UNVACCINATED ONLINE CHESSPLAYERS

I have read that in Latvia and in some parts of Australia, unvaccinated deputies are banned from voting and giving speeches — even from far, digitally. As online voting cannot spread the virus, I propose that unvaccinated chessplayers should be banned from playing online chess because online chess cannot infect anyone with the virus as well.

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 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".

One may say that the context of online chess is not the same as in the case of 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, while the unvaccinated selected deputies should have the possibility to give speeches — because they are political representatives of the people.

In sum, I think that in both cases — in the cases of the parliament and online chess — prohibitions for unvaccinated people are or would be senseless. However, bans for chess players would be comparatively harmless for society, while bans for deputies can have disastrous effects. Imagine that some elected politician has information about the harmful side-effects of the vaccine...