H1N1 Torunament Protocol

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: H1N1 Torunament Protocol

    http://www.flucount.org/
    Warning you dialup users, big page.

    gives stats. Interestingly, Mexico's official per million death count is lower than Canada's. That's after so many were wondering why it was so deadly in Mexico.

    Nothing about shaking hands, but the British Championship had a:

    FLU POLICY

    If you are exhibiting flu-like symptoms, characterised by feeling unwell and having an elevated temperature, we are sure you would not wish to infect anyone else and you would probably not be in the mood to play chess.

    In these circumstances, after you have obtained medical help, please e-mail Neville Belinfante or telephone the Acting Manager of the British Championships on 07835 398518.

    If you are unfortunate enough to suffer symptoms, please bear in mind that the period of being infectious roughly coincides with the period during which the symptoms occur. We will have a thermometer to enable you to check for elevated temperature if you start to feel unwell at the Championships.

    National guidance recommends that people without symptoms should just behave normally.

    http://www.britishchess09.com/conditions_entryform.htm

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Re : H1N1 Torunament Protocol

      Call me contrary, but I say bring it on. I figure the sooner I get it the better. It seems to be rather benign right now (for someone in my age group), so it probably isn't going to kill me and my body can build up some antibodies. If the virus does become more virulent, those antibodies would be our best defense.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: H1N1 Torunament Protocol

        Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
        That said, I find it suspicious that governments care so much about this H1N1 "epidemic" when almost no one (relatively speaking) has died from it, that the common flu kills thousands worldwide yearly, and that the numbers who die from this thing are highly unlikely to be more than die from, say, smoking each year.
        A few points (not all directed at Tom):

        1. There is no such thing as "the common flu". Each strain is different. Each one can be deadly, but mostly for people with compromised or not fully-developed immune systems.

        2. This strain is a very legitimate pandemic at this point, not an epidemic (most people don't know what the words mean).

        3. The reason there is concern about this particular strain of flu is the way it has spread, when it has spread, and where it has spread, and whom it has killed including young people with sound immune systems. There is very good scientific reason to believe that this strain may be far more deadly than others.

        4. To compare a deadly virus spread by casual contact with smoking is introducing a red herring. (Smoking is very controlled and taxed and requires a certain sense of will in addition to being a cumulative effect.) Many people die from old age each year too.

        5. As Neil points out, hand sanitizers aren't likely to do much against a virus more than normal hygiene would, although I do realize we are talking about chess-players, many of whom are frequently hygiene-impaired.

        6. If a virus is spread at a chess tournament it is likely because of airborne transmission, not because of something such as shaking hands.

        7. I totally agree that panicking is pointless. If people are extremely concerned, get a flu shot, although that's no certainty. Or live in a cave and have no human contact for the next year until this strain runs its course.

        8. Governments (which I know Tom generally detests) are concerned about this because: a) it is their mandate to take action on behalf of the public about such things; b) the scientific experts (who know about such things) are concerned; c) it is more cost-effective to give people a flu shot (assuming its effective) than to treat them afterward.

        Steve

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Re : H1N1 Torunament Protocol

          Originally posted by Gordon Taylor View Post
          Call me contrary, but I say bring it on. I figure the sooner I get it the better. It seems to be rather benign right now (for someone in my age group), so it probably isn't going to kill me and my body can build up some antibodies. If the virus does become more virulent, those antibodies would be our best defense.
          The difference between a mild case and a severe case of Swine Flu appears to be that in a severe case a person is intubated for breathing. I don't know if there is any way of predicting who will get a mild case or a severe case.
          Gary Ruben
          CC - IA and SIM

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: H1N1 Torunament Protocol

            Originally posted by Steve Douglas View Post
            A few points (not all directed at Tom):

            8. Governments (which I know Tom generally detests) are concerned about this because: a) it is their mandate to take action on behalf of the public about such things; b) the scientific experts (who know about such things) are concerned; c) it is more cost-effective to give people a flu shot (assuming its effective) than to treat them afterward.

            Steve
            a) Perhaps my point was a bit obscure. It is that if government really cared that deeply about their citizens they would make smoking totally illegal or extremely, prohibitively expensive. Why? Because smoking (and second- and third-hand smoke) kills a lot of citizens. That's guaranteed. Meanwhile H1N1 *may* end up killing lots of people. Surely it is more rational to defend against the certain threat than the uncertain one.

            b) Scientific experts are concerned about many things. Y2K, for example. That doesn't mean that I think that H1N1 is Y2K, or a tempest in a teapot (though it may be).

