If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
If I understand your logic, the only correct answer as to the additional mortality from COVID-19 is zero. All the other deaths are due to faulty treatments. That implies that the CDC best estimate assumptions are wrong as well, so I don't understand why you were quoting them in the first place.
In terms of percentages the CDC was actually very close. You were trying to say "I don't value life" if I view the stats that way hence I mentioned that I
am not convinced those lives could not be saved.
By the way I looked at the article you mentioned and noted this quote
"Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance said the evidence about mortality levels was “not yet strong”, and came from a “series of different bits of information”, stressing there was great uncertainty around the data."
Any first-year virology course will teach you that with few exceptions the virulence of a virus is inversely proportional to its viability.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 29th January, 2021, 09:50 PM.
In terms of percentages the CDC was actually very close. You were trying to say "I don't value life"
I think the CDC percentages that you refer to are the survivorship percentages. They always look to be close to one. If a survivorship rate isn't close to 1 then you have a catastrophe. The thing that matters is the converse - the mortality rates. When I say the CDC best estimate mortality rates are one third of the observed rate, that is huge from a public health perspective. A difference like that has enormous consequences. The CDC rates are not close to the observed data at all.
I was not trying to say that you don't value life. I was explicitly trying to avoid the discussion about putting a value on human life. The starting place would be the initial health care costs, lost future income and the ongoing health care costs from people who survived with impaired health. And then on top of that you have to layer on the emotional cost to the surviving family, which is impossible.
Last edited by Stephen Humphreys; Friday, 29th January, 2021, 10:41 PM.
I think the CDC percentages that you refer to are the survivorship percentages. They always look to be close to one. If a survivorship rate isn't close to 1 then you have a catastrophe. The thing that matters is the converse - the mortality rates. When I say the CDC best estimate mortality rates are one third of the observed rate, that is huge from a public health perspective. A difference like that has enormous consequences. The CDC rates are not close to the observed data at all.
I was not trying to say that you don't value life. I was explicitly trying to avoid the discussion about putting a value on human life. The starting place would be the initial health care costs, lost future income and the ongoing health care costs from people who survived with impaired health. And then on top of that you have to layer on the emotional cost to the surviving family, which is impossible.
We will have to agree to disagree that the CDC's estimate of a low risk population of 99.997% is materially different from a 99.99!% survival rate with actual real world data.
The virus has only been in the wild for slightly over a year and already we have about a half dozen major mutations. To imply that the virus is purposely mutating in such a way as to become less lethal (so that it won't kill as many hosts) is being ridiculous, because you are ascribing some unknown intelligence to the virus, as if it has a brain that can read the numbers and say to itself, "Ok, I'm killing too many hosts, time to become less lethal." I mean it could happen randomly, but not by some decision made by the virus, which scientists don't even know if the damn thing is alive or not.
Virology 101 - The virulence of a virus is inversely proportional to its viability.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 30th January, 2021, 02:48 AM.
When you are making suggestions that we in Ontario do away with lockdowns, do away with masks, and then you say that your suggestions are motivated by a desire to save lives, yes, you do owe your readers an explanation of just HOW you are acting to save lives. That's if you want to have any credibility.
I have not accused you of "bad motives" at all. I have said only that you need to show us that your claim of humanitarian motives, wanting to save lives, be backed up by actions you are taking vis a vis the Ontario government and any other bodies that make decisions on covid policy.
The only reason I can imagine that you avoid explaining what you are doing is that you are NOT doing anything meaningful to change government policies on Covid. If you were, you would tell us. And if you're not, you have no credibility with respect to your claim of wanting to save lives.
You say it's none of our business, as if it were a state secret. WHY NOT JUST TELL US???? It would clear the air and enable us to respect you a little more.
I think it is already too late, you have already lost any credibility. All the major countries of the world are engaging in lockdowns and wearing of masks. I don't see you in the media expressing your views that we shouldn't be doing that, but here you are on tiny little ChessTalk posting like mad. Do you even realize how ridiculous you look?
I am amazed that Garland Best isn't also asking you these questions.
When you are making suggestions that we in Ontario do away with lockdowns, do away with masks, and then you say that your suggestions are motivated by a desire to save lives, yes, you do owe your readers an explanation of just HOW you are acting to save lives. That's if you want to have any credibility.
