COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Pargat Perrer]

Your dismissal of the Cochrane Library—a repository of meticulously researched, peer-reviewed scientific findings—as a bastion of "right-wing bigots" underscores your profound inability to engage with facts that challenge your preconceived notions. To reject the work of an internationally respected institution out of hand, simply because it presents inconvenient truths, illustrates a willful ignorance and intellectual laziness.

as you well know, the Cochrane Library is intricately tied with WHO.... an organization you have villified again and again here on CT.

I really don't think you know your asshole from a hole in the ground. Please tell us, if WHO is using CL information to draw up their guidelines, and you don't like, in fact vehemently disagree with, the WHO guidelines, what does that say about the CL?

As for your clumsy attempt to leverage German scientists of WWII in your argument, it only serves to further highlight your lack of comprehension. Werner Heisenberg, despite the reprehensible context in which he worked, made invaluable contributions to physics. Recognizing the significance of his scientific achievements does not imply an endorsement of the regime he was under, but rather an understanding that knowledge can transcend its origins. This is the essence of separating science from the scientist.

In this regard, it is you who embodies the very essence of bigotry: a closed mind, impervious to evidence, and quick to dismiss that which you have neither the capacity nor the inclination to understand. Your tenuous arguments to suggest I, as a Jew, support Naziism is yet another example of your vile, ignorant bigotry and nothing but a tactic of reality inversion all too common among hateful antisemites.

LOL you bring up Heisenberg, not even a Nazi, and a devout Christian. You know damn well I am not talking about the Heisenbergs of Germany.

You KNOW who I'm talking about, and you refuse to talk about them. AND you also know I'm not talking about the RESULTS of their "science" but about their METHODS.

Experimenting on Jew slaves .... TALK ABOUT THAT you fake-altruistic pos. NOT THE RESULTS, THE METHODS.

You say you put the science ahead of the scientists, and that means you accept their METHODS if they gained valuable scientific knowledge.

In other words, you accept experimental work on slaves, whether Jew, whether disabled, whether mentally ill, doesn't matter. If they are slaves, go ahead, do experiments on them, gain some scientific knowledge.

I don't accuse you of being Nazi, but rather being Nazi-like. Big difference. Many people do not learn from history. You are one of them.

[Dilip Panjwani]

This could be applied to ANYONE'S opinion on ANY toplc.

This could be applied to ANYONE'S opinion on ANY toplc, only by a nasty troll. Everyone else on Chesstalk would apply it only to you.

[Peter McKillop]

He said he likes Wagner's music despite Wagner's anti-semitic leanings. (I wrote pro-Nazi, it should have said anti-semitic).

It is no stretch of the imagination to think he COULD -- NOT MUST, BUT COULD -- like the Nazi anthem enough to want to play it anywhere, bar mitzvah or not.

It is a HUGE stretch of the imagination. In fact, imo, it is unimaginable. Only for YOU is it "no stretch." Think I'm wrong? Find just one person, one regular CT poster, who will back up your "no stretch" in writing.

He separates the art from the artist.

Imagine Peter if you will .... a serial child molester .... before he goes on his rampage of assaults, he draws "high-quality" artworks of children.

Pargat, the above paragraph is so typical of your acidic, polemical style. It goes like this:
1. You construct a hypothetical 'house'.
2. Then, almost always with woefully insufficient justification, you insist that your adversary lives in your hypothetical house.
3. Then you treat your hypothetical house as fact and attack your adversary for having the temerity to live there.

Now you have a Sid character comes along years later who, even knowing the nature and history of the artist, hangs the artworks on his walls because he likes them.

Are you ok with that? I am decidedly NOT. There is no separation, and you should reconsider your "respect" for Sid because of his "separation of the art from the artist".

You can argue that Wagner wasn't actually a Nazi .... but you have to ask, would he have been? And if we just assume he would have been, then what? What happens to his music? Is it publicly available even today, for assholes like Sid to "enjoy"?

These are the hard questions we must ask ... and just from the evidence that he probably would have been a Nazi, we must not "separate the art from the artist". Anti-semitic views are what they are, no matter the time period.

I asked Sid a question about German experiments on Jews ... he has ignored that question. That tells me a lot about his integrity (or rather, lack of).

So now you are weighing in, so I must ask YOU the same question (post 3511).

You damn well better answer, and your answer better be the RIGHT answer, if you want any respect from me.

I don't need or want your respect. In fact, the idea of having your respect is repugnant.

Why? I gave several examples ... the US Supreme Court approving bumper stocks ... "yeah, many people will die, but we uphold the right of the gun manufacturers to add this feature for all US citizens to enjoy, it is their right".

WTF Peter, I thought you had morals and balls. Do you know what it means to take a stand against immorality? Then fucking DO IT.

See my comments in bold above.

[Sid Belzberg]

Answer the question about the German scientists in WWII. Without that answer, you are totally SUSPECT, glib comments about separating art from artist, separating science from scientist, notwithstanding.

Decency? You of all people want decency? You total HYPOCRITE. .

I lower myself to YOUR level because anything is worth it to combat people like you.

