Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Multiple unsupported statements, leading to an unjustified conclusion (IMO).


1. A study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, that investigated immunity in participants who received Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine, 119 days after the first vaccination, found that they had more antibodies, than people who recovered from COVID-19.

“Durability of Responses after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 Vaccination” ~ by Alicia T. Widge, M.D. et al
➥ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195

Gord, you have WAY more patience than I do in responding to posts such as this.

Despite all the wacky responses though, I do think that we should be free to express our opinions. Some social media sites such as Facebook are being heavily censored and this bothers me tremendously.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Multiple unsupported statements, leading to an unjustified conclusion (IMO).


1. A study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, that investigated immunity in participants who received Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine, 119 days after the first vaccination, found that they had more antibodies, than people who recovered from COVID-19.

“Durability of Responses after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 Vaccination” ~ by Alicia T. Widge, M.D. et al
➥ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2032195

I agree with Gord, and I think the facts support what Gord says.


The science shows durable immunity from mRNA vaccines, better and more consistent than natural immunity after infection.
'
There was a lot of gnashing of teeth that natural immunity would not be durable, and repeated infections would be common, but it is presently looking like a year or more in the average case and extremely rare reinfections.


The existing vaccines work against ALL the mutations so far, quite well against the UK one, not as well but still not ineffective against the South African one. Booster shots are being developed; quite straightforward process.


Totally different from the common cold. Why is explained in detail here: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN2802NR


Situation, far from looking very bad, looks very very good. Big Pharma hit it out of the ballpark with the vaccines, with multiple extremely effective (>90%) vaccines already fully developed, fully tested, approved, and being shot into millions of arms, only a year more or less after the virus was sequenced. That is an unbelievable achievement. Just yesterday the Lancet added the Russian Sputnik V vaccine to the growing number of highly effective (>90%) vaccines with minimal side effects. This: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...987-7/fulltext is yet more fantastic news.



We will snuff out this pandemic in most of the developed world well before the end of this year. In the U.S., it looks like completely normal life already this summer: https://covid19-projections.com/path-to-herd-immunity/.


This is one of the great achievements of mankind. Every possible reason to be glad. The light at the end of this ghastly tunnel is getting brighter and brighter.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Gord, you have WAY more patience than I do in responding to posts such as this.

Despite all the wacky responses though, I do think that we should be free to express our opinions. Some social media sites such as Facebook are being heavily censored and this bothers me tremendously.

There lies a dilemma.. Expressing opinions is not the same thing as telling lies. To have an opinion one must know some facts. Based on assumptions at best and even more commonly nowadays, on conspiracy theories and troll factory excrement there's no such thing as an opinion but propaganda and crime against humanity. The very same thing that kept so many dictators and tyrannies in power.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is one of the great achievements of mankind. Every possible reason to be glad. The light at the end of this ghastly tunnel is getting brighter and brighter.

We are living through a truly historic time. And this is not the end. The approval for the very first time of RNA and DNA vaccines such as the Pfizer and Oxford (for human use at least) have opened the door to all kinds of exciting possibilities, both with vaccine innovation and also in the fight against cancer and genetic diseases.

I think when the dust settles a lot of good will come of this.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

... I do think that we should be free to express our opinions. Some social media sites such as Facebook are being heavily censored and this bothers me tremendously.

Our freedom to express our (legal & within the CF Rules) opinions, on CF, is a two-way street.

I can post an opinion, and others are free to contradict and/or criticize or refute that opinion.

Alphabet, Facebook and Twitter, etc find themselves in a sort of Catch- 22, between (mostly conservatives) those who accuse them of stifling free speech, when they block, or put warning labels on questionable posts, and others, who say the companies need to do more to stamp out online misinformation and conspiracy theories.
How do we determine what 'misinformation' or 'disinformation' is, and who should define it?
Balancing community standards, with free speech (for 2.2 billion people) is a monumental task, It’s one we don't yet know can be done at all.

Facebook, along with Google, Twitter, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Reddit issued a joint statement, on combating misinformation on their platforms.
➥ https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/16/fa...isinformation/

Much of the alleged (Alphabet, Facebook and Twitter, etc) censorship is often just an example of individuals breaking the rules, or not knowing how social media works.

