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 don't owe you an answer for things that are none of your business. Stop trolling me.
Sid, it isn't me you own an answer to. It's all the readers of ChessTalk. And the reason is simple: you said here that you are out to save lives. You want to change Ontario government policy on covid such that your brand of early intervention takes place, and lockdowns and mask wearing and social distancing all go away.
Ok, fine. So WHAT ARE YOU DOING to save lives???? Posting here on ChessTalk doesn't save lives. It takes time AWAY from saving lives.
You need to be spending all your waking time being in the media and lobbying Ontario politicians to change the policies on covid. Are you doing that?
If you're going to play the part of a humanitarian, show us what you are doing. A web site doesn't count, because no one changes policy based on a web site. What lobbying activities are you undertaking? Maybe you are doing something, so then why not tell us? Why hide behind a "I don't owe you an answer"?
You are the one playing the humanitarian card. Show us the proof.
Sid, it isn't me you own an answer to. It's all the readers of ChessTalk. And the reason is simple: you said here that you are out to save lives. You want to change Ontario government policy on covid such that your brand of early intervention takes place, and lockdowns and mask wearing and social distancing all go away.
Ok, fine. So WHAT ARE YOU DOING to save lives???? Posting here on ChessTalk doesn't save lives. It takes time AWAY from saving lives.
You need to be spending all your waking time being in the media and lobbying Ontario politicians to change the policies on covid. Are you doing that?
If you're going to play the part of a humanitarian, show us what you are doing. A web site doesn't count, because no one changes policy based on a web site. What lobbying activities are you undertaking? Maybe you are doing something, so then why not tell us? Why hide behind a "I don't owe you an answer"?
You are the one playing the humanitarian card. Show us the proof.
Dear Pargat,
Please read my last group of replies to Garland. My contributions and what I am doing are outlined there and extend way beyond "just a website" I don't owe answers to anyone including the readers of Chess talk with reference to how or why I do things. However, if you want to maliciously ascribe or accuse me of bad motives be advised that you had better chose your words very very carefully.
What forums I chose to communicate on whether it is with a few of my friends on Chesstalk or on private Dr's forums etc is my business and not yours or anyone else's. How I do things is my prerogative, not yours or anyone else's. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
Dear Pargat,
Please read my last group of replies to Garland. My contributions and what I am doing are outlined there and extend way beyond "just a website" I don't owe answers to anyone including the readers of Chess talk with reference to how or why I do things. However, if you want to maliciously ascribe or accuse me of bad motives be advised that you had better chose your words very very carefully.
What forums I chose to communicate on whether it is with a few of my friends on Chesstalk or on private Dr's forums etc is my business and not yours or anyone else's. How I do things is my prerogative, not yours or anyone else's. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
So were you choosing your words very very carefully when you wrote about the wearing of masks in the the middle east and their erasing of individuality? Or did that slip out and show your true motive for all the trash you post here?
A virus where if you are under 70 and healthy the survival rate according to the CDC is 99.997% even if you leave the virus untreated. If you are over 80 it goes down to 95% survival rate. Treated reduces hospitalizations by 84%
The CDC numbers are being taken out of context. The CDC numbers were best estimate numbers established in the spring of 2020 and have never been updated to reflect actual experience. If you take the number of cases from the Government of Canada Epidemiology Update of January 28th (see page 11, https://health-infobase.canada.ca/sr...-Canada.ca.pdf) and apply the CDC "best estimate" mortality rates by age you get expected deaths in Canada of 5,678. The actual number reported on page 16 is 18,031, which is about three times higher. The situation is much more severe than the CDC best estimates would suggest. You could argue that the numbers are distorted due to the poor experience in Long Term Care facilities and that the mortality rate in the 70+ age group will reduce in future. On other hand, the new strains of COVID-19 may have a higher mortality rate and could make things even worse.
The CDC numbers are being taken out of context. The CDC numbers were best estimate numbers established in the spring of 2020 and have never been updated to reflect actual experience. If you take the number of cases from the Government of Canada Epidemiology Update of January 28th (see page 11, https://health-infobase.canada.ca/sr...-Canada.ca.pdf) and apply the CDC "best estimate" mortality rates by age you get expected deaths in Canada of 5,678. The actual number reported on page 16 is 18,031, which is about three times higher. The situation is much more severe than the CDC best estimates would suggest. You could argue that the numbers are distorted due to the poor experience in Long Term Care facilities and that the mortality rate in the 70+ age group will reduce in future. On other hand, the new strains of COVID-19 may have a higher mortality rate and could make things even worse.
