(Chess) Life Returning To Normal

[Matt Bridgeman]

Imperial College have the R rate today even higher, at 1.7, with a doubling of infection numbers every 7-8 days. I see the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in America suggests 40% who have the infection don't show any symptoms, and I suppose people wouldn't know to get a test while spreading Covid. It's not clear to me how the R rate is going to go below 1 again with Autumn and Winter coming - traditionally a time when respiratory infections thrive. I think it's easy at the moment to think of imaginative ways to bend the guidelines for the sake of some chess, but give it a few weeks and probably it won't seem like such a great idea anymore.

[J T Melsom]

I thought the latest government interventions were a consequence of people being unable to keep themselves safe, and giving the virus too much help in spreading. I've not been convinced by the strategy for much of the last six months, but restricting freedom where those freedoms have been abused does have some rational basis. Very few are arguing for no restrictions, rather that the decisions should be subject to greater Parliamentary scrutiny and not imposed arbitrarily. And the reason some activities are allowed rather than others is also arbitrary, but essentially you can't have everybody carrying on as before, so some are disproportionately bearing the strain. Perhaps if Dido Harding were ECF president?

[Wadih Khoury]

Imperial College have the R rate today even higher, at 1.7, with a doubling of infection numbers every 7-8 days. I see the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in America suggests 40% who have the infection don't show any symptoms, and I suppose wouldn't know to get a test while spreading Covid. It's not clear to me how the R rate is going to go below 1 again with Autumn and Winter coming - traditionally a time when respiratory infections thrive. I think it's easy at the moment to imaginative ways to bend the guidelines for the sake of some chess, but give it a few weeks and probably it won't seem like such a great idea anymore.

I don't disagree. Might be even childish, but if indeed we are at 1.7, shouldn't the debate be "close restaurants and hairdressers" instead?

I don't think anyone would suggest having chess tournaments if we were back in lockdown or semi-lockdown. The infuritaing thing is the two weight, two measures approach. Either it's serious or it's not. You can't say it's ok to risk your life for a meal, a haircut or some premier league, but not for something else. You should be forbidding them all or none.

The moment someone says "Yes it's serious, you can't do X, Y and Z, but please go to restaurants. You might die, but it's for a good cause", I tend to want to chose my own good causes that have the exact same risk profile.

[Matt Bridgeman]

I think they'll probably try some other measures first - curfews from 10pm might be one and the Birmingham style 'keeping to your own household' might be the other.

[Wadih Khoury]

... people being unable to keep themselves safe, and giving the virus too much help in spreading.

And this is the crux: people shouldn't have to decide that and then be blamed for it! Does either of us have a PhD in epidemiology? How the **** are we supposed to make the right decision. From the onset, the government has tried wishy washy messaging to put the blame on citizens that are unable to make informed decision.... mask or no mask? Distance or not? Bubble or not? Is going at the beach risky or not?

Other countries went with a clear: can do this, can't do that. Not with a "try what you want, and it goes wrong, its your fault". Personal responsibility works only when the individual has the skill, knowledge and time to process information and make a rational decision. otherwise, it's the government's role to step in. Millions on the beaches? If it's dangerous, close them! Nighclubs spreading the disease? Close them. Barbecues? Same.
Restaurants dangerous? Why pay half the country to eat out then?

[Tim Spanton]

A lot of countries - all? - seem to have gone through a similar trajectory:
Covid cases rise very quickly and the number of people dying who test positive for Covid rises very quickly too.
Lockdown or other restrictions reduce Covid cases and eventually reduce deaths of people who have tested positive for Covid.
Easing restrictions sees Covid cases rise BUT death rates and hospitalisations remain low.
Restrictions return although now the focus is on Covid cases rather than deaths from people who have tested positive for Covid.

[J T Melsom]

Wadih - I was really taking issue with those here that believe the public know best. as you rightly point out the public doesn't or wilfully neglects its responsibilities.