Facebook Community Standards*
➥ https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/

COVID-19: Community Standards Updates and Protections
“As people around the world confront this unprecedented public health emergency, we want to make sure that our Community Standards protect people from harmful content and new types of abuse related to COVID-19. We're working to remove content that has the potential to contribute to real-world harm, including through our policies prohibiting coordination of harm, sale of medical masks and related goods, hate speech, bullying and harassment and misinformation that contributes to the risk of imminent violence or physical harm.
As the situation evolves, we continue to look at content on the platform, assess speech trends, and engage with experts, and will provide additional policy guidance when appropriate to keep the members of our community safe during this crisis.”

* From a legal perspective, Facebook is under no obligation to write or enforce any of these policies. It is protected from the consequences of its users' speech by a provision of the 1996 act that defines social media platforms as a "safe harbor" for speech. That "Section 230" provision distinguishes Facebook from a publisher that stands behind its content.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

[Our freedom to express our (legal & within the CF Rules) opinions, on CF, is a two-way street.

I can post an opinion, and others are free to contradict and/or criticize or refute that opinion.

Alphabet, Facebook and Twitter, etc find themselves in a sort of Catch- 22, between (mostly conservatives) those who accuse them of stifling free speech, when they block, or put warning labels on questionable posts, and others, who say the companies need to do more to stamp out online misinformation and conspiracy theories.
How do we determine what 'misinformation' or 'disinformation' is, and who should define it?
Balancing community standards, with free speech (for 2.2 billion people) is a monumental task, It’s one we don't yet know can be done at all.

Facebook, along with Google, Twitter, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Reddit issued a joint statement, on combating misinformation on their platforms.
➥ https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/16/fa...isinformation/

Much of the alleged (Alphabet, Facebook and Twitter, etc) censorship is often just an example of individuals breaking the rules, or not knowing how social media works.

Facebook Community Standards*
➥ https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/

* From a legal perspective, Facebook is under no obligation to write or enforce any of these policies. It is protected from the consequences of its users' speech by a provision of the 1996 act that defines social media platforms as a "safe harbor" for speech. That "Section 230" provision distinguishes Facebook from a publisher that stands behind its content.

Apart from sticking to the “be nice” rule that is in place to promote discussions so that they do not end up as mud fights and destroy exchange of ideas (and limiting advertising, whether for profit or not) you are free to post just about anything here on CF.

Gord, you have nailed it: who gets to arbitrate on what constitutes “misinformation” or “content that has the potential to contribute to real-world harm”?
Facebook itself?
YouTube?
The government?
A certain group of scientists when it comes to medical issues? Scientific views can be incredibly diverse, often at pole ends of spectrums.

And why should any information be censored? If anyone disagrees with someone’s opinion, they should present an opposing view and leave people to make up their own minds regarding what they choose to believe. The strength of any arguments is backed by the quality of any “evidence” that is provided.

Treating people as stupid and in need of protection from hearing a wide range of views is, in my opinion, simply a means of manipulating them.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Apart from sticking to the “be nice” rule that is in place to promote discussions so that they do not end up as mud fights and destroy exchange of ideas (and limiting advertising, whether for profit or not) you are free to post just about anything here on CF.

Gord, you have nailed it: who gets to arbitrate on what constitutes “misinformation” or “content that has the potential to contribute to real-world harm”?
Facebook itself?
YouTube?
The government?
A certain group of scientists when it comes to medical issues? Scientific views can be incredibly diverse, often at pole ends of spectrums.
Courts of law

And why should any information be censored? If anyone disagrees with someone’s opinion, they should present an opposing view and leave people to make up their own minds regarding what they choose to believe. The strength of any arguments is backed by the quality of any “evidence” that is provided.
As I said earlier there's a lot bullocks which has nothing to do with information. Choosing to ignore facts might be ok on individual level but using that to harm society and fellow citizen, even unintentionally should be criminalized. What are the leagal consequences is another matter
Treating people as stupid and in need of protection from hearing a wide range of views is, in my opinion, simply a means of manipulating them.

Well, some people just are stupid and treating lies as "views" or "opinions" is too as it leaves the tools to manipulate them as such..

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Well, some people just are stupid and treating lies as "views" or "opinions" is too as it leaves the tools to manipulate them as such..

