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.
I hope what you are saying is that those lives would not have been lost if people had taken corrective actions to prevent and treat the disease COVID-19. Please confirm this. You have provided links in the past to lectures where the lecturer claimed that there had not been an increase in excess deaths from COVID-19. The evidence says otherwise. Please confirm that you agree that the increase in the overall death rate in the United States in 2020 is real.
Dear Garland,
"I hope what you are saying is that those lives would not have been lost if people had taken corrective actions to prevent and treat the disease COVID-19". This is a correct paraphrase of my statement.
Secondly, I previously posted here the same figure from the article. I also gave prior years from 2010 -2020. I originally pointed out that many years the toital deaths increased by 100000+.
That is attributable to normal population increases and an aging population. Five Democratic States (and the only States) adopted a policy of sending COVID infected patients into nursing homes to mingle among the population and not treat anyone and simply watch them die. This alone contributed to 12000+ deaths in New York. Multiply* five and you have 60000 extra deaths.
So-net we have 150,000 extra deaths to account for, so far we have seen a huge increase in suicides and drug overdoses thanks to lockdowns as a consequence of not treating anyone early.
When those final figures come in only then can you comment on cause and effect.
BTW the WHO came out with this announcement recently that the definition of COVID+ should go beyond simply
trace RNA being detected from an overly sensitive PCR test. They call for visible symptoms and lower cycle rate test.
1) The occurrence of Covid-19 peaked in Peru in mid-August, three months after dispersing of IMV treatments.
2) The number of deaths compared to the number of new cases has remained about 2% to 3% from August onwards. This is comparable to death rates reported in other countries.
3) Death rates were admmited higher in June compared to the rate of new cases over the same month, but similar data can be displayed for the months of April and May here in Canada when we were going through our first wave, and we never adopted IMV as a treatment, yet our case rate declined in the summer months and today our death rates due to Covid relative to case rates remain low compared to 9 months ago.
4) Lima Peru, a single city is 25% of the Peru's population. No other urban center comes close, self-isolating and social distancing is much more difficult in that city compared to the surrounding countryside. So seeing high case rates in the city for a longer duration is not that unusual and again mimics patterns seen in Atlantic Canada compared to Central Canada.
Finally you might want to check the credentials of the authors of this paper.
David Scheim was a computer programmer as NIH. His medical background, if any is in dentistry. See https://corpora.tika.apache.org/base...708/708145.pdf, page 10.
Jennifer A. Hibberd is likewise a dentist.
Juan J. Chamie-Quintero is a data analyst.
1) The occurrence of Covid-19 peaked in Peru in mid-August, three months after dispersing of IMV treatments.
2) The number of deaths compared to the number of new cases has remained about 2% to 3% from August onwards. This is comparable to death rates reported in other countries.
3) Death rates were admmited higher in June compared to the rate of new cases over the same month, but similar data can be displayed for the months of April and May here in Canada when we were going through our first wave, and we never adopted IMV as a treatment, yet our case rate declined in the summer months and today our death rates due to Covid relative to case rates remain low compared to 9 months ago.
4) Lima Peru, a single city is 25% of the Peru's population. No other urban center comes close, self-isolating and social distancing is much more difficult in that city compared to the surrounding countryside. So seeing high case rates in the city for a longer duration is not that unusual and again mimics patterns seen in Atlantic Canada compared to Central Canada.
Finally you might want to check the credentials of the authors of this paper.
David Scheim was a computer programmer as NIH. His medical background, if any is in dentistry. See https://corpora.tika.apache.org/base...708/708145.pdf, page 10.
Jennifer A. Hibberd is likewise a dentist.
Juan J. Chamie-Quintero is a data analyst.
Dear Garland,
You have the cause and effect backwards. Lima did not use IVM and suffered the consequences. So let me share with you this meta analysis of all major IVM
papers we did. You fancy yourself as an expert in Bayesian analysis so please note this comment.
