Something to be concerned about?

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Joseph Conlon
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by Joseph Conlon » Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:59 pm

John:

I think your enquiry is entirely well founded and this question can be a significant issue. it is entirely reasonable (as per Ken Norman) for players on one side of the age distribution to observe that the Delta variant can still infect the double jabbed and be quite unpleasant/ dangerous for them (cf the journalist Andrew Marr's article on this). It is also entirely reasonable that junior players (especially) will not be vaccinated, and for them not to expect restrictions on their participation for reasons of age.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by Matthew Turner » Wed Jul 07, 2021 10:03 pm

Joseph Conlon wrote:
Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:59 pm
John:

I think your enquiry is entirely well founded and this question can be a significant issue. it is entirely reasonable (as per Ken Norman) for players on one side of the age distribution to observe that the Delta variant can still infect the double jabbed and be quite unpleasant/ dangerous for them (cf the journalist Andrew Marr's article on this). It is also entirely reasonable that junior players (especially) will not be vaccinated, and for them not to expect restrictions on their participation for reasons of age.
I think you are absolutely right and it is a microcosm of the challenges that we face as a society. I have been double jabbed and I daresay Ken Norman would happily play alongside me in a team. However, I wouldn't play alongside him if he demanded that the opposition didn't field any junior players. Not sure that anyone is necessarily being unreasonable there, but nor am I sure how you resolve that.

Julie Denning
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:07 am

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by Julie Denning » Wed Jul 07, 2021 10:32 pm

Ken Norman wrote:
Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:45 pm
John Upham has raised a very important point. I also am in my 70's and have had my two Covid vaccinations. I also have heart and other health problems. So for me any Covid infection is very dangerous and could be fatal.
I would refuse to play any player not vaccinated.
Ken, I understand your concern. However, the corollary of saying you'd refuse to play any player not vaccinated would seem to be that you'd feel safe playing someone who was vaccinated. I fear you may lull yourself into a false sense of security. My own recent experience makes the point.

A couple of weeks ago my infant grandson, with whom I spend a lot of time, started showing typical cold symptoms. Nothing that appeared to need medical attention or medication, and he shook it off after a few days. Three days after he first showed symptoms I developed the most trivial sniffle that latest about a day. To describe my symptoms as even a very mild cold would have seemed an exaggeration. As a family, we would have dismissed this, as I suspect the vast majority would. We then received notification that covid-19 had been detected in a child minder group that my grandson had last attended a couple of days before his "cold" appeared. Being responsible souls, we carried out lateral flow tests, followed up by PCR tests. Lo and behold, grandson and I both tested positive. (My isolation period ends at midnight tonight.) I was to all intents and purposes asymptomatic and, being double-jabbed, may have been at low risk of passing it on, but probably not zero risk. Indeed, it might well be that being double-jabbed makes it more likely that one could be an unsuspecting carrier.

Hopefully, being double-jabbed means that any infection you acquired, despite your other health conditions, would not be too serious. However, I feel we must all take responsibility for our level of risk exposure, rather that relying on those around us not posing a risk to us. If we feel that any exposure to infection is a risk too far, then total isolation would appear to be the only solution. Whilst I fully endorse everyone being vaccinated if possible, the only real protection this seems to offer is that if / when the lurg gets you, the outcome will be much less severe.

In response to the question that John first posed, it follows that I believe that whilst clubs might seek to mitigate risk, they will be unable to eliminate it and any belief that they can risks creating a false sense of security.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:00 am

Ultimately clubs are not obliged to offer membership to any individual if they do not wish to and congress organisers have the right to refuse any entry. The one restriction on that is that they would be in breach of the equality act if the individual has one of the protected characteristics (and the organisation can be proven to be excluding the player for that reason). So the non vaccinated player can be excluded.

At the same time the opposite would be true; clubs, leagues, congresses would not be obliged to exclude the non vaccinated player if they don't wish to.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

MSoszynski
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:43 pm

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by MSoszynski » Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:28 am

J T Melsom wrote:
Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:59 pm
... I don't believe it is appropriate for a chess league or individual club to seek medical details from participants...
Quite.

Anywho, consider an evening league match. "I won't play anyone not double-vaxxed." In short, you'll need to know the teams well in advance then. And trust the reporting of their vax status. That's besides worrying over the distancing of boards and onlookers.

dejan_lekic
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by dejan_lekic » Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:24 pm

I was supposed to be captain of Pimlico teams in two leagues next season, as well as play for Albany in the Middlesex league, but If vaccination is required by these London leagues I will have to step down as captain and probably not even bother renewing my ECF membership as well. The whole thing is against my views of what human freedom is and what it means. I do not want to be part of the system that forces people to vaccinate if they do not feel like it. I humbly believe negative covid-19 tests should be sufficient enough.

