English Chess Forum

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:26 pm

RNID

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:25 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:09 pm

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:52 pm

The under 18 age group may be sitting in front of someone without a mask for 3 hours plus, probably within the 2 metre range.

So we're now defining the under 18s as the "vulnerable" group for whose benefit normal life must be suspended? This isn't just moving the goalposts, it's putting them in the road outside the ground!

I meant vulnerable in the sense that they will remain in the main the unvaccinated group. Going back to my question, I was curious if there is likely going to be a mechanism in place by chess organisers for pro-mask players to choose whether to play someone without a mask or not? Or is it as the gist is on here, that it’s probably not really workable?

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:37 pm

I rather assume that, quite apart from the issues raised here, one practical difficulty of holding any organisation responsible for causing Covid infection would be that of proving that one contracted the virus while attending an event held by that organisation. For example, where someone used public transport to and from the venue, the defence could and likely would argue that the infection could equally well have been contracted while travelling to or from the venue.

Angus French wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:30 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:37 pm

I rather assume that, quite apart from the issues raised here, one practical difficulty of holding any organisation responsible for causing Covid infection would be that of proving that one contracted the virus while attending an event held by that organisation. For example, where someone used public transport to and from the venue, the defence could and likely would argue that the infection could equally well have been contracted while travelling to or from the venue.

You think all those billions spent on track-and-trace were in vain?... They're coming for you, Roger.

Actually, I'm half (or more) serious. Shouldn't track-and-trace be determining how and where (what types of place) infections occurred (as well as who might be infected)?

MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:28 am

Track & trace has been a really nasty mess of an operation, but it has also mostly not had a brilliant sporting chance with the population infection rates we've been running at various times.

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:34 pm

You might want to see if you can get hold of a Morecambe Bay Hood

Angus French wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:30 pm

]Actually, I'm half (or more) serious. Shouldn't track-and-trace be determining how and where (what types of place) infections occurred (as well as who might be infected)?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:52 am

MartinCarpenter wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:28 am

Track & trace has been a really nasty mess of an operation, but it has also mostly not had a brilliant sporting chance with the population infection rates we've been running at various times.

But that was known at the outset.

Like so many Government policies, this was never more than funnelling unimaginable amounts of taxpayers' money into friendly hands in the hope of looking as though they were doing something.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:37 pm

I rather assume that, quite apart from the issues raised here, one practical difficulty of holding any organisation responsible for causing Covid infection would be that of proving that one contracted the virus while attending an event held by that organisation. For example, where someone used public transport to and from the venue, the defence could and likely would argue that the infection could equally well have been contracted while travelling to or from the venue.

Jacques Parry wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:29 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:37 pm

I rather assume that, quite apart from the issues raised here, one practical difficulty of holding any organisation responsible for causing Covid infection would be that of proving that one contracted the virus while attending an event held by that organisation. For example, where someone used public transport to and from the venue, the defence could and likely would argue that the infection could equally well have been contracted while travelling to or from the venue.

True, but if several participants were found to be infected shortly afterwards, and were not otherwise connected in any way (such as sharing transport), it would seem more likely that they were infected at the event than elsewhere; and in a civil case proof on the balance of probabilities is enough. I think the greater difficulty would be to prove that the infection would not have occurred if the organisers had taken more precautions, and that failing to take those additional precautions amounted to negligence.