Your dismissal of the Cochrane Library—a repository of meticulously researched, peer-reviewed scientific findings—as a bastion of "right-wing bigots" underscores your profound inability to engage with facts that challenge your preconceived notions. To reject the work of an internationally respected institution out of hand, simply because it presents inconvenient truths, illustrates a willful ignorance and intellectual laziness.

As for your clumsy attempt to leverage German scientists of WWII in your argument, it only serves to further highlight your lack of comprehension. Werner Heisenberg, despite the reprehensible context in which he worked, made invaluable contributions to physics. Recognizing the significance of his scientific achievements does not imply an endorsement of the regime he was under, but rather an understanding that knowledge can transcend its origins. This is the essence of separating science from the scientist.

In this regard, it is you who embodies the very essence of bigotry: a closed mind, impervious to evidence, and quick to dismiss that which you have neither the capacity nor the inclination to understand. Your tenuous arguments to suggest I, as a Jew, support Naziism is yet another example of your vile, ignorant bigotry and nothing but a tactic of reality inversion all too common among hateful antisemites.

[Pargat Perrer]

Your crude jest about playing Nazi propaganda at a bar mitzvah is not only vile but exposes your appalling lack of decency.

Your puerile jibes devolve the level of discussion here. Kindly refrain from polluting Chesstalk forums with your obnoxious and uninformed commentary.

Answer the question about the German scientists in WWII. Without that answer, you are totally SUSPECT, glib comments about separating art from artist, separating science from scientist, notwithstanding.

Decency? You of all people want decency? You total HYPOCRITE. .

I lower myself to YOUR level because anything is worth it to combat people like you.

[Sid Belzberg]

As you should well know, Sid, anti-semitism knows no time boundaries. For you to think that it might indicates a profound lack of understanding.

but yes, I should have said "anti-semitic" rather than "pro-Nazi" even if it is highly likely Wagner would have been pro-Nazi if he lived in that time period.






This could be applied to ANYONE'S opinion on ANY toplc.

So why Sid do you bother to give your shit opinions on CT?

Your crude jest about playing Nazi propaganda at a bar mitzvah is not only vile but exposes your appalling lack of decency. Were you capable of the most basic discernment, you would understand that appreciating an artist’s work does not entail an uncritical acceptance of their personal beliefs. Your insinuation that my appreciation for art must equate to an endorsement of abhorrent ideologies betrays a mind woefully incapable of nuanced thought as you have demonstrated here countless times.

Your puerile jibes devolve the level of discussion here. Kindly refrain from polluting Chesstalk forums with your obnoxious and uninformed commentary.

[Pargat Perrer]

That's pretty damned low, Pargat; to suggest that a Jew who likes some of Wagner's music must also want to play the Nazi anthem at a bar mitzvah.

He said he likes Wagner's music despite Wagner's anti-semitic leanings. (I wrote pro-Nazi, it should have said anti-semitic).

It is no stretch of the imagination to think he COULD -- NOT MUST, BUT COULD -- like the Nazi anthem enough to want to play it anywhere, bar mitzvah or not.

He separates the art from the artist.

Imagine Peter if you will .... a serial child molester .... before he goes on his rampage of assaults, he draws "high-quality" artworks of children.

Now you have a Sid character comes along years later who, even knowing the nature and history of the artist, hangs the artworks on his walls because he likes them.

Are you ok with that? I am decidedly NOT. There is no separation, and you should reconsider your "respect" for Sid because of his "separation of the art from the artist".

You can argue that Wagner wasn't actually a Nazi .... but you have to ask, would he have been? And if we just assume he would have been, then what? What happens to his music? Is it publicly available even today, for assholes like Sid to "enjoy"?

These are the hard questions we must ask ... and just from the evidence that he probably would have been a Nazi, we must not "separate the art from the artist". Anti-semitic views are what they are, no matter the time period.

I asked Sid a question about German experiments on Jews ... he has ignored that question. That tells me a lot about his integrity (or rather, lack of).

So now you are weighing in, so I must ask YOU the same question (post 3511).

You damn well better answer, and your answer better be the RIGHT answer, if you want any respect from me.

Why? I gave several examples ... the US Supreme Court approving bumper stocks ... "yeah, many people will die, but we uphold the right of the gun manufacturers to add this feature for all US citizens to enjoy, it is their right".

WTF Peter, I thought you had morals and balls. Do you know what it means to take a stand against immorality? Then fucking DO IT.

[Pargat Perrer]

Richard Wagner died in 1883. The Nazi Party was not formed until 1919.

As you should well know, Sid, anti-semitism knows no time boundaries. For you to think that it might indicates a profound lack of understanding.

but yes, I should have said "anti-semitic" rather than "pro-Nazi" even if it is highly likely Wagner would have been pro-Nazi if he lived in that time period.

This could be applied to ANYONE'S opinion on ANY toplc.

So why Sid do you bother to give your shit opinions on CT?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Richard Wagner died in 1883. The Nazi Party was not formed until 1919.

