3 months of lockdown needed to ease situation, says KKP research

[AlexPTY]

did they just suck it out of the finger? let's nuke Bangkok and other red zones. get real people, this pandemic is not not going away, it's here to stay. learn to live with it

[ozvenision]

but keep the Malls open?

[Stardust]

10 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I think you are probably right about the IMF. Regardless, the foreign creditors dived straight into the trough and once those debts were settled, there was nothing left except a debt. I accept the concept of moral hazard and that these debts must be repaid but my view of what happened was that it was more a bailout for the creditors than for TH. 

Sure the creditors want their money. 

[SickBuffalo]

1 minute ago, Stonker said:

Do just a little bit of research, and you'd see that that's a third of the population

Nonsense.

If a third of any population were likely to die from Covid, the world as we know it would be over.

We know which age group is predominantly dying with Covid, we know that Thailand has significantly fewer people, particularly men, who even make it to that age.

What you are expressing here is not "research". It is hysteria.
 

[King Cotton]

10 minutes ago, Stonker said:

and you'd see that that's a third of the population you've said from the start we should be putting into secure, shielded accommodation

@SickBuffalosaid 'actually vulnerable', more than probably meaning precisely that . . . a far cry, surely, from your 'third of the population'. Do try to avoid your typical use of hyperbole to make an argument.

But, needless to say, you'll find other poster's comments to pick holes in . . . excluding mine, of course!

[JohninDublin]

31 minutes ago, Stardust said:

Sure the creditors want their money. 

I think you might be missing my point. TH borrows the money in the hope that it might be able to fix problems other than debt. All the money os swallowed up by the creditors so they still have no money. they still have the same debt but now it's to the IMF and there are punitive restrictions imposed on them by the IMF. 

Would they have been any worse off telling the creditors, "sorry but you will have to wait"?

[Stardust]

8 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I think you might be missing my point. TH borrows the money in the hope that it might be able to fix problems other than debt. All the money os swallowed up by the creditors so they still have no money. they still have the same debt but now it's to the IMF and there are punitive restrictions imposed on them by the IMF. 

Would they have been any worse off telling the creditors, "sorry but you will have to wait"?

Yes i got your point, I agree. But it was Thaksin who brought up Thailands economy on the feet quickly and managed it to pay back the loans faster than the time frame was. But also a point is who brought Thailand in this situation and what a surprise the same like nowadays. Don't miss this point.

[JohninDublin]

57 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I think you are probably right about the IMF. Regardless, the foreign creditors dived straight into the trough and once those debts were settled, there was nothing left except a debt. I accept the concept of moral hazard and that these debts must be repaid but my view of what happened was that it was more a bailout for the creditors than for TH. 

Just to expand on my post about institutions like the IMF and bailouts, especially my scepticism of their true motives, here are a couple of more cases for consideration.

Around about 2000, Bolivia got into a financial mess. One of the first things that is done in these cases is for the bankers to look at what assets the gov has that can be sold to reduce the debt. Thus if the state owns any utilities such Gas, Electricity, Water, they are told to privatise them. This can lead to several things including the banks making a nice killing from privatisation. And if the new management need to improve the infrastructure etc, they will require loans from the banks etc. An all-round win-win for the banks, and that's before  you consider that once the Bolivians receive the money, the foreign creditor banks will be in for their pound of flesh. 

Anyway, I am not quite sure how it happened, but a French Water company ended up with all the water rights and they increased the price by 400% to pay for the improvements to infrastructure they had made. Excuse the pun, but I can't resist it, "Eau Dear". Bolivia is the poorest country in S. America. The locals started protesting, and these got worse when the gov made it illegal to take water from rivers etc to appease the French company. This led to riots in which at least 9 people died. Eventually the gov renationalised the water supply and the French left.

