Tanomazu

Yes, so exactly what I said, threatening verbal abuse which causes fear of immediate violence. Note also: In February 2014 Parliament passed a redaction of the statute which removed the word "insulting" in subsections "a" and "b" following pressure from citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_of_the_Public_Order_Act_1986 Also note those offences do not apply if you are in your own house or the conduct is reasonable. In Dehal v Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Justice Moses ruled that in cases involving freedom of expression, prosecution is unlawful unless it is necessary to prevent public disorder. Also see Norwood v DPP: "Free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence".

True, but there would have to be an element of imminent harm, assault, affray, riot or some such, or a justified belief that physical assault was immiment. Without that it's probably not a breach of the peace. It's true to say there is no such law as a crime of "verbal abuse" or "verbal assault". There is a crime of physical assault, and certain instances where assault, harm, riot, affray and such can be imminently expected would be breach of the peace potentially, but mere verbal abuse is unlikely to suffice. Threatening physical harm for instance could be a crime.

Verbal abuse is nowhere near enough to constitute a breach of the peace. It only happens "when a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace Very hard to see how "verbal abuse" can result in harm to a person or his property. The threat of imminent harm, riot, assault would most likely be required, verbal abuse itself is not enough.

That's absolutely correct, one need only remember the 1940s to see how science can be used to support a political agenda.

The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. For instance distributing leaflets to oppose the draft in war time was obstruction of the draft, a criminal offence at that time. However, the judge in the case, Schenck v United States, said in other times those people distributing the leaflets would have been within their constitutional rights to distribute their leaflets. But it was war, so bad luck. Thus we need to look at where and when the statement was made. If it was made online it is extremely unlikely it will lead to immediate riots, though that can happen. However, that has to be taken into account. It is not the same as shouting something in a crowded theatre. The general test is will the words create a "clear and present danger" that should be prevented? In Brandenburg v Ohio this was then modified again and instead the new standard was whether the words were likely to incite imminent lawless action. So in the extremely rare case where someone posts something that was on the balance of probabilities likely to incite imminent lawless action, then yes, that could be censored, however not otherwise. Otherwise freedom of speech would prevail. Expressions of honest opinion are entitled to near absolute protection.

Interesting question whether the truth itself can cause harm. That probably is the case. However, it is not just the intention that is relevant, the so-called mens rea, it is also a question of whether actual harm is inflicted in reality, the important actus reus. In other words if actual, specific harm is inflicted, yes, of course then traditionally free speech often ends. However, if no actual specific harm has been inflicted the principle of freedom of speech should prevail.

Unfortunately it does not work that way on social media, on the internet or on talkboards, because there is no universal constitution protecting users' rights. Quite the opposite, the terms and conditions usually prohibit basically everything, thus leaving the site wide discretion to step in whenever they want. Maybe we need an internet constitution all companies are forced to adhere to. How easy is it for someone to report a poster whom they disagree with, but the poster being reported basically has no rights whatsoever and has to rely on the censors being intelligent, fair and equitable. Most censors, not all, but most are not equipped that way.

And how would things change if you censored, cancelled, blocked and banned those who hold differing views, different facts or interpretations? So what you are saying is that scientific discourse only arrives at the truth precisely because the widest possible variety of interpretations, facts and opinions are allowed. If scientists were censored then progress would be impossible. Same everywhere. Censorship is the enemy of progress. Cancel culture is a regression to previous dark ages. Everyone should have to tolerate all differing views, unless there is clear evidence of direct and specific imminent harm by a particular view, for instance, which is very, very rarely the case. I mean Roblok may not like anti-vaxxers, is he personally directly and specifically harmed by anyone on here expressing anti-vaxxer views? Not really. Unless he were to walk into a room with that person who expressed the anti-vaxx view and that person was infected and Roblok were close enough to breath in his aerosols. We can all be a little over the top regarding potential dangers.

The problem is neither you nor anybody on here should get to decide, or is indeed equipped to decide, what a "dangerous falsehood" is. In this Covid pandemic for instance we have seen that for the longest time the number of cases was taken as a measure of whether to put in place draconian lockdowns. Now governments have turned around and said "Ooops sorry, actually taking cases alone is wrong, we'll now look at hospitalizations coupled with available beds and death rate". Again and again scientific advisors of the highest rank have gotten facts about Covid wrong, and thus peddled falsehoods Were they dangerous? Probably. However, we all have to live with dangerous falsehoods. This is not a sterile environment where mistakes do not happen and mommy can protect you from all negatives of the world. You put 10 scientists in a room and you get 21 opinions. They can't all be right. There will always be falsehoods. We have seen this with Covid. The question is whether these falsehoods are so dangerous that they should be banned. If that were the case 80% of the world's scientists, politicians etc should all be banned. Any talk of communism should indeed be banned, the most dangerous falsehood the world has known. It's very dangerous to engage in aggressive adversarial cancel culture. It almost cost the US a revolution. Rather than support cancel culture we should all stand up against it in my view. It's a very slippery slope. First they came for the communists, then they came for Trump, then for Nikki Minaj, tomorrow they may come for you...