"The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 35 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 34 billion (p = 0.000000000029)."
https://ivmmeta.com/
Please show me a refutation to this analysis. The papers analyzed are all listed at the bottom. Please, by all means show us your critique of the credentials of all of thousands of Dr's and scientists that were part of this research effort.
You bring up Canada, let me share with you an email sent from one of my colleagues to the Premiere of Ontario.
From: Paul Elias Alexander To: Doug Ford <premier.correspondence@ontario.ca> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 01:29:11 p.m. EST Subject: Re: An email from the Premier of Ontario Premier Ford December 30th
Dear Premier Ford, much best wishes to you and family and government in our trying times.
I now enclose a scientific paper published today where I am a co-author scientist, that underscores the benefits of early outpatient treatment for COVID positive symptomatic patients, in their private homes or nursing homes. This approach reduces hospitalization and death.
Please give to your COVID team. This is one approach that could be significant in addressing the pandemic and the challenges we have here, especially for our precious elderly who are anguishing in our nursing homes. We have an option. Can I have the chance to talk with the team and include the relevant experts to help address the elevated hospitalizations and deaths? I leave this to your decision making.
Respectively,
Paul
Best,
Paul E. Alexander, PhD Health Research Methodologist Evidence-Based-Medicine Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact
McMaster University
Ideally, shouldn't people who post links here do their own credential checking and as a courtesy (a) let everyone know up front if there is an issue and (b) explain why, notwithstanding the issue, they still support what is said in the linked paper/etc.?
I hope Garland would tell us that **if it was true**. But, per my point above, why should the reader of your post have to do all that work?
"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
Ideally, shouldn't people who post links here do their own credential checking and as a courtesy (a) let everyone know up front if there is an issue and (b) explain why, notwithstanding the issue, they still support what is said in the linked paper/etc.?
I hope Garland would tell us that **if it was true**. But, per my point above, why should the reader of your post have to do all that work?
No idea what your point is, Garlands comments on the credentials of the author's original paper were entirely irrelevant to the substance of the paper.
To Garland's credit, at least he discussed the actual content of the paper. Something you rarely do.
What is occurring in Ontario is a humanitarian crisis with so many nursing homes infected and no provision for in-facility treatment of C19. Unconscionable.
Please focus on that and not your usual bullshit arguments.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 27th January, 2021, 12:30 PM.
No idea what your point is, Garlands comments on the credentials of the author's original paper were entirely irrelevant to the substance of the paper.
To Garland's credit, at least he discussed the actual content of the paper. Something you rarely do.
OMG, the credentials and CREDIBILITY of the author is ALWAYS relevant.
I learned that lesson years ago with the climate change debate. Climate change deniers would find BS articles on the web and post them. You read them, waste time researching them, debunk them, then the climate change deniers simply find another BS website article and post it. Repeat and rinse, repeat and rinse. I believe the term is trolling.
It appears to me you have just admitted to be a troll.
Always consider the credibility of the source. Not everything you read on the internet is true. duh!!
Dear Bob,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the credentials of
the authors of any papers I submitted hence Garland’s
comments were irrelevant.
Attack the message and not the messenger. Stop insulting ne
me. You want to discuss why early intervention is not viable
please by all means do so. Else back off.
Ideally, shouldn't people who post links here do their own credential checking and as a courtesy (a) let everyone know up front if there is an issue and (b) explain why, notwithstanding the issue, they still support what is said in the linked paper/etc.?
I hope Garland would tell us that **if it was true**. But, per my point above, why should the reader of your post have to do all that work?
Thanks for the support Peter. But if people are providing links as evidence to promote a view, it is only sensible for persons opposing that view to take the time to analyze them. I would expect Sid to make the same sort of study and breakdown of links I post. When I have the time I will look at the other paper Sid posted a link to.
