The ongoing COVID-19 situation (split from Chess Life Returning to Normal)

[Simon Rogers]

I agree with Mr Melsom. Health before Wealth.
Letting the virus rip through the population like in Brazil will actually be even worse for the economy.
I don't think I could live with myself if I had passed the virus to someone whilst playing chess.
New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern treated this emergency spot on. Lockdown quickly and more strictly. Test and trace. Only 21 deaths. No infections for two weeks. They are at Level 2. Level 1 means playing OTB chess.
And of course Germany got it right.

[J T Melsom]

Nick Faulks.
I don't think that it is obvious. We have an excess death measure which is a known factor and is continuing to grow. We also understand that lockdown will impact those with other conditions, and resultant economic downturn may result in deaths as well. But until we have the virus under control, there will continue to be a debate about which is more damaging. My understanding of the word political is that it relates to matters affecting the people, in that sense we should all be considering political matters. The balancing act may however also touch on philosophy in that many will have views coloured by their sense of the value of human life.

[Simon Rogers]

To be honest, Corbyn might have been worse. Adern is of the left. Merkel is of the right.
Anyway I'm not here for politics, I'm here for chess. I am sure that we all have one thing in common and that's chess.
I've put a couple of posts on Book Reviews under the Categorization thread which I hope you might all contribute.
Perhaps also, you all can add to Harry Golombek under Chess History as I am learning a lot.
Stay Safe and Be Kind.

[Matt Mackenzie]

To be honest, Corbyn might have been worse

Anything is possible.

However one thing I am fairly convinced about is that, unlike "Spaffer", he would have taken it seriously from the outset.

[JustinHorton]

We have to start having that difficult discussion is it economically worthwhile trying to save/protect a small % against the general well being of the masses

There is no "start", this has been going on since the beginning, usually from the same cranks and worse who said the virus was just the flu or that - in a patent exercise of projection - it was all media hysteria.

And here we are, tens of thousands of deaths later, and people are talking about it is "economically worthwhile" (because considerations of humanity can presumably be neglected) to "save...a small percentage", and I really would like to know before anybody even thinks about saying this stuff, what percentage of the population we are talking about.

Since we're reducing everything to numbers at all.

[John Moore]

To be honest, Corbyn might have been worse

Anything is possible.

However one thing I am fairly convinced about is that, unlike "Spaffer", he would have taken it seriously from the outset.

Since Jeremy Corbyn was already over 70, he would have been self-isolating from the beginning which might have been something of a handicap. Although I guess that would mean that he would have taken it seriously from the outset.

[JustinHorton]

Incidentally, while I am not making this point at the expense of any individuals on here, I've seen it well observed elsewhere that it's good that people are discovering that prolonged periods of economic crisis or austerity can have a cost in human life, and it's a wonder that point wasn't made more strongly or more widely over, say, the past decade.

[Nick Ivell]

This forum is at its worst when politics are under discussion.

The clue is in the title of the thread. Only: CHESS should not have been put in brackets!

[Simon Rogers]

I agree with Nick.
Like in Northern Ireland during the virus left and right have worked better together. Arlene Foster and Michelle O' Neil.
All of you don't argue.
Please look at Book Reviews and Chess History for my posts and topics.

[J T Melsom]

The debate about health v economy isn't new, and the decisions are difficult. Public policy has always put a value on human life and acceptable risk, whether in construction of bridges, flood defences or transport, and in the provision of health services (how long a waiting list is acceptable?). I don't think even the most enlightened governments cocoon their citizens by gold-plated solutions, but they certainly don't throw them to the mercy of an untamed virus.. I think the issue in this case is that we have a government clearly lacking in empathy, and with a skewed prioritisation of the economy. Some posters have throughout this period been displaying a similar lack of empathy.

[David Sedgwick]

I think the issue in this case is that we have a government clearly lacking in empathy …

It's unusual for someone who has recovered from being critically ill to be accused of lacking empathy with his illness.

But we live in unusual times.

[J T Melsom]

I said the government lacks empathy. So far as I understand it that is meant to be a collective body.

And having re-read the post several times I don't suggest empathy with a virus at all.

I agree that we live in unusual times. It is a pity people need to make things up.

[IM Jack Rudd]

We've wandered a long way off the topic of chess here, so most of the posts in this thread have been moved.