Sigh....I already stated in my answers to Garland Best that in an environment of legally enforced therapeutic nihilism then the above you state would not be a good approach.
When the Govt stops trying to be Dr's and interfering in the Dr Patient relationship and allow Dr's to prescribe approved treatments off label as they see fit then we would not need lockdowns or masks.
Many of my medical colleagues have been continually pressing the govt on all levels about this and are not getting back a response. I have introduced a few of my friends to Dr's who treat early when they needed it and thank G-d it saved their lives. For me, if even a single friend on this forum finds a physician who is willing to treat early with any of the effective therapies G-d forbid the/she would need it I am happy. Enough said!
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 30th January, 2021, 02:48 AM.
81%+ of COVID death in Canada were in long-term care facilities. So when you redo your stats and risk-stratify the groups by age you should find that you are in line with CDC best estimates. As far as new mutations being more virulent typically viruses evolve to a less virulent form improving their viability prospects as it does not run out of hosts to infect as would be the case with something like a deadly ebola outbreak.
I should have asked this question before: How exactly did you treat the 81% of COVID deaths that occurred in LTC facilities?
Hopefully, the Canadian LTC COVID-19 experience is not representative of what will occur in future. The best estimate of what that might be for seniors in Canada is probably the following written by a group of Ontario doctors: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...o4A5S23UgiPIOg
They suggest 12.7% as a best estimate for age +70 COVID-19 mortality in future for Ontario. If I apply this to the Canadian numbers the number of deaths falls from 18,031 to 13,326. This is still 7,648 deaths more than the CDC best estimate rates would suggest. To put this number of deaths in perspective, recall that 9/11 resulted in 2,977 fatalities. If you use survival rates this impact is lost. This is why I think using mortality rates and the number of deaths gives a much better picture of what is going on. It also explains why I think using the CDC best estimate rates is simply wrong.
Last edited by Stephen Humphreys; Saturday, 30th January, 2021, 10:23 AM.
Hopefully, the Canadian LTC COVID-19 experience is not representative of what will occur in the future.
Stephen, why don't you knock off the bullshit and discuss the root cause of the problem? Namely legally enforced therapeutic nihilism in Canada. No need for words
like "hopefully". Here is a peer-reviewed paper this month from THe American Journal of Medicine. The problem is getting our disgustingly corrupt medical bureaucrats to listen.
Stephen, why don't you knock off the bullshit and discuss the root cause of the problem? Namely legally enforced therapeutic nihilism in Canada. No need for words
like "hopefully". Here is a peer-reviewed paper this month from THe American Journal of Medicine. The problem is getting our disgustingly corrupt medical bureaucrats to listen.
Well, since you didn't answer my question and chose instead to insult me and change the topic, I think I can infer the answer. Well done!
No, it is very much on the topic, the reason we see a higher mortality rate in LTC's in Canada than the CDC estimates is thanks to the murderous policies of therapeutic nihilism deployed by corrupt medical bureaucrats in Canada. This becomes especially visible in long term care facilities.
If you consider a bullshit argument a "personal" insult you should seek the type of help I can not offer.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 30th January, 2021, 01:45 PM.
No, it is very much on the topic, the reason we see a higher mortality rate in LTC's in Canada than the CDC estimates is thanks to the murderous policies of therapeutic nihilism deployed by corrupt medical bureaucrats in Canada. This becomes especially visible in long term care facilities.
If you consider a bullshit argument a "personal" insult you should seek the type of help I can not offer.
Sid, If you review what I said during our discussion, you will see that I was only ever interested in discussing your use of the CDC best estimates. Based on how that discussion went, I don't see any point in expanding the discussion to include your theory. Have a nice day.
It's a well known phenomenon to those who visit chesstalk regularly. It's called ABC Sid - Abusive, Belligerent, Condescending. Whenever the discussion doesn't suit Sid, ABC Sid suddenly shows up.
p.s. to Sid: take ownership of your behaviour and don't start with your usual "be very very careful, I'll sue, I'll sue" bullshit.
p.p.s. "Politeness and consideration for others' points of view are not flowers that grow in everyone's garden."
Maggie Muggins, 1958
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Saturday, 30th January, 2021, 03:49 PM.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I have to say I am guilty of pre-judging some posts by ad hominem, but I find I keep more brain cells alive this way.
Thanks for the tip, Sam. Sounds like a good coping mechanism.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Tweet
Comment