There is a lot of debate here without real output. There seem to be at least two positive steps that might be taken. First the apparent anomalous situation should be raised with government and or local health authorities. I am not myself entirely convinced that restaurants and chess clubs do pose similar risks and given that part of the strategy is essentially to ration social interaction, where activities are of broadly equal risk the one that is most benefit to the economy will take priority.

Second those critical of chess organisers for being reluctant to host events should either organise an event themselves, or devise a blue-print and circulate it to organisers.

[Tim Spanton]

Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock do not know best, anymore than anyone here knows best.
Let the 'experts' give advice and let citizens in a democracy decide what to do with that advice, as they do with advice on five portions of fruit a day, looking left-right-left when crossing a road, staying out of the sun, etc.

[J T Melsom]

Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock do not know best, anymore than anyone here knows best.
Let the 'experts' give advice and let citizens in a democracy decide what to do with that advice, as they do with advice on five portions of fruit a day, looking left-right-left when crossing a road, staying out of the sun, etc.

None of your examples deal with an infectious disease where there are risks to other people, and where the risk to others may be greater than the impact on yourself. The need for government to prescribe action in such circumstances is already recognised in law with the provisions governing notifiable diseases. You cannot simply have malaria for example and not take responsible steps to protect others.

[Tim Spanton]

Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock do not know best, anymore than anyone here knows best.
Let the 'experts' give advice and let citizens in a democracy decide what to do with that advice, as they do with advice on five portions of fruit a day, looking left-right-left when crossing a road, staying out of the sun, etc.

None of your examples deal with an infectious disease where there are risks to other people, and where the risk to others may be greater than the impact on yourself. The need for government to prescribe action in such circumstances is already recognised in law with the provisions governing notifiable diseases. You cannot simply have malaria for example and not take responsible steps to protect others.

You can have flu, you can be an alcoholic, you can own a superfast car - there are lots of ways you can be a great danger to others and not have the government ordering you about in a very controlled way. In any case the covid restrictions in the vast majority of cases apply to people who have NOT got the disease.

[Matt Bridgeman]

I think some of these points were touched upon by people such as Jonathan Rogers on the forum in the lead up to the Blackpool Congress, way back at the beginning of all this. That choosing the play chess over the board in the current climate is something of a moral choice. You’re doing something that might not just effect yourself but perhaps somebody else. There is a Covid secure argument I know, but on the other hand there is a virus that’s more likely than not airborne to 5 metres, and the human factor such as masks not being pulled over noses sometimes (such as at the Irish Championship) and surfaces being missed for sterilisation. There will be a risk factor involved always. One of which I suppose is getting a square peg to fit into a round hole with the current government guidelines.

[JustinHorton]

You can have flu, you can be an alcoholic, you can own a superfast car - there are lots of ways you can be a great danger to others and not have the government ordering you about in a very controlled way.

In fact if you drive that superfast car in a way that is deemed to put others at risk you can find yourself being ordered about in an extremely controlled way and under extremely restrictive circumstances.

[Tim Spanton]

You can have flu, you can be an alcoholic, you can own a superfast car - there are lots of ways you can be a great danger to others and not have the government ordering you about in a very controlled way.

In fact if you drive that superfast car in a way that is deemed to put others at risk you can find yourself being ordered about in an extremely controlled way and under extremely restrictive circumstances.

Yes, but you can't be if you don't own a superfast car but the government decides to deal with you in the same way as people who do own such a car

[JustinHorton]

Well it is also possible to drive irresponsibly in any kind of car as well as the sort you previously specified.

The basic and obvious point is that society does place restrictions on behaviour which does or is liable to endanger others, it doesn't just say everybody make up their own mind what to do, and it's a good thing too.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Tim, would you personally be happy to see chess congresses return to England every weekend in the style of say the Czech Tour - kind of business as usual with handshakes and all? People just make their minds up if they love chess so much and it’s worth the risk.