Covid-19 - Suspend Chess Immediately

[Nick Burrows]

Maybe some more impressions - that first video had me in stitches

[JustinHorton]

the government strategy to date has been cogent and logical

It may have been logical: it has not been particularly cogent.

So for instance:

The UK only realised "in the last few days" that attempts to "mitigate" the impact of the coronavirus pandemic would not work, and that it needed to shift to a strategy to "suppress" the outbreak, according to a report by a team of experts who have been advising the government.

The report, published by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team on Monday night, found that the strategy previously being pursued by the government — dubbed "mitigation" and involving home isolation of suspect cases and their family members but not including restrictions on wider society — would "likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over".

[Nick Burrows]

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavi ... d3d9cd99ca

[Kevin Thurlow]

"and that goes for Hebden too, indeed times 5 given his backlog"

I did suggest to Mark that he and Keith Arkell could collaborate on a book of their best games against each other. He didn't seem enthused.

[Martin Benjamin]

the government strategy to date has been cogent and logical

It may have been logical: it has not been particularly cogent.

So for instance:

The UK only realised "in the last few days" that attempts to "mitigate" the impact of the coronavirus pandemic would not work, and that it needed to shift to a strategy to "suppress" the outbreak, according to a report by a team of experts who have been advising the government.

The report, published by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team on Monday night, found that the strategy previously being pursued by the government — dubbed "mitigation" and involving home isolation of suspect cases and their family members but not including restrictions on wider society — would "likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over".

From the same report (note in particular the final sentence):

We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures, though it should be recognised that such closures may have negative impacts on health systems due to increased absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound. Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced.

and

"However, we emphasise that is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear".

It is reasonable to argue for a more restrictive policy (I am not convinced, but I shall act in accordance with the plan); but it just isn't as simple or obvious an answer as some seem to think. Again, from the same report:

"We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made."

[JustinHorton]

".

It is reasonable to argue for a more restrictive policy (I am not convinced, but I shall act in accordance with the plan); but it just isn't as simple or obvious an answer as some seem to think. Again, from the same report:

"We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made."

This is all entirely reasonable, and largely misses the point that a ciurse of action was selected, badly implemented with the consequences either badly understood or badly explained (or both) and has now been changed with great loss of time when time was of the essence. Which is not all that cogent, as approaches go.

(EDIT: this is also less cogent than one might wish)

[Alan Walton]

Can't imagine when the next chess tournament will be. four months away? With no sport on the tv, no idea what i'm going to do with my life.

Why not go to the pub; it should be quiet or unbelievably lively, us Brits always do the opposite of what we are told by politicians so most probably the second

[Nick Grey]

It is not just Chess it's life with Boris. Had a 730 PM work e mail suggesting work from home if not unwell to help others. Meeting tomorrow.

With life social cancelled shall I cancel MY annual leave work weekends and get paid for it.

12 hours work, 1 hour food gathering, 1 hour helping elderly,10 hours sleep. My group Walking has to go.

[NickFaulks]

Why not go to the pub; it should be quiet or unbelievably lively, us Brits always do the opposite of what we are told by politicians so most probably the second

Isn't that what happened in Ireland, following which they were told to shut? Social distancing after ten pints of Guinness was always a forlorn hope.

[Matt Bridgeman]

It’s trying to make ‘the plan’ actually work. Announcing for instance that pregnant woman should stay home for 12 weeks sounds good on the podium, but has NHS staff tearing their hair out. There’s certainly nowhere near enough midwives in England to cope with the home visits that would be required. NHS stores of protective clothing and gear are already running short and its barely begun. People keep stealing hand sanitiser supplies. Probably it will be difficult to get through the crisis unless people help where they can.

[David Robertson]

I don't know if I am alone in wishing you might just shut up for a bit

LOL, I'm absolutely sure you are not alone, given the spit that comes my way. But then, I post to move stuff forward in a sensible way, this time during a crisis, not to build a fan club.

Your substantive point is correct though: this thread has served its purpose; objectives have been achieved. Time for me to do some social distancing from this place. Important books to read; real life to live

[Martin Benjamin]

Are we the only country who is actively not interested in testing anyone who does not apparently need hospitalisation? I am interested in knowing how that one can be defended, it seems to baffle experts and non-experts alike

This is discussed in the first question here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-51 ... s-answered

In terms of other countries, this article below is useful. The answer is "we don't know", but from the scanty evidence, it appears that per head of population, we test much more than most nations, but nowhere near the scale in China and South Korea

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus- ... ource-data

[Richard James]

If you want to read a Twitter account here's one from Professor Stuart Neil, Head of the Infectious Diseases Department at King's College

https://twitter.com/stuartjdneil?ref_sr ... r%5Eauthor

Also on Twitter, Richard James enquires

Yes, it is the same person. We're now in touch on Twitter!

[JustinHorton]

".

It is reasonable to argue for a more restrictive policy (I am not convinced, but I shall act in accordance with the plan); but it just isn't as simple or obvious an answer as some seem to think. Again, from the same report:

"We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made."

This is all entirely reasonable, and largely misses the point that a ciurse of action was selected, badly implemented with the consequences either badly understood or badly explained (or both) and has now been changed with great loss of time when time was of the essence. Which is not all that cogent, as approaches go.

(EDIT: this is also less cogent than one might wish)

And see this long but useful piece.

[Martin Benjamin]

Justin, I think this discussion has moved away from the original point (and indeed subsequent points) and continuing it is not serving any useful purpose, so I shall try to step back.