I agree. If everyone voted #3 we would learn nothing. As per my first post, I voted #5 because I believe that is the way to reach #3. If others believe that #1 is the way to reach #3, then I would not wish to dissuade them from testing that.Colin Purdon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:37 amHowever, if it is intended as a neutral option I am not sure it achieves that purpose because it is not clear to me whether maximum participation would be achieved by equalising the concerns of the two sides, or by leaning towards one side or the other.
Chess Covid regulations poll
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
I've voted for option 3. Ultimately individual events are free to run events on any terms they wish, providing it's permitted by the government regulations of the time and I don't think either "faction" (for want of a better word) are in a position to dictate to the other.
There is a solution. I personally lean towards the personal freedom approach and will be looking to organise club/ league events with minimal restrictions. However I fully recognise that some people are concerned about the continued threat from the virus and I would support their right to organise "Covid safe" events where masks and social distancing are mandatory (and would play myself under those conditions).
There is a solution. I personally lean towards the personal freedom approach and will be looking to organise club/ league events with minimal restrictions. However I fully recognise that some people are concerned about the continued threat from the virus and I would support their right to organise "Covid safe" events where masks and social distancing are mandatory (and would play myself under those conditions).
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:37 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
Don't we need to clarify the meaning of the word "should" in the question? Are we being asked what is ethically the best thing to do, or which approach is most likely to achieve a desired outcome (and if so what outcome)?
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
Full lockdowns, still highly unlikely. Reimposing of restrictions short of that, distinctly possible.Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:47 amI wonder how much it will calm down over the next 12 months. It’s claimed 10-15% who catch covid will get long covid in some form or other. If we head to 2000 cases per day admitted to hospital in the height of summer, just how many will it actually be in the dead of winter? Labour certainly believe the government knows there will be winter lockdowns again. That would put plenty of events such as Hastings as high risk of not running. I certainly worry about the unvaccinated under 18’s playing people no doubt opting for no masks. I’ve got a 15 year old who doesn’t want to play over the board until the case rate goes right down. It does seem we’re all in a big experiment at present.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
Well who knows, but Independent Sage just added a 1000 to the Health Secretary's estimations and put summer hospital admissions at potentially 3000 a day. This will have a huge knock on effect on the NHS dealing with the backlog of routine treatments. Three or 4 people out of every 100 who catch Covid go to hospital, which is clearly going to be a lot if case numbers remain sky high. The rise in infection rates is outpacing every country in the world currently.Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 4:05 pmFull lockdowns, still highly unlikely. Reimposing of restrictions short of that, distinctly possible.Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:47 amI wonder how much it will calm down over the next 12 months. It’s claimed 10-15% who catch covid will get long covid in some form or other. If we head to 2000 cases per day admitted to hospital in the height of summer, just how many will it actually be in the dead of winter? Labour certainly believe the government knows there will be winter lockdowns again. That would put plenty of events such as Hastings as high risk of not running. I certainly worry about the unvaccinated under 18’s playing people no doubt opting for no masks. I’ve got a 15 year old who doesn’t want to play over the board until the case rate goes right down. It does seem we’re all in a big experiment at present.
-
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
I'm not sure that the question asked is the most useful one. I'm organising an event - albeit a smallish junior one - in a fortnight's time. When organising an event, a key question is the capacity of the venue. In this instance my view was that, in more normal circumstances, the venue could have perhaps held as many as 48 juniors - and, of course, the "pack 'em all in" approach has its attractions for an organiser since it maximises income per square foot. However, life being what it is, it seemed sensible to avoid tightly-bunched players and set a limit at 32. No conscious bias so I'm not sure whether this type of approach means ticking box #2 or box #4.
-
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
Chess organisers quickly gave up on the idea that chess was some kind of grass roots indoor sport when they heard the minimum capacity for that was 100 square feet per person in the room.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 8:20 pmI'm not sure that the question asked is the most useful one. I'm organising an event - albeit a smallish junior one - in a fortnight's time. When organising an event, a key question is the capacity of the venue. In this instance my view was that, in more normal circumstances, the venue could have perhaps held as many as 48 juniors - and, of course, the "pack 'em all in" approach has its attractions for an organiser since it maximises income per square foot. However, life being what it is, it seemed sensible to avoid tightly-bunched players and set a limit at 32. No conscious bias so I'm not sure whether this type of approach means ticking box #2 or box #4.
-
- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
This is wrong. Today's figures are over 32,000 +ve tests and fewer than 600 admissions. That is less than 2 per 100.Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 7:50 pmThree or 4 people out of every 100 who catch Covid go to hospital, which is clearly going to be a lot if case numbers remain sky high. The rise in infection rates is outpacing every country in the world currently.
Furthermore a July 2021 admission is very different from an April 2020 one. Currently a large majority of Covid "patients" admitted are sent home either the same day or the next day. Doctors are merely taking advantage (if that's the right term) of low hospital bed occupancy to send more so-called Covid cases to hospital.
Finally, a lot of hospital patients "with" Covid entered hospital with something else. Nosocomial transmission has held steady throughout the last 16 months as the number 2 mode of transmission.