When people start making remarks about my "wisdom" rather than refuting the logic in my arguments, to me it indicates my arguments are correct. Sid's only statement that seems to contradict my argument is when he said that I have "cause and effect backwards" regarding cases in Lima. I do not. The paper states that numbers in Lima did not go down for 2 months after neighboring regions because they introduced the IMV in that region 2 months later than the rest of the country. I am arguing that that is not necessarily the root cause and that the root cause could simply be that the higher population density made it harder to control the outbreak in Lima than in more rural areas. One cannot just point to correlations as proof without eliminating all other possible root causes. That's the whole point behind clinical trials. To be honest I can't even understand Sid's statement that I have cause and effect backwards regarding Lima. That would imply that I think that people in Lima decided not to take IMV because the number of new cases were still high.
Dear Garland,
You provide no substantiation to support your hypothesis that the introduction of IVM in Lima was not the main contributing
factor to reduced deaths.
In fact a recent study out of Stanford show lockdowns do https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
not have good efficacy and the poor results to date in many Western countries that have resorted to therapeutic nihilism
relying only on lockdowns support that view.
I eagerly await your response to the other link I provided.
Thanks,
Sid
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 27th January, 2021, 03:02 PM.
Dear Garland,
You have the cause and effect backwards. Lima did not use IVM and suffered the consequences. So let me share with you this meta analysis of all major IVM
papers we did. You fancy yourself as an expert in Bayesian analysis so please note this comment.
"The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 35 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 34 billion (p = 0.000000000029)."
https://ivmmeta.com/
Please show me a refutation to this analysis. The papers analyzed are all listed at the bottom. Please, by all means show us your critique of the credentials of all of thousands of Dr's and scientists that were part of this research effort.
You bring up Canada, let me share with you an email sent from one of my colleagues to the Premiere of Ontario.
From: Paul Elias Alexander To: Doug Ford <premier.correspondence@ontario.ca> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 01:29:11 p.m. EST Subject: Re: An email from the Premier of Ontario Premier Ford December 30th
Dear Premier Ford, much best wishes to you and family and government in our trying times.
I now enclose a scientific paper published today where I am a co-author scientist, that underscores the benefits of early outpatient treatment for COVID positive symptomatic patients, in their private homes or nursing homes. This approach reduces hospitalization and death.
Please give to your COVID team. This is one approach that could be significant in addressing the pandemic and the challenges we have here, especially for our precious elderly who are anguishing in our nursing homes. We have an option. Can I have the chance to talk with the team and include the relevant experts to help address the elevated hospitalizations and deaths? I leave this to your decision making.
Respectively,
Paul
Best,
Paul E. Alexander, PhD Health Research Methodologist Evidence-Based-Medicine Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact
McMaster University
Here is another example, Sid, of you presenting information in a way which is potentially detrimental to the point(s) you're trying to make. Why bring Alexander into it? Why not just present the articles/studies you want to present, make any comments you want, and then let other people read and discuss? Instead you bring in Alexander who according to Wikipedia is a Trumpist sychophant who spent much of 2020 working for Trump while trying to censor/change CDC and NIH data for the benefit of Trump and to the possible detriment of the American people.
"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
Here is another example, Sid, of you presenting information in a way which is potentially detrimental to the point(s) you're trying to make. Why bring Alexander into it? Why not just present the articles/studies you want to present, make any comments you want, and then let other people read and discuss? Instead you bring in Alexander who according to Wikipedia is a Trumpist sychophant who spent much of 2020 working for Trump while trying to censor/change CDC and NIH data for the benefit of Trump and to the possible detriment of the American people.
Why not just present the articles/studies you want to present, make any comments you want, and then let other people read and discuss?
Peter, I posted Alexander's paper, here it is again https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264
Please amaze us for once in your life and comment on the paper itself instead of politicizing medicine and misrepresenting my posts.
The sooner you get it through your head that this is not about politics and all about saving lives the better!
If you don't like my posts or how they are presented then stop reading them.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 27th January, 2021, 04:40 PM.
