Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

  

Back to forum


Juri Eintalu    (2021-11-27)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

I have read that in Latvia, unvaccinated deputies of the parliament are banned from voting and giving speeches — even from far, digitally. Estonian newspapers wrote about this.
I have also read that in some parts of Australia, the unvaccinated deputies of some local offices cannot vote even from far. I do not know what to believe.
However, online voting cannot spread the virus.
Therefore, a question arises concerning correspondence chess. Imagine that someone demands that unvaccinated chess players be banned from playing online chess because online chess cannot infect anyone with the virus.
I do not understand what the logic of all of this is.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-11-29 02:01:04)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

It seems to me that is pure political stuff... Someones want the others being vaccinated to protect everyone best, someones don't want to be vaccinated... Well, that is just an explosive melt. I don't think that there is a simple solution, but well... it is obvious that our governments impact/affect us in many ways, I'm not sure if "it <<shouldn't>> have some control on our body as well (to protect the others)" is a real argument.

Fortunately, the context of correspondence chess is not the same as paliaments ^^


Juri Eintalu    (2021-11-29 11:09:53)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

During the epidemics, restrictions and quarantine are traditional and usual measures. If the restrictions are applied, it is natural that the OTB (over-the-board) chess tournaments are cancelled, and the coaches cannot give indoor lessons. However, such restrictions should not be applied to online chess or coaching as there is no such thing as "online coronavirus".

Suppose that wearing the masks reduces the probability of being infected and also the probability of spreading the virus. Then, it seems natural to demand that the OTB chess players should wear masks. Moreover, chess is not wrestling.

One can also plausibly argue that in the case of contacts with other people outside the home, at least one of the measures should be applied: masks, distance, negative result of the test recently made, or vaccination.

The question of vaccines involves scientific, moral, and political aspects. The scientific issues involve the effectiveness of the vaccine and its side effects. How probably the vaccine reduces the rate of infections, and how probably it reduces the rate of deaths among those infected. How severe is the virus, and how often and how serious are the vaccine's adverse effects. Some religious moral systems, in turn, reject vaccines produced in some specific way. International law rejects uninformed non-voluntary human experiments, etc.

Suppose that the aim is to reduce the rate of infections, and the vaccine is highly effective and without serious side effects. Suppose also that we are utilitarians and aim to maximize the wellbeing of society as a whole.

In the case of such presumptions, it seems natural to demand that the chess coaches giving indoor lessons be vaccinated or show the test results, etc. However, it still does not follow that the unvaccinated chess player cannot play online chess or give online lessons — because there is no such thing as "online coronavirus".

Thibault de Vassal: "Fortunately, the context of correspondence chess is not the same as parliaments."

— Yes, but this is precisely the question: what's the difference? Note that one might also argue that unvaccinated chess players should not play online chess, but the unvaccinated selected deputies should have the possibility to give speeches — because they are political representatives of the people.