The real threat to the NHS is the retarded T&T system with the silly pinging app. Double-jabbed medical staff who also test -ve are still required to have a 10 day "holiday" if they are pinged and this is happening far too often. In the rest of society you are requested to isolate if pinged but not legally obliged to do so. It only becomes a legal requirement if you are contacted personally by T&T.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.
-
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
There's a lag though between recorded cases of infection and hospitalisations - of about 10 days. So, if we get to 100,000 cases a day (as the Minister for Health has suggested) that could well translate to a daily count of two to three thousand hospitalisations ten days or so later. And this would have a serious impact on the NHS. There's a chart here of the ratio of cases to hospitalisations up to 1 June (the ratio will reduce as the number of vaccinations increases): https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1 ... 5256990720. I've seen the same chart in modelling documents published on Government web pages (see pages 4 and 5 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... step_4.pdf).Brian Towers wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:31 pmThis is wrong. Today's figures are over 32,000 +ve tests and fewer than 600 admissions. That is less than 2 per 100.Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 7:50 pmThree or 4 people out of every 100 who catch Covid go to hospital, which is clearly going to be a lot if case numbers remain sky high. The rise in infection rates is outpacing every country in the world currently.
Furthermore a July 2021 admission is very different from an April 2020 one. Currently a large majority of Covid "patients" admitted are sent home either the same day or the next day. Doctors are merely taking advantage (if that's the right term) of low hospital bed occupancy to send more so-called Covid cases to hospital.
Finally, a lot of hospital patients "with" Covid entered hospital with something else. Nosocomial transmission has held steady throughout the last 16 months as the number 2 mode of transmission.
The real threat to the NHS is the retarded T&T system with the silly pinging app. Double-jabbed medical staff who also test -ve are still required to have a 10 day "holiday" if they are pinged and this is happening far too often. In the rest of society you are requested to isolate if pinged but not legally obliged to do so. It only becomes a legal requirement if you are contacted personally by T&T.
-
- Posts: 3208
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
My aunt is a scientist and has to test for symptoms and work with virus samples. I spoke at length to her about it all the other day. With her ear close to the ground, she was insistent that Covid-19 will linger among us for around three years but said how that will play out is much harder to determine. She seemed to be quite dismissive of the idea that those vaccinated are safe from catching Covid, pointing out that you can but it won't be as bad if you are vaccinated. She kept telling me that the government will have to revise their policies as it simply isn't going to go away anytime soon. How right she is I don't know, perhaps no one does. If you look at how certain countries in Asia are dealing with it, then we are in quite a good position I think.
-
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
I was thinking that option 3 was whichever bias gets maximum participation, rather than saying strict neutrality gets most entries. But I could have been clearer.Colin Purdon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:37 amI voted "Maximise participation" for the simple reasons that it means more people would be playing chess, and that it would make the tournaments more viable for the hard-working organisers.
However, if it is intended as a neutral option I am not sure it achieves that purpose because it is not clear to me whether maximum participation would be achieved by equalising the concerns of the two sides, or by leaning towards one side or the other.
I imagine different types of tournament would maximise with different approaches. But I was deliberately a it opaque with "should" as Jacque notes so people could assess this as they choose.
-
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
I have some involvement in the running of two leagues and my primary concern is the safety of participants... this means finding out about how the virus is transmitted, its effects, and appropriate risk mitigations.
-
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
Sorry Nick, in my opinion this was simply not a very sensible statement to make. The risk to individuals will partly depend on a persons medical history, which I suspect you do not know (I don't) and will vary from person to person. Whilst it may be true in general that the impact on most younger people will be less than in most older people it will not always hold on an individual basis. Also the long term impact of Covid on an individuals health is not known.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 10:00 amThe risk to herself is minimal, so I assume she is sacrificing her chess for the benefit of people like me. It is a generous act but I really, really wish she wouldn't. Our young people have suffered enough and need to get their lives back.Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:47 amI’ve got a 15 year old who doesn’t want to play over the board until the case rate goes right down.
The key for any events when they resume is to be clear and accurate in relation to any measure taken or not taken to prevent spread of any virus. Individuals can then assess whether they wish to participate based on their own assessment of the risk to them which will vary both based on individuals health specifics and the general level of virus. If for example masks are required this should be made clear and enforced, if masks are not required again this should be made clear, together with for example the status of masks e.g. recommended, permitted, not permitted etc.
-
- Posts: 1077
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
It does seem correct that the long term impact of covid on health isn’t known. Independent Sage member Professor Christina Pagel was today pointing out there are an estimated million plus long covid sufferers in the UK, 33,000 of which are children. She goes as far as to suggest that a generation of children are going to be saddled with long term health issues. None of which appears to be particularly factored into present government thinking. I suppose in a chess context it would be nice to see organisers keeping some mask and hygiene measures, or risk some players stepping away from the game probably on a semi-permanent basis.
-
- Posts: 10382
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Chess Covid regulations poll
Are you asking clubs to use the ECF Guidance Angus?Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:33 pmI have some involvement in the running of two leagues and my primary concern is the safety of participants... this means finding out about how the virus is transmitted, its effects, and appropriate risk mitigations.
If any League is going to have regulations, as opposed to guidance, how is it going to be enforced in practice?
Any postings on here represent my personal views