You are absolutely right, Sid! 'Quiet please' is the safest response to trolling :-)

[Sid Belzberg]

If you think it is ok to listen to Wagner despite his pro-Nazi leanings

Richard Wagner died in 1883. The Nazi Party was not formed until 1919.

[Neil Frarey]

That's pretty damned low, Pargat; to suggest that a Jew who likes some of Wagner's music must also want to play the Nazi anthem at a bar mitzvah.

Totally agree with Peter, on this one.

[Peter McKillop]

....
If you think it is ok to listen to Wagner despite his pro-Nazi leanings, maybe you also like the sound of "Horst-Wessel-Lied"? Hmmm? You like, ja? You play it at a bar mitzvah, ja?
....

That's pretty damned low, Pargat; to suggest that a Jew who likes some of Wagner's music must also want to play the Nazi anthem at a bar mitzvah.

[Sid Belzberg]

No, you got the order wrong.

"One of the largest studies of mask-wearing during the Covid pandemic was conducted in Bangladesh, with more than 170,000 people in the intervention group and similar numbers in the control group. The authors studied a series of public announcements and mask distributions which raised the frequency of mask-wearing. In the end, around 40 percent of the experimental group wore masks, compared to around 10 percent in the control group.

The result, the study found, was a substantial reduction in the share of people with Covid-19-like symptoms, and in antibodies that would suggest a Covid-19 infection: “In surgical mask villages, we observe a 35.3% reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence among individuals ≥60 years old ... We see larger reductions in symptoms and symptomatic seropositivity in villages that experienced larger increases in mask use.”

That looks like pretty substantial evidence that mask-wearing reduces Covid-19! And this article is one of only two studies of mask-wearing included in the Cochrane review which happened during the Covid-19 pandemic. The other, a study in Denmark, assigned people to wear masks (though, of course, not all of the people told to wear masks did so consistently or correctly) and had a control group that generally did not wear masks. The group that was told to wear masks had slightly lower infection rates than the group that didn’t wear masks, but the sample was too small for the effect to be significant.

Given that — one study finding very solid evidence for the benefits of masks, and one finding limited but encouraging evidence — how did Cochrane arrive at its conclusion that mask wearing “probably makes little or no difference?”

There ARE some people doing unbiased research .... Sid isn't one of them.

Sid is the X-Files guy... Mulder? He WANTS to believe... the truth is out there.... the truth as Sid wants it to be, that is.

The Bangladesh study is included in the Cochrane meta-analysis of 78 RCTs.

"We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.
The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear."

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr...6207.pub6/full

Please show us your evidence that the world-renowned Cochrane Library universally considered the gold standard of information among medical
professionals are run by "right-wing bigots."

[Pargat Perrer]

.....Pargat/Paul correctly implied here that just because he signed up on a chess forum to shill for Paul Bonham's chess variants and just because he shares the same interests as Paul Bonham it is not proof that he is Paul Bonham.

Well at least you DO have an inkling of logic in that biased head of yours.

but I almost missed it .... because I once said a good thing about Mr. Bonham's Option Chess, Sid proclaims I am "shilling" for (presumably all) of Mr. Bonham's chess variants.

so I ask anyone here who has regularly read my posts here ... have I been "shilling" for Mr. Bonham's chess variants? Even just for his main one, Option Chess?

I haven't even been "shilling" for my own chess variants.

but in Sid's perverted world, you say one good thing about something, you are a shill.

WHAT DOES THAT MAKE SID?

[Pargat Perrer]

Awww, poor Pargat/Paul. He doesn't like scientific findings, so he declares the journal full of right-wing bigots.

......

No, you got the order wrong.

"One of the largest studies of mask-wearing during the Covid pandemic was conducted in Bangladesh, with more than 170,000 people in the intervention group and similar numbers in the control group. The authors studied a series of public announcements and mask distributions which raised the frequency of mask-wearing. In the end, around 40 percent of the experimental group wore masks, compared to around 10 percent in the control group.

The result, the study found, was a substantial reduction in the share of people with Covid-19-like symptoms, and in antibodies that would suggest a Covid-19 infection: “In surgical mask villages, we observe a 35.3% reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence among individuals ≥60 years old ... We see larger reductions in symptoms and symptomatic seropositivity in villages that experienced larger increases in mask use.”

That looks like pretty substantial evidence that mask-wearing reduces Covid-19! And this article is one of only two studies of mask-wearing included in the Cochrane review which happened during the Covid-19 pandemic. The other, a study in Denmark, assigned people to wear masks (though, of course, not all of the people told to wear masks did so consistently or correctly) and had a control group that generally did not wear masks. The group that was told to wear masks had slightly lower infection rates than the group that didn’t wear masks, but the sample was too small for the effect to be significant.

Given that — one study finding very solid evidence for the benefits of masks, and one finding limited but encouraging evidence — how did Cochrane arrive at its conclusion that mask wearing “probably makes little or no difference?”

There ARE some people doing unbiased research .... Sid isn't one of them.

Sid is the X-Files guy... Mulder? He WANTS to believe... the truth is out there.... the truth as Sid wants it to be, that is.