Closer to home, following Credit Crunch in 2008, Ireland badly needed a bail out. Along came "The Troika" which was the nickname given to the combined forces of the World Bank, IMF and European Central Bank. They looked around for fundraising ideas. They saw that Ireland did not charge for water supply, so they were told to start charging and metering to prevent overuse.

Ireland had scrapped both household and water rates in the 1970's and instead increased car road tax to make up the shortfall. This was very popular at the time because car ownership in Ireland was about a 10th of what it is today. To give you some idea of the impact of this, my car would cost me £210 in the UK to tax. Here it is the equivalent of £680.

Just like Bolivia there were mass protests, though nobody was killed. Every time someone tried to install a meter, there was a crowd obstructing them Reason being simply that people were objecting to being charged twice for water. After about a year of protests, the gov threw in the towel and those who had already paid the charges, got full refunds.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, SickBuffalo said:

Nonsense.

If a third of any population were likely to die from Covid, the world as we know it would be over.

We know which age group is predominantly dying with Covid, we know that Thailand has significantly fewer people, particularly men, who even make it to that age.

What you are expressing here is not "research". It is hysteria.
 

 

"Actually vulnerable" means those who are diabetic, obese, with cancer, asthma, a compromised immune system, hypertension, COPD, taking steroids or immunosuppressants, have had a splenectomy or spleen issues, have Down's syndrome, are pregnant, or over 65 (arguably over 70), plus a few more.

 

That isn't "hysteria" but informed medical opinion even if you disagree with it.

 

Do some homework instead of just saying "nonsense", and you'll soon find that that's well over a third of the population in Thailand.  

 

Allow for a considerable amount of overlap between the vulnerabilities and a third is actually conservative.

 

In "the world" it depends on where you look - in the US, for example, where things are better documented so more easily quantifiable accurately, 40% of adults are clinically obese so that's already 40% of the US population.

 34 million in the US have diabetes - so that's 10.5%.

108 million, or 45% have hypertension but that goes up to 79% of those over 55. 

6.3  million women are pregnant at any time - so that's 5% of the population.

Obviously, as with Thailand, there's going to be a  lot of overlap, but however much you allow for that there are still going to be at least 50% of the US population who are "actually vulnerable" by any recognised medical definitions.

 

The US figures are easier to find more accurately, so rather than cherry pick Thai links that are arguable it's easier to look at the US stats which are clear.

 

Are you saying (1) that "we should be putting" 50% of the US population "into secure, shielded accommodation"?

 

Seriously?

 

Or are you saying (2) that all the  experts who are pretty much unanimous on who is "actually vulnerable" are all wrong?

 

Or are you saying (3) that those figures I've given for the USA, all of which are very easily and definitively verifiable, are "nonsense"?

 

Or, if none of the above, then ... well ... over to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, King Cotton said:

@SickBuffalosaid 'actually vulnerable', more than probably meaning precisely that . . . a far cry, surely, from your 'third of the population'.

As you did, I also assumed that since he said "actually vulnerable" he meant precisely that - which, since you ask, is clearly only a far cry from my "third of the population" in as much as in the USA where the figures are less open to debate it's an understatement as it's actually half the population.

 

He may well not have meant "actually vulnerable", though, and we could both be wrong .

[King Cotton]

7 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Are you saying (1) that "we should be putting" 50% of the US population "into secure, shielded aaccommodation"?

Seriously?

Or are you saying (2) that all the  experts who are pretty much unanimous on who is "actually vulnerable" are all wrong?

Or are you saying (3) that those figures I've given for the USA, all of which are very easily and definitively verifiable, are "nonsense"?

Or, if none of the above, then ... well ... over to you.

You've read what @SickBuffalohas said and it's none of your above rhetorical suggestions.

Now why not simply give the forum your views on the topic, other than your pedantic definition of 'actually vulnerable' that interested no-one other than yourself?

We're waiting . . .

[King Cotton]

3 minutes ago, Stonker said:

which, since you ask,

Shh! . . . did anyone hear me ask that?