What is next? Forbid people to live in urban areas as they simply do not want to allow foreign material to be injected into their body, something that is basic human right? It is unbelievable how much propaganda is involved in the whole thing, branding people who rightfully refuse to be vaccinated as evil, selfish, etc... Finally, nobody can guarantee COVID-19 vaccines will not have long-term side-effects. If someone does, I would be very glad to hear on what grounds is that claim based!?

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Jul 08, 2021 3:18 pm

dejan_lekic wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:24 pm
I was supposed to be captain of Pimlico teams in two leagues next season, as well as play for Albany in the Middlesex league, but If vaccination is required by these London leagues I will have to step down as captain and probably not even bother renewing my ECF membership as well. The whole thing is against my views of what human freedom is and what it means. I do not want to be part of the system that forces people to vaccinate if they do not feel like it. I humbly believe negative covid-19 tests should be sufficient enough.
I believe that the Central London League is being organised by Nick Faulks. I would be more than a little surprised if a league organised by Nick were to make vaccination compulsory.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:21 pm

dejan_lekic wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:24 pm
Finally, nobody can guarantee COVID-19 vaccines will not have long-term side-effects.
If you do a personal risk assessment, unless you are willing to rigorously self isolate for the rest of your life, isn't the danger for the those not vaccinated of catching and even dying of COVID somewhat higher than the theoretical risk of unknown vaccine side effects?

dejan_lekic
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by dejan_lekic » Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:32 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:21 pm
If you do a personal risk assessment, unless you are willing to rigorously self isolate for the rest of your life, isn't the danger for the those not vaccinated of catching and even dying of COVID somewhat higher than the theoretical risk of unknown vaccine side effects?
I understand your point as it is common among all people who are willing to be experimented upon. I have no problem with that - it is their (your) choice, and I respect that. But please, hear (see) your comment again, in particular the "unless you are willing to rigorously self isolate for the rest of your life", and think again... - Humans walked the earth for about 6 million years, and until last two years we have never "self-isolated" !! For such a long time nobody would EVER think proposing such (I would rather not say what I think as it may be perceived as insulting) RIDICULOUS solution to a problem and suddenly we have "experts" paid by billion-dollar pharmaceutical conglomerates who do exactly that. Forgive me for not willing to be part of that idiocracy (watch the film if you haven't, it is entertaining)!

User avatar
Stephen Westmoreland
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:55 pm
Location: Holmfirth

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by Stephen Westmoreland » Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:42 pm

As someone who is running a club and has kept one running (when rules have allowed) during the pandemic, this is something of a poser. I have members who want to isolate until COVID is no more, people in ill health that want to isolate and people in ill health that also need to socialise. At the end of the day it is personal choice. Vaccines will not stop transmission and only cap impacts. My position is that we are open and welcoming, utilising space, providing hand sanitiser and welcome those who want to take other measures but not to enforce on others. Sadly COVID is endemic and it is all about personal choice at the end of the day.
Last edited by Stephen Westmoreland on Thu Jul 08, 2021 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
HDCA President

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:59 pm

dejan_lekic wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:32 pm
But please, hear (see) your comment again, in particular the "unless you are willing to rigorously self isolate for the rest of your life", and think again... -
My point is simply this. Those who think vaccinations are a risk need to consider the more serious risk they run of themselves catching Covid. They may only be able to avoid this by self isolation once the vaccinated majority refuse to inconvenience themselves by social distancing, mask wearing, not handing in scoresheets etc.

If I recall the history correctly, the concept of vaccination dates back to an observation perhaps a couple of hundred years ago that milkmaids didn't catch smallpox. On investigation it was found that they had been infected with cow pox and the lesser disease protected them against the more dangerous disease.
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:07 pm

Self-isolation has sort of occurred before... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-d ... e-51904810

But I agree it's a tricky subject and I'm not going to lecture people on what to do.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by Ian Thompson » Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:47 pm

dejan_lekic wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:32 pm
Humans walked the earth for about 6 million years, and until last two years we have never "self-isolated" !!
I think you'll find there has long been a social expectation, if not a legal requirement, to self-isolate with diseases such as:
  • Chicken Pox
  • Mumps
  • German Measles
  • Measles
  • Whooping Cough
  • Tuberculosis

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by John Upham » Thu Jul 08, 2021 11:00 pm

dejan_lekic wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:32 pm
- Humans walked the earth for about 6 million years, and until last two years we have never "self-isolated" !!
Incorrect.

It is well known that in 1665 that the residents of Eyam Village in Derbyshire self-isolated for more than one calendar year. Having said that it would have been a Gregorian calendar year.

See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-d ... e-51904810
Last edited by John Upham on Fri Jul 09, 2021 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Something to be concerned about?

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Jul 08, 2021 11:01 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:47 pm
I think you'll find there has long been a social expectation, if not a legal requirement, to self-isolate with diseases such as
Yes, but that is self-isolating when you have a disease. I think Roger is talking about self-isolating to avoid getting it.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Post Reply