Teddy, given my views conflict with yours (and most governments), I guess you would label them “dangerous” and silence me if you had the chance.

A couple of facts are undisputed though:

- Mass vaccination of healthy “young” people (who are at at extremely low risk of dying from COVID-19) with minimally trialled vaccines that genetically instruct our cells to produce foreign proteins to induce an antibody response is currently underway.

- Until last year these mRNA and DNA vaccines had never before been approved for human use.

For the elderly who are at highest risk of dying, these vaccines are a godsend and the only way I can see out of this crisis. For the rest of the population in my view (and I am not alone in expressing my fears) this is the biggest medical experiment in history.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Teddy, given my views conflict with yours (and most governments), I guess you would label them “dangerous” and silence me if you had the chance.

A couple of facts are undisputed though:

- Mass vaccination of healthy “young” people (who are at at extremely low risk of dying from COVID-19) with minimally trialled vaccines that genetically instruct our cells to produce foreign proteins to induce an antibody response is currently underway.

- Until last year these mRNA and DNA vaccines had never before been approved for human use.

For the elderly who are at highest risk of dying, these vaccines are a godsend and the only way I can see out of this crisis. For the rest of the population in my view (and I am not alone in expressing my fears) this is the biggest medical experiment in history.

I don't see anything dangerous on most your views and I do concur about the dangers of "sensorship" and also the point of vaccinations being unnessary for younger population, thou I'd like to include people who are in increased risk of being transmitters being vaccinated like travelers, teachers etc..

What comes to freedom of speech and such somebody ones said something about the responsibilities rights and freedom brings upon individuals and that responsibility has been a scarce resource lately..

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

....What comes to freedom of speech and such somebody ones said something about the responsibilities rights and freedom brings upon individuals and that responsibility has been a scarce resource lately..

One major responsibility that I think comes with freedom of speech is the responsibility to defend the right of others who disagree with you to speak up as well. Not so much the responsibility of ensuring with certainty that you are “right” before expressing your views.

Enforcing your views on others, which in essence we give governments the power to do after we elect them, does come with HUGE responsibilities though.

I have no law background and I am sure others would be able to express this far better than I can in my clumsy way.

[GordMay]

If anyone's interested, I’ve started a thread, to discuss online responsibility, including misinformation, harmful content, and censorship.
"Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online" ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3336750

[perhaps a Mod could correct the title to read "Online" (not" Onli")]

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

If anyone's interested, I’ve started a thread, to discuss online responsibility, including misinformation, harmful content, and censorship.
"Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online" ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3336750

[perhaps a Mod could correct the title to read "Online" (not" Onli")]

Done

I will shift further discussion there.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

One major responsibility that I think comes with freedom of speech is the responsibility to defend the right of others who disagree with you to speak up as well. Not so much the responsibility of ensuring with certainty that you are “right” before expressing your views.

Enforcing your views on others, which in essence we give governments the power to do after we elect them, does come with HUGE responsibilities though.

I have no law background and I am sure others would be able to express this far better than I can in my clumsy way.

In democraties it's not governments dictating right and wrong but independent courts. I'm not suggesting nothing more but including public and harmfull lies being a reason for investigation and possible charges, not much difference from frauds, pyramids scams etc except there might not be direct econimical gain for the suspect.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I have no law background and I am sure others would be able to express this far better than I can in my clumsy way.

I'm not reading anything clumsy about how you've expressed concerns many of us share about the trend towards the suppression of ideas others don't approve of, as opposed to engaging them openly and civilly. Law background or not, I find them most astute and consistent with what has historically been a cornerstone of Western philosophy and political thought. In fact, I thought one of your posts was worth repeating, along with a few comments.

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Apart from sticking to the “be nice” rule that is in place to promote discussions so that they do not end up as mud fights and destroy exchange of ideas (and limiting advertising, whether for profit or not) you are free to post just about anything here on CF.

I for one am grateful for the approach to moderation on CF, and respect the measured approach of the mod team despite what seems (to me anyway) as a pronounced uptick in often rancorous discussions over politically charged topics. (along with the politicization of ostensibly apolitical topics). The "be nice" rule is not only valuable for its own sake, but because it so often promotes healthier and more informative discussions.