You could argue that the numbers are distorted due to the poor experience in Long Term Care facilities
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.
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.
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.
Dear Pargat,
Please read my last group of replies to Garland. My contributions and what I am doing are outlined there and extend way beyond "just a website" I don't owe answers to anyone including the readers of Chess talk with reference to how or why I do things. However, if you want to maliciously ascribe or accuse me of bad motives be advised that you had better chose your words very very carefully.
What forums I chose to communicate on whether it is with a few of my friends on Chesstalk or on private Dr's forums etc is my business and not yours or anyone else's. How I do things is my prerogative, not yours or anyone else's. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
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.
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.
1)I had already done the stratification by age and did not find what you suggest. The numbers are two to three times higher at all ages >20, not just at the +70 age band. In any case, there is nothing magical about the CDC estimates. They were done for planning purposes before any credible experience was available, and proved to be a big understatement. Why continue to use them? There is a second spike in LTC deaths in progress right now. Should those be ignored as well?
2)at least in the short term the virus seems to be evolving in a way that results in more deaths: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-h...-idUSKBN29R0R0
Last edited by Stephen Humphreys; Friday, 29th January, 2021, 05:01 PM.
1)I had already done the stratification by age and did not find what you suggest. The numbers are two to three times higher at all ages >20, not just at the +70 age band. In any case, there is nothing magical about the CDC estimates. They were done for planning purposes before any credible experience was available, and proved to be a big understatement. Why continue to use them? There is a second spike in LTC deaths in progress right now. Should those be ignored as well?
2)at least in the short term the virus seems to be evolving in a way that results in more deaths: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-h...-idUSKBN29R0R0
So let me understand, out of 10,000,0000 people in the low risk group without treatment the CDC said we can expect based on 99.997% survival or 30 deaths correct? You say the actual results in Canada only would be indicative of 90 deaths ...correct.?
When I have time i will read the Reuters article to see if I can find the reference to the actual scientific publication. I have seen several articles in particular in Italy where they had a less virulent mutation.
You are trying to change the subject to an argument that in the end will boil down a discussion about the value of a human life. That argument is unlikely to be resolved since it depends on each individual's value system. My point was that you are using the CDC numbers to understate the severity of the pandemic. Since you are now trying your best to tap dance away from that, I will assume that you have given up arguing that point.
You are trying to change the subject to an argument that in the end will boil down a discussion about the value of a human life. That argument is unlikely to be resolved since it depends on each individual's value system. My point was that you are using the CDC numbers to understate the severity of the pandemic. Since you are now trying your best to tap dance away from that, I will assume that you have given up arguing that point.
I am not trying argue anything. I was simply asking a question. I was trying to make sure if that is what you were trying to say and that i did not misinterpret anything. So a simple yes or no would suffice.
Thanks,
Sid
In response I ask: Do the CDC best estimate assumptions understate the severity of the epidemic? A simple yes or no would suffice.
Assuming the answer to my question is "yes, technically, I correctly interpreted the data" you gave me I would say no. The reason I say that is the virus is easily treatable and numerous publications https://c19.studycom show that early efficacy works and that ideally we should be at zero deaths.,
Let me give you a real life example of this. One of my colleagues is Dr Tyson of the El Centro California Urgent Care clinic that is actually very close to the Mexican border. Their region was hit very chard with COVID. Since the beginning of the pandemic his particular clinic has been overwhelmed with elderly COVID+ symptomatic patients. The highest risk group you can imagine.
Recently on our forum he announced that he successfully treated the 3500th COVID+ patient, He has had zero hospitalizations and zero deaths. Go ahead and google him.
So my question to you is that all of these treatments have a high safety profile. Why have the LTC facilities in Canada forbade Dr's to intervene early? Why does the Govt think it has a right to interfere in a Dr patient relationship? You do realize that Dr's legally can prescribe approved treatments for off label use and the Gov'ts have never in the history of medicine interfered with a Dr's analyis of risk and benefits when it comes to treating patients.
So who is it that values lives, the gov't or the Dr's that want to treat early?
I am all ears!
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 29th January, 2021, 09:00 PM.
Assuming the answer to my question is "yes, technically, I correctly interpreted the data" you gave me I would say no. The reason I say that is the virus is easily treatable and numerous publications https://c19.studycom show that early efficacy works and that ideally we should be at zero deaths.
I am all ears!
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.
Tweet
Comment