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.
Sid goes into cursing mode whenever he is caught out being stupid. Pointing out that flu deaths have gone down dramatically since the onset of mask-wearing and social distancing was grossly stupid of him, as it destroys his whole point that mask-wearing is useless in preventing contagion.
LOL some minute amount of CO2 "trapped" inside the mask will result in masses of hypoxic children!!!! Wow, somebody is REALLY reaching!
Remember the '60's and '70's when it was said all the children watching TV within 6 feet of the screen (which was probably 90% of all children) were going to go blind? Uhhhh, yeah. Right.
When you are faced with scientific facts the best you can do is mutter unsubstantiated gibberish often with a dash of your leftist garbage politics thrown in.
Yes the idiots Paragat Perrer and Brian Profit know more than the Dr's below, authors of the papers, and just like Health Minster Patty Hajhdu. consider peer-reviewed science papers "fake news".
I am sure both of you would have a very promising career as health bureaucrats for the Govt of Canada! Seriously, go for it!
Authors
Dr's.Harald Walach, PhD ,Ronald Weikl, MD ,Juliane Prentice, PhD, MD Helmut Traindl, PhD Stefan Hockertz, PhD as well as Dr. Kai Kisielinski, Dr.Paul Giboni, Dr. Andreas Prescher Dr Bernd Klosterhalfen, Dr.David Graessel, Dr Stefan Funken, Dr, Olier Kempsky, Dr Oliver Hirsh
"The described mask-related changes in respiratory physiology can have an adverse effect on the wearer’s blood gases sub-clinically and in some cases also clinically manifest and, therefore, have a negative effect on the basis of all aerobic life, external and internal respiration, with an influence on a wide variety of organ systems and metabolic processes with physical, psychological and social consequences for the individual human being." https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2781743
"This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia. A recent review6 concluded that there was ample evidence for adverse effects of wearing such masks. We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks."
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Thursday, 8th July, 2021, 04:49 PM.
Yes the idiots Paragat Perrer and Brian Profit know more than the Dr's below, authors of the papers, and just like Health Minster Patty Hajhdu. consider peer-reviewed science papers "fake news".
[/B]
Sid on three peer-reviewed papers that disagreed with his conclusions:
The recent papers you put forward are pseudoscience and by the many important papers do not say "more research needed" as you have asserted that this is boiler plate language in all scientific papers. Papers with conclusive results do not state this, this is the jargon for 2020 pseudoscience papers.
If you read Sid's posts, it's always the same: when he links a source, he plays up the credentials, talks about how great they are, and will say things like, "You think you know more than these doctors?" When it's something he disagrees with, he'll instantly call it pseudoscience, a big pharma/government lie, or look for a small thing that he can nitpick to discredit it.
From a quick search, here are some reviews/meta-analyses from this year on the effectiveness of masks against the spread of COVID:
Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms; nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.
Regardless of the type, setting, or who wears the face mask, it serves primarily a dual preventive purpose; protecting oneself from getting viral infection and protecting others. Therefore, if everyone wears a face mask in public, it offers a double barrier against COVID-19 transmission.
In conclusion, face masks are one of the essentials in the recent pandemic as it helps to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. People of varying age groups must always be recommended to wear face masks as the ease of quarantine measures and travel restrictions are realized.
Overall, our findings support the recommendation on using face masks in community settings in a pandemic era: home-made masks, such as those made of teacloths, may confer a significant degree of protection, albeit less strong than surgical masks or N95 personal respirators.
These are just the first reviews/meta-analyses that I clicked on from searching "covid mask meta analysis" in Google Scholar. If you care about the science, then you have to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers support the effectiveness of masks against the spread of COVID.
Sid on three peer-reviewed papers that disagreed with his conclusions:
If you read Sid's posts, it's always the same: when he links a source, he plays up the credentials, talks about how great they are, and will say things like, "You think you know more than these doctors?" When it's something he disagrees with, he'll instantly call it pseudoscience, a big pharma/government lie, or look for a small thing that he can nitpick to discredit it.
From a quick search, here are some reviews/meta-analyses from this year on the effectiveness of masks against the spread of COVID:
These are just the first reviews/meta-analyses that I clicked on from searching "covid mask meta analysis" in Google Scholar. If you care about the science, then you have to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers support the effectiveness of masks against the spread of COVID.
Thankyou Lucas for presenting these articles, as I have stated the golden Standard of evidence are Random Control Trials RCT's, all the ones I have found have shown no efficacy of masks whatsoever. Please show me a random control trial that proves the efficacy of masks, All of the RCTS have shown show no efficacy and in fact harm. In fact prepandemic all of the science RCt's included showed no efficacy in preventing any type of virsl transmission.
So at the risk of being repetitive show me an RCT.
The nature of science is to have differing views, differing views does not necessarily mean the paper is incorrect.
On the subject of science this year a lot of it is being censored and we have seen incidents of pharma sponsored frauds the most famous one being
the antiHCQ retracted article by both the Lancett and the NEJM on the basis of crowdsourced investigations through social media that is unprecedented in medical history.
When I see so called "meta analysis" with no RCT's I am very skeptical. This is longish read about HCQ that highlights the corruption of science in 2020
Sid is absolutely pathetic. He is so desperate to be relevant, but just comes off as a nut. Does he really think that years from now, research is going to say "wow, doctors wearing masks for their 6 hour surgeries were actually giving themselves brain damage"? Do yourself and everyone here a favour and stop posting. Find a medical site to torture. Or Facebook... you would find a more than willing audience there.
Sid is absolutely pathetic. He is so desperate to be relevant, but just comes off as a nut. Does he really think that years from now, research is going to say "wow, doctors wearing masks for their 6 hour surgeries were actually giving themselves brain damage"? Do yourself and everyone here a favour and stop posting. Find a medical site to torture. Or Facebook... you would find a more than willing audience there.
"However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination. More rigorous contemporary research is needed to make a definitive comment on the effectiveness of surgical facemasks."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34017790/ "Significant physiological impact of wearing PPE inside operation theatre: A challenging scenario in this COVID-19 pandemic"
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 9th July, 2021, 01:28 AM.
Tweet
Comment