Mechanisms in Which Smoking Increases the Risk of COVID19 Infection: A Narrative Review

At present, COVID-19 continues to spread around the world. People are generally susceptible to SARSCoV-2. The elderly, serious chronic underlying diseases, high-risk pregnancy, severe obesity and other factors are related to the progression of COVID-19 to severe, critical illness, and even death caused by deterioration of the disease. The relationship between smoking and COVID-19 seems to be controversial. The smoking rate of hospitalized COVID-19 patients is significantly lower than that of the general population. Therefore, smoking can reduce COVID-19 infection and protect the respiratory tract. Subsequently, many scholars have carried out research on this, thinking that this is a wrong and misleading conclusion. According to WHO, smoking is significantly related to the severity of COVID-19, which is one of the important risk factors for the deterioration and poor prognosis of COVID-19. This article reviews the mechanism of smoking increasing the risk of COVID-19 infection.

MEANS OF COUNTERACTING THE PROVISION OF AN INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING CONCLUSION BY AN EXPERT

The article deals with the problems of counteracting the provision of an intentionally misleading conclusion by an expert. It analyzes the rights, obligations and liabilities of an expert. The research focuses on the fact that a forensic expert differs from other participants to criminal legal proceedings - he/she has special knowledge. According to his/her legal status an expert is engaged in this activity on a permanent basis using the powers given by the Law of Ukraine «On forensic examination» and procedural laws. The article pays particular attention to the forms of obligations undertaken by an expert in the course of a pretrial investigation and trial - warning of criminal liability, the oath by an expert. With this regard the article specifies common and distinctive traits of the abovementioned oaths showing different purposes that the lawmaker had in mind while drafting them. It is important to point out to the conclusion that the mechanism of counteracting the provision of an intentionally misleading conclusion by an expert is a means of psychological influence. This episode may indicate a possibility of excessive intimidation of this participant of the criminal legal proceedings.

FREEDOM & IMPARTIAL OF JUDICIARY : ANTARA “ PERADILAN BEBAS” & “PERS YANG BEBAS

Press of independence adopted by Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press is an accentuation of the Libertarian Press system which requires the existence of a absolute total "freedom of pers" by putting all the legal consequences on the substance of its news through judicial institutions, without calls for criminalization forms of the press with all the reason and limitedly direction purpose. Absolute Privilege Right of the Press have signs that provide a limitation on -moral hazard- based on Interest of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime that can be issued by the judiciary as a form of Sub Judice Rule criteria or Disobeying a Court Order from Contempt of Court institutions. a proclamation which is a form of freedom of expression with the news that "prejudicial", even the news substance pose a "misleading conclusion and opinion" as well as has provided an opinion and conclusions that are misleading or incorrect and negative impact on the course of judicial proceedings and other parties broadly (as recognition of the Press Libertarian System) may be faced with a sense of responsibility of the press itself, either ethic norms and laws.Keywords : Judicial, Pers, Freedom

EPISTEMIC DEMOCRACY WITH DEFENSIBLE PREMISES

The contemporary theory of epistemic democracy often draws on the Condorcet Jury Theorem to formally justify the ‘wisdom of crowds’. But this theorem is inapplicable in its current form, since one of its premises – voter independence – is notoriously violated. This premise carries responsibility for the theorem's misleading conclusion that ‘large crowds are infallible’. We prove a more useful jury theorem: under defensible premises, ‘large crowds are fallible but better than small groups’. This theorem rehabilitates the importance of deliberation and education, which appear inessential in the classical jury framework. Our theorem is related to Ladha's (1993) seminal jury theorem for interchangeable (‘indistinguishable’) voters based on de Finetti's Theorem. We also prove a more general and simpler such jury theorem.