with the onset of illness within a 14-day period, who are not epidemiologically linked, do not share a household, and are not a close contact of each other outside of the workplace during standard care investigation or contact tracing."

[Solor]

I don't disagree with your analysis here - it just seemed to me that "outbreak" conjures up something far more serious - with people falling ill en masse - than what a few positive tests may indicate, especially if those positive tests don't result in any significant degree of illness, which is more likely today among the fully-vaccinated than it was 18 months ago. Perhaps the CDC should take that into account in their literature.

[Haglund]

That's your own impression which is inconsistent with the scientific definition. Now is not the time to suggest that science take the situation less seriously and come up with more palatable definitions.

[Solor]

My point is that the danger of a few positive cases to the general fully-vaccinated NYC population is less of a threat than it was a year and a half ago. Remember what happened when there were a few positive readings in New Rochelle - I doubt that a few positive readings today will result in the same devestation. But calling that an outbreak could panic people the same way. There are big differences between "outbreaks" of Spring 2020 and "outbreaks" today, based on the scientific definition. Should people react the same way?

[Anon]

Any performing artist who is performing 1) without a mask, and 2) without a bubble (like the NBA last year), deserves hazard pay with a new respiratory disease and emerging variants, even if vaccinated. The scientists are learning about the disease; the new variants; the new treatments; and the duration and the efficacy of the vaccines against infection and severe disease... as we speak. Performers are putting their health (and anyone who lives with them who may or may not be eligible for vaccines) on the line. Audience members should be extremely understanding in this time.

[Haglund]

All good points.

Perhaps we will see masks on stage when NYCB returns.

[Elizabeth]

Thank you for saying that Anon. I cannot agree more. As an actress, I am unmasked on set and it gets scary. We are tested on a daily basis, but at least one or two people end up testing positive. No doubt, the dancers do not have the luxury of daily testing and absolutely deserve to be compensated.