            I like to keep in mind this axiom of politics: "Never let a crisis go to waste" and its corollary "If you don't have a crisis simply manufacture one". In sum I am not sure that if this is a real crisis, government trying to take advantage of this crisis (e.g. the Conservatives call off an election on the grounds that it is dangerous to have all these citizens collecting together and spreading H1N1), or the government manufacturing a crisis (e.g. big pharma pays the government off and everyone gets vaccinated at a couple of bucks a shot).

            c) Your point is indisputable, in my opinion.

            BTW, I rarely go shopping, but I noticed today that both of the banks that I deal with and the currency exchange business I used to convert some foreign money had sanitizers on their walls. I suspect the reason is to look like they are doing something (and money is pretty dirty so the idea is otherwise a good one), since I don't recall seeing these even a few months ago. Perhaps there is a golden opportunity to invest in companies that make them?
            "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: H1N1 Torunament Protocol

              Originally posted by Steve Douglas View Post
              5. As Neil points out, hand sanitizers aren't likely to do much against a virus more than normal hygiene would, although I do realize we are talking about chess-players, many of whom are frequently hygiene-impaired.

              6. If a virus is spread at a chess tournament it is likely because of airborne transmission, not because of something such as shaking hands.
              I agree with most of your post, but you are in error on these two points. First, the hand sanitisers are about as effective as soap and water. Used properly they will remove the vast majority of viruses and bacteria from the skin of your hands. H1N1 is as vulneralble to them as any other virus.

              The key is "used properly" though, which for soap and water means keeping soap on your hands for at least thirty seconds.

              Second, communication of the disease by the hands is quite normal and not at all rare. To get it via air you have to be in close personal contact. To get it via hands all you have to do is touch a doornob that someone with the flu has used, then later touch your hand to your nose or eyes.

              Like I said I agree heartily with most of your post. But on these two points you are just wrong.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: H1N1 Torunament Protocol

                Originally posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post
                I agree with most of your post, but you are in error on these two points. First, the hand sanitisers are about as effective as soap and water. Used properly they will remove the vast majority of viruses and bacteria from the skin of your hands. H1N1 is as vulneralble to them as any other virus.

                The key is "used properly" though, which for soap and water means keeping soap on your hands for at least thirty seconds.

                Second, communication of the disease by the hands is quite normal and not at all rare. To get it via air you have to be in close personal contact. To get it via hands all you have to do is touch a doornob that someone with the flu has used, then later touch your hand to your nose or eyes.

                Like I said I agree heartily with most of your post. But on these two points you are just wrong.
                I guess I wasn't clear about the hand sanitizers. I agree with what you say, and they certainly aren't going to hurt (although the development of resistant bacterial strains is a debate for another day.)

                Regarding transmission, I meant that if anyone is going to be in a relatively confined space with an infected person, or sitting directly across a chessboard from them for several hours, transmission was likely going to occur regardless of an initial handshake. A single sneeze is likely to do far more. My use of the word "airborne" was incorrect.

                Steve

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: H1N1 Torunament Protocol

                  Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                  a) Perhaps my point was a bit obscure. It is that if government really cared that deeply about their citizens they would make smoking totally illegal or extremely, prohibitively expensive. Why? Because smoking (and second- and third-hand smoke) kills a lot of citizens. That's guaranteed. Meanwhile H1N1 *may* end up killing lots of people. Surely it is more rational to defend against the certain threat than the uncertain one.

                  b) Scientific experts are concerned about many things. Y2K, for example. That doesn't mean that I think that H1N1 is Y2K, or a tempest in a teapot (though it may be).

                  BTW, I rarely go shopping, but I noticed today that both of the banks that I deal with and the currency exchange business I used to convert some foreign money had sanitizers on their walls. I suspect the reason is to look like they are doing something (and money is pretty dirty so the idea is otherwise a good one), since I don't recall seeing these even a few months ago. Perhaps there is a golden opportunity to invest in companies that make them?
                  The hand sanitizers may be to deal with the traces of cocaine on most of our currency :-)

                  As I said, with smoking there is a certain will involved and the hazards of smoking have been documented and disseminated for decades. Presently there is a huge tax levied on the end user and of course there are the corporate taxes on companies that make the products. Those taxes, along with other forms of regulation (such as severe advertising restrictions) are what governments of all stripes have chosen to do about it. If people actually *liked* H1N1 and it was available as a consumer product, you can bet the government would tax it too.

                  Regarding Y2K, most experts weren't all that worried about it. The media panicked about it. The only area that was likely to be seriously affected by it was the financial services industry. There actually *was* a real risk that telephone systems would go down at midnight of Y2K, but that was because there was a huge risk that *everyone* would pick up the phone to see if it was still working and in the process overload the system.

                  Steve

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X