Dear Garland,
In fact a recent study out of Stanford show lockdowns do https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
not have good efficacy and the poor results to date in many Western countries that have resorted to therapeutic nihilism
relying only on lockdowns support that view.
Sid
Findings The estimated basic reproduction number R_0 was 2.36 (95% CI: 2.28, 2.45) in Toronto. After the implementation of the SAHP, the contact rate outside the household fell by 39%. Interpretation Our model confirmed that the SAHP implemented in Toronto had a great impact in controlling the spread of COVID-19.
Conclusions
Our study supports the association between the timing of stay-at-home orders and the time to peak case and death counts for both countries and US states. Regions in which mandates were implemented late experienced a prolonged duration to reaching both peak daily case and death counts.
They found that the community infection rate dropped from 12% more cases each day (indicating that cases were doubling every 5 or 6 days) to 5% (indicating that cases were doubling every 14 days) after the states locked down starting Mar 19 to Apr 7.
These are 3 of the top 4 results from the google search "effectivness of stay at home orders on covid-19 transmission"
(Full disclosure: Result number 3 of the search was https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...366-1/fulltext, which reviews how stay-at-home orders negatively affect financial and mental health of mothers and wives in Bangladesh. I fully concede that these measures do harm people's financial and mental health.)
Peter, I posted Alexander's paper, here it is again https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264
Please amaze us for once in your life and comment on the paper itself instead of politicizing medicine and misrepresenting my posts.
I read it. The paper provides no original evidence that these treatments are of benefit. At best it simply cites other studies as evidence. It promotes practically every possible treatment from IVM to Hydroxychloroquine to Zinc, to Vitamins C and D. They literally concede "At this time there are no reports of conclusive randomized trials of oral ambulatory therapy for COVID-19 and none are expected in the short term.".
Dear Garland,
You fancy yourself as an expert in Bayesian analysis so please note this comment.
"The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 35 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 34 billion (p = 0.000000000029)."
https://ivmmeta.com/
Please show me a refutation to this analysis. The papers analyzed are all listed at the bottom. Please, by all means show us your critique of the credentials of all of thousands of Dr's and scientists that were part of this research effort.
I finally checked this link out. You actually expect me to give credence to a website titled "https://ivmmeta.com/" to be an unbiased publisher of data? When the publishers of the cite states that they won't give their names, giving vague references to firing and death threats requiring anonymity? When they also promote other treatments at the top, and don't show a single analysis indicating that there are other treatments that are not effective?
It will take me weeks of study to learn what things like the "Random-effects (DerSimonian and Laird) method for meta-analysis" are and how they would be used to generate the data. And I would have to also determine if they have been truly non-biased in their selection of articles in their meta-analysis. Until then I have to go with where the data is published. If this info was truly reliable it could be published in an actual science journal.
This much I was able to figure out. The probability number itself is calculated as "there are 35 positive studies and zero negative studies, so the odds are one in (2 to the power of 35), which is 34.36 billion". All I have to do is find a bunch of negative result studies, toss them into the math and there goes your 1 in 34 billion number.
Here is another example, Sid, of you presenting information in a way which is potentially detrimental to the point(s) you're trying to make. Why bring Alexander into it? Why not just present the articles/studies you want to present, make any comments you want, and then let other people read and discuss? Instead you bring in Alexander who according to Wikipedia is a Trumpist sychophant who spent much of 2020 working for Trump while trying to censor/change CDC and NIH data for the benefit of Trump and to the possible detriment of the American people.
[I]“There is no other way, we need to establish herd, and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD," then-science adviser Paul Alexander wrote on July 4 to his boss, Health and Human Services assistant secretary for public affairs Michael Caputo, and six other senior officials.
"Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk….so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected…" Alexander added.
"t may be that it will be best if we open up and flood the zone and let the kids and young folk get infected" in order to get "natural immunity…natural exposure," Alexander wrote on July 24 to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn, Caputo and eight other senior officials.
Are you kidding me??? This is one of Sid's colleagues???
Tweet
Comment