The age of the Israeli population is not the issue at all. The issue is that the vaccines Israel used only offered 49% protection against the Delta variant, so 51% of the vaccinated still got infected. It's not that the vaccine "wore off", it was designed for different variants and is only 49% effective against the Delta variant which is causing record number of cases in Israel, despite the 80% double vaccination of adults. I am not denying the effectiveness of the virus, I am giving you precise figures for their effectiveness against the Delta variant based on studies done by Imperial College in the UK. The vaccines are 49% effective against the Delta variant. Which is a problem, because it means the vaccines do not stop the pandemic. As Israel has found out. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=2b206a12281c

I'm not misrepresenting facts at all. You are misrepresenting my posts as misrepresentations. In fact 49% is not a "simplification". "The researchers estimated that two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine are 49% effective at preventing infection with the delta variant, in line with recent data from Israel and much lower than previous estimates." https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=2b206a12281c So those vaccinated are 0.49 times less likely to be infected. Mortality rate is still 1.4% globally.

Actually plenty of data from Israel outlined the safety issues of the vaccines. For instance Israeli scientists were the first to find the link between heart inflammation and the Pfizer vaccine: "Israel's pandemic response coordinator, Nachman Ash, said that a preliminary study showed "tens of incidents" of myocarditis occurring among more than 5 million vaccinated people, primarily after the second dose." https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-examining-heart-inflammation-cases-people-who-received-pfizer-covid-shot-2021-04-25/ I note that for some reason you do not comment at all on the stupefying fact that 80% of adults in Israel got two shots of the best vaccine, yet Israel saw record number of Covid cases despite that. Very strange.

Indeed, that data shows that despite 80% plus of adults having received two vaccinations this did not stop the pandemic in Israel, on the contrary, Israel then saw record numbers of Covid cases. In the UK too, we have seen that the government now is again talking about re-instituting Covid restrictions because it fears the fourth wave as cases are rising. Despite vaccinations. So yes, the data in Israel is indeed consistent with data around the world. The consistency is not the problem. The problem is that the vaccines did not stop the pandemic. Because as studies have shown even Biontech's vaccine is only 49% effective against the Delta variant.

It looks like you're trying to overcompensate for having been shown to be wrong. I do not "confound" virus and viral proteins" in the slightest, the spike protein is a viral protein, and that is what it is called on the world's largest medical library. Again you miss the point I made spectacularly. I did not say "the virus has been armed with knowledge". The point rather was that the mRNA vaccine gets the cells in our body to produce the viral protein, and since cells have the information of what the viral protein looks like, thanks to the mRNA vaccine, this raises the question of whether the cells will at a later date start producing the viral protein. Neither you nor anybody else knows if that can or will happen, because mRNA vaccines are only widely used since 2005 and for Covid19 since 2021. Most grievously you clearly fail to understand that the mRNA is needed to make the viral protein only at the beginning, before the body's cells have for the first time encountered the virus or the mRNA. However, once the mRNA is administered it in fact leads the body's cells themselves to produce the viral protein since thanks to the mRNA they have the ability to do so. This is the key issue, and it raises the question of whether the body's cells can later start producing the viral protein years down the line. You do not have any information or data on this, nor does anybody. Yes, the mRNA is necessary at the start to make the viral protein, but only then, thereafter the cells have the RNA information they need to produce the viral protein, which is what they do. That is why it is called mRNA, ie Messenger RNA, the message has been delivered, the information is there, the cells can then proceed to produce the viral protein, it's not the mRNA producing the viral protein. It's only the messenger. It's the cells in our body themselves, once given the RNA information that produce the viral protein that leads to antibodies. You think the mRNA is necessary to make the viral protein. However, that is only the case at the outset. Once the RNA message is delivered it is the cells themselves that produce the viral protein once they have the RNA information. I have misunderstood nothing. I understood the basics. However you do not understand the mRNA is only required at the start to trigger the cells to produce the viral protein, however, once the message is delivered it is the cells of the body that produce the viral protein. It's not the mRNA, it's only the messenger for the RNA information. It's the cells in our body that then produce the viral protein once they have the RNA information. There is no data on how the cells behave after 10 years once they have been given the RNA information. You don't have it. Nobody does.

I think that's exactly right, the anonymous nature of the internet coupled with the feeling of long distance makes some posters overly belligerent. They just love the drama, because their personal lives are so empty. Good behaviour online is never rewarded, it's often taken for granted and does not result in great attention, whereas over the top intensity clearly does. Often the most obnoxious posts get the most likes. As Nietzsche said, deep down, everyone loves to torture others, it's fun, so when someone becomes very belligerent, rude and obnoxious many actually give them a like.

