Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
-
Gary Cook
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm
Post
by Gary Cook » Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:46 pm
Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:41 pm
Gary Cook wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:57 am
Nobody is prevented from wearing a mask, many of us just doubt the efficacy.
Nobody is saying they are perfectly effective, but there is LOTS of evidence that they are somewhat effective.
The result of not wearing a mask due to "doubts of effectiveness" is that people die. It's as simple as that.
Which also states the masks are somewhat ineffective. Has there been any conclusive evidence or charges of murder from unmasked people killing masked victims of Covid.
20% of cases are caught in hospital when the patient is treated for a disease or injury unrelated to Covid.
-
IM Jack Rudd
- Posts: 4837
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Post
by IM Jack Rudd » Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:55 pm
Gary Cook wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:46 pm
Has there been any conclusive evidence or charges of murder from unmasked people killing masked victims of Covid.
I am not a lawyer, but it clearly wouldn't be murder; you'd have to show that someone was deliberately infecting people to get that charge to stick. You might get a manslaughter charge if the lack of masking were considered gross negligence.
-
Wadih Khoury
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm
Post
by Wadih Khoury » Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:24 pm
I thought I saw numerous studies showing the effectiveness of masks in preventing the contamination of others.
However they had limited protection of the wearer.
-
Ian Thompson
- Posts: 3575
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Post
by Ian Thompson » Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:25 pm
IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:55 pm
Gary Cook wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:46 pm
Has there been any conclusive evidence or charges of murder from unmasked people killing masked victims of Covid.
I am not a lawyer, but it clearly wouldn't be murder; you'd have to show that someone was deliberately infecting people to get that charge to stick. You might get a manslaughter charge if the lack of masking were considered gross negligence.
Knowingly doing something that had a high risk of infecting someone with Covid-19 might be grievous bodily harm if the victim wasn't aware of the risk they were taking. See
this case, which says:
“He knew failing to take his medication would make him much more infectious and by having unprotected sex, there was a significant risk he would pass the infection on. He chose to ignore these risks and his selfishness has had a devastating impact on his victims.
“This was an exceptionally complex case to prosecute. The use of grievous bodily harm charges relating to the transmission of a virus are highly unusual and rare.
-
Gary Cook
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm
Post
by Gary Cook » Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:28 pm
IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:55 pm
Gary Cook wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:46 pm
Has there been any conclusive evidence or charges of murder from unmasked people killing masked victims of Covid.
I am not a lawyer, but it clearly wouldn't be murder; you'd have to show that someone was deliberately infecting people to get that charge to stick. You might get a manslaughter charge if the lack of masking were considered gross negligence.
This is interesting. The culprit was found not to have Covid after spitting at a transport worker. There were calls for a murder charge,
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/au ... d-19-death
-
Angus French
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Post
by Angus French » Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:33 pm
Gary Cook wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:46 pm
Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:41 pm
Gary Cook wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:57 am
Nobody is prevented from wearing a mask, many of us just doubt the efficacy.
Nobody is saying they are perfectly effective, but there is LOTS of evidence that they are somewhat effective.
The result of not wearing a mask due to "doubts of effectiveness" is that people die. It's as simple as that.
Which also states the masks are somewhat ineffective...
No it doesn't. Stop spreading misinformation.
Gary Cook wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:46 pm
20% of cases are caught in hospital when the patient is treated for a disease or injury unrelated to Covid.
Please provide evidence to support this claim.
-
Gary Cook
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm
Post
by Gary Cook » Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:41 pm
-
John Upham
- Posts: 7262
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Post
by John Upham » Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:53 pm
Angus French wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:33 pm
No it doesn't. Stop spreading misinformation.
One of the issues here is that some are not aware of the differences between information, misinformation and disinformation.
They are not aware they are disseminating nonsense.
David Icke and Donald Trump made us aware of this effect a long time after William Joyce, Iva Toguri D'Aquino and others.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
-
Angus French
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Post
by Angus French » Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:05 pm
Well, if I can point out: "20% of cases are caught in hospital" is not the same as "Up to 20% of hospital patients with Covid-19 caught it at hospital".
Also, if you read the story, you'll come across this paragraph:
"
However NHS sources maintain that the true rate nationally is currently between 5% and 7%. Extensive swab testing at the trusts and analysis of how long patients had been in hospital revealed that between 10% and 20% had become infected during their stay. But the headline figure passed on in the national briefing was skewed because one trust was known to have poor infection control procedures in place."
... which confuses me. Does it mean the headline stats were extrapolated from a sample and that the sample was found not to be representative (because of "poor infection control procedures at one trust")?
-
Gary Cook
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm
Post
by Gary Cook » Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:10 pm
-
NickFaulks
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Post
by NickFaulks » Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:17 pm
Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:24 pm
I thought I saw numerous studies showing the effectiveness of masks in preventing the contamination of others.
I suspect that what you remember reading and hearing is many people stating confidently in the media that numerous such studies exist. The trouble is that nobody has ever actually seen one.
The mask campaign relies entirely on the precept that if you say something loud enough and long enough, people will think it must be true. It has been used with success before.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
Roger Lancaster
- Posts: 1932
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Post
by Roger Lancaster » Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:49 pm
NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:17 pm
Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:24 pm
I thought I saw numerous studies showing the effectiveness of masks in preventing the contamination of others.
I suspect that what you remember reading and hearing is many people stating confidently in the media that numerous such studies exist. The trouble is that nobody has ever actually seen one.
The mask campaign relies entirely on the precept that if you say something loud enough and long enough, people will think it must be true. It has been used with success before.
I have to say I'm sceptical as to the effectiveness of most masks but, taking the view that they
might be beneficial and are unlikely to be harmful, am inclined towards wearing them indoors. I say "unlikely" because there's always the chance of a mask harbouring viruses after use.
-
NickFaulks
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Post
by NickFaulks » Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:06 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:49 pm
I have to say I'm sceptical as to the effectiveness of most masks but, taking the view that they
might be beneficial and are unlikely to be harmful, am inclined towards wearing them indoors.
Parents report that their toddlers are now screaming at the sight of an unfamiliar and unmasked adult. Is that really what you want?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
Stephen Westmoreland
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:55 pm
- Location: Holmfirth
Post
by Stephen Westmoreland » Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:45 pm
Utterly unconvinced by masks and in particular cloth masks. This is due our local council mandating masks in schools and repeat isolation for many children (including my own). If you are in a room for several hours, then a mask is not going to work.
Vaccines appear to have broken the link however. Leave it to personal choice.
HDCA President
-
Jacques Parry
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:37 pm
Post
by Jacques Parry » Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:42 pm
IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:55 pm
Gary Cook wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:46 pm
Has there been any conclusive evidence or charges of murder from unmasked people killing masked victims of Covid.
I am not a lawyer, but it clearly wouldn't be murder; you'd have to show that someone was deliberately infecting people to get that charge to stick. You might get a manslaughter charge if the lack of masking were considered gross negligence.
That's correct. And an organiser could be held liable for compensation if they failed to take reasonable precautions and someone contracted Covid as a result. That someone could be either one of the participants (because you are responsible for negligence which causes injury even if the victim agreed to take the risk) or a third party who never agreed to take the risk at all.