Gord, you have nailed it: who gets to arbitrate on what constitutes “misinformation” or “content that has the potential to contribute to real-world harm”?
Facebook itself?
YouTube?
The government?
A certain group of scientists when it comes to medical issues? Scientific views can be incredibly diverse, often at pole ends of spectrums.

And yet it's all too often the same people who understand this truism about scientific views who most frequently, and in various different ways, claim their own preferred view of the science represents the science as a whole. It's not as if the science they are relying on is invalid or perhaps not well-accepted by a portion of the scientific community itself, but by claiming these particular views represent "the" science and ignoring or dismissing equally valid scientific views, they are actually misrepresenting the true state of the science overall. We've seen this again and again during this pandemic, with views which conflate correlation with causation, for example, when it comes to the relationship between restrictive measures and rates of infection. Imho, these views are all too often influenced by personal and/or political factors that have little to do with the "science" itself.

And why should any information be censored? If anyone disagrees with someone’s opinion, they should present an opposing view and leave people to make up their own minds regarding what they choose to believe. The strength of any arguments is backed by the quality of any “evidence” that is provided.

Not only should we be relying on the quality of the actual evidence, it's often the discussion/debate which follows the posting of alternative/contrarian views which produces such evidence for all to see. For e.g., I personally don't share Cap'n Bill's overall view on the efficacy and safety of the Covid vaccines, but then I also don't know enough about the science to entirely refute them. But more importantly than what Bill or I happen to believe, his post produced a number of replies which broadened my knowledge about the issue overall. So in my mind there's much value and potential learning to be had from Bill's post, regardless of whether I happen to agree or not. This is the essence of civil discussion and debate, and I would argue the best remedy for the sort of intolerance and personalization that's so prevalent now. Why do people feel so threatened by the mere expression of an opinion by some stranger on an internet forum?

Treating people as stupid and in need of protection from hearing a wide range of views is, in my opinion, simply a means of manipulating them.

Exactly, and when used by people with personal, political, and other agendas who are also in positions of power over others, history has shown over and over again how dangerous this can be.

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

What comes to freedom of speech and such somebody ones said something about the responsibilities rights and freedom brings upon individuals and that responsibility has been a scarce resource lately.

Absolutely. But the irresponsibility you correctly cite is also one of the inevitable costs borne by societies who value free speech. So the question becomes what is the best remedy? Historically, and with some (arguably) justified exceptions, democratic societies have not resorted to suppression or censorship, but instead to the free "marketplace of ideas." Namely that with vigorous, civil, and open debate, the best ideas will be revealed and adopted, and the bogus ones will become exposed as such. As has often been said, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The alternative -- censorship, intimidation, shaming, or other commonly employed means of deterring people with "undesirable" views (bogus or not) from speaking -- forces those views to be confined solely amongst like-minded people, hence exacerbating the problem of bias confirmation, intolerance, and the polarization this inevitably creates. A free flow of ideas is not only essential for keeping free societies from fragmenting, but is the very foundation for modern science. It's not only a prerequisite for advancing its progress, but also serves as a buffer against the stifling effect of group think.

All in all, I would suggest that the irresponsible dissemination of bogus information you rightly decry is something we all have to put up with in exchange for maintaining personal freedom and societal harmony. The alternative is simply too costly in the short run and risky in the long run to do otherwise. There are, of course, rational and often obvious exceptions, but the inevitable tension between individual rights and societal costs is not amenable to absolutes.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

We have had quite a few people with the UK variant turn up in hotel quarantine here in Australia.
We have also a small number of quarantine workers catch the variant while at work.
Strangely it hasn't run riot through the community as one would have imagined it would.

How odd...
https://www.theage.com.au/national/w....html#comments

and scroll down here https://www.theage.com.au/national/c...05-p56zqw.html to this story
'0955 AM.. More than 1500 close, secondary contacts of COVID-positive man identified'

Maybe its something in our water.....

Pretty similar situation in Perth - The Guard here was also an UBER driver and went Pretty much everywhere and met a Lot of people with Zero pass on infections. I think the spread is probably more predominant through surfaces and hands rather than airborne particles and we have had up until now 35 Degrees C up to 40 plus for quite a while, so its getting killed off pretty quickly outside of the body.