This is fantastic misinformation. Since studies have shown that the vaccines only provide 49% protection against the D variant it is very obvious that vaccinations do not prevent mass spread of the virus, as indeed we have seen with Israel, a country where 80% of adults received two doses, yet which still saw record number of cases. How can you possibly make such a statement that the pandemic would be over if everyone had the vaccine? That's what we hoped for, but it looks very clearly like that is not the case.

The problem is you read things and copy and paste them but you don't actually understand them. The mRNA vaccine leads the cells of the body to produce the viral protein, it's a spike protein, but it's very much the viral protein. It's a protein and it's part of the SARS Cov2 virus, hence why medical professionals call it the "viral protein". Nothing I posted is in any way contradicted by your copy and paste. And you have spectacularly missed and failed to understand the point about safety that I was making, which is that the mRNA vaccine gets the cells in our body to produce the viral protein. So the question is not how long do mRNA and spike proteins last in the body. Rather, since our body's cells themselves are fooled by the mRNA vaccine to produce the viral protein, the question is if the body's cells, once armed with the knowledge of how to produce the viral protein, will in years down the line produce the viral protein ten, twenty years down the line. Neither you, nor anybody in the world, currently has knowledge of whether or not that will happen. So before you arrogantly claim you understand things which you obviously don't, maybe make an effort to understand the points actually being made, rather than strawmen points you came up with.

The point is that our health experts have: 1) Failed to foresee and plan for a coronavirus pandemic, even though coronavirus has been around for decades, even though the Robert Koch Institute has in 2015 raised the possibility of a coronavirus pandemic and Bill Gates and others have warned of the impact of a pandemic 2) When the outbreak came the experts gave us totally false predictions of what would happen based on models they later admitted were flawed 3) Then proceeded to advise our governments to put in place catastrophic lockdowns the effectiveness of which many study papers have questioned 4) Then spent millions on vaccines which we now know a) do not give as good protection as natural immunity b) have had thousands of "adverse effects" worldwide ranging from death by stroke to paralysis to blood clots in the brain and c) are only 49% effective against new strains like the Delta variant If you had to grade the performance of our health experts I'd have to say it would be somewhere in the D range. Given the fact that the mortality rate for Covid19 is 1.4 per cent based on actual case numbers, and around 0.4 per cent if you adjust for the fact that tests do not catch 100% of cases (using Whitty's multiplier) then clearly this raises questions about whether a healthy individual should choose to vaccinate or not. Clearly, the fact that they would have better immunity if they rely on natural immunity, rather than the vaccine, is a major fact to consider if they are young and healthy. However, nobody tells anyone before they take a vaccine that natural immunity is better. In fact the numerous "adverse effect" possibilities, stroke, blood clots, paralysis etc, are not listed and people who take up the vaccine are not fully informed. My real concern is that mRNA vaccines are really only used since 2005. They lead the cells in the body to produce the viral protein. What if the body's cell have some memory and later down the line the cells again produce the viral protein, possibly in numbers too great for the immune system to defeat the second time around, if the subject is older? We do not have the data on safety for these vaccines that we should have. This does not mean vaccines should not be used, obviously for the elderly and those most at risk they're a must. However, governments are spending billions of taxpayer money on these things. We should know the full facts. And particularly before we use the vaccination.

It's not misinformation, we've gone down the vaccine path and we have 4.6 million dead. The question rather is if those 4.6 million would have happened with or without the vaccinations. Israel has had a world-leading uptake of vaccinations, with over 80% of adults having had two shots of the vaccine and yet has seen record numbers of Covid deaths despite the vaccine, this is totally wrong? Are you not following the news then? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/israel-registers-record-daily-coronavirus-cases

No, I didn't fail note it, I've literally just posted that above. Plus provided a link to the study. So, no.

Thanks, indeed I always wear a helmet but my driving is average. This sounds very interesting, a shame that article can't be linked to. It sounds so counter-intuitive that you'd have more accidents in the countryside. Since there are less vehicles. Would love to see the figures.

Ummmm, these text conversations were in English then? Or you can read Thai?

No, I don't think people are that stupid. Obviously natural immunity can only happen after an infection, that's very obvious. I quoted the authors and gave the link to the study. I fail to see how one possibly be any clearer. "Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

No, I don't think people are that stupid. Obviously natural immunity can only happen after an infection, that's very obvious. I quoted the authors and gave the link to the study. I fail to see how one possibly be any clearer. "Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

And going down this vaccine path has not cost millions of lives? And now it looks, looking at Israel, as if the vaccine path can not confer the immunity we all hoped it would, because Israel, which has taken up vaccines faster than anybody else, in greater numbers than anybody else, has nonetheless seen record numbers of Covid now. Even in the UK, another vaccine overachiever, we now see the government is talking about the possibility of re-introducing corona restrictions due fears of a fourth wave and rising numbers. Meanwhile the latest studies tell us natural immunity is longer lasting than vaccine immunity. Hmmm....