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, King Cotton said:

You've read what @SickBuffalohas said and it's none of your above rhetorical suggestions.

Now why not simply give the forum your views on the topic, other than your pedantic definition of 'actually vulnerable' that interested no-one other than yourself?

We're waiting . . .

Exactly mate. He’s such a pain in the rear. It’s like having some pedantic teenager picking over your comments. He rarely gives his opinions. It’s all about picking holes in what others say. So Ef’In boring. I’ve blocked him a long time ago and life is already more peaceful. I’d suggest others do the same

[MelBurn]

In 70 years Earth's population more than tripled from 2.5 billion to 8 billion. Mortality from this virus is about 4% in general and mostly sick people die. So let the natural selection run its course. All those lockdowns are nonsense - they just destroy the economy and people's lives.

Edited July 22, 2021 by MelBurn
wrong preposition

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, King Cotton said:

You've read what @SickBuffalohas said and it's none of your above rhetorical suggestions.

Well, that was why I said "over to you" in the hope that he could give an alternative explanation, as someone may be interested to know how putting half the US population, or a third of Thailand's, into secure, shielded accommodation could work.

 

If he's not willing to explain it, though, I have no problem with that at all.

 

1 hour ago, King Cotton said:

Now why not simply give the forum your views on the topic, other than your pedantic definition of 'actually vulnerable' that interested no-one other than yourself?

I'm sorry, I thought I'd done so, but since you ask namely that a lockdown as described by @SickBuffalo, which you seem to agree with, is an obvious impossibility.

If you want more of my views on the topic then I'll be happy to give those separately.

If you'd care to explain why what I wrote and the definition I gave was incorrect and you have some other, better, definition of what "actually vulnerable" means then I'd be interested to know what it is - and maybe those who aren't interested in mine may  have more interest in yours.

 

1 hour ago, King Cotton said:

Shh! . . . did anyone hear me ask that?

Sorry, my mistake, I must have misunderstood you when you wrote "a far cry, surely, from your 'third of the population' " as I thought that the "surely" meant you were asking me.

[Stonker]

33 minutes ago, MelBurn said:

In 70 years Earth's population more than tripled from 2.5 billion to 8 billion. Mortality from this virus is about 4% in general and mostly sick people die. So let the natural selection run its course. All those lockdowns are nonsense - they just destroy the economy and people's lives.

I don't agree with you that the lockdowns are "nonsense" as I think they achieve their purpose, which is to buy time for vaccines to be rolled out, but if your aim is to reduce the population and get  rid of the "sick people" (is it?) wouldn't it be more efficient not to waste resources trying to save their lives but to just let them die - or even help them to die or prevent their being born at all?

 

To give my opinion, since apparently I don't do that sufficiently, I don't agree and I'm in favour of the 3 months of lockdown that the KKP suggest along the lines they suggest.

 

 

[Meechai]

7 hours ago, BookShe said:

...sorry I just got a phone call from NASA, they need my advice on the Mars landing. 

Thanks I needed that :)

[JohninDublin]

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

"Actually vulnerable" means those who are diabetic, obese, with cancer, asthma, a compromised immune system, hypertension, COPD, taking steroids or immunosuppressants, have had a splenectomy or spleen issues, have Down's syndrome, are pregnant, or over 65 (arguably over 70), plus a few more.

That isn't "hysteria" but informed medical opinion even if you disagree with it.

Do some homework instead of just saying "nonsense", and you'll soon find that that's well over a third of the population in Thailand.  

Allow for a considerable amount of overlap between the vulnerabilities and a third is actually conservative.

In "the world" it depends on where you look - in the US, for example, where things are better documented so more easily quantifiable accurately, 40% of adults are clinically obese so that's already 40% of the US population.

 34 million in the US have diabetes - so that's 10.5%.

108 million, or 45% have hypertension but that goes up to 79% of those over 55. 

6.3  million women are pregnant at any time - so that's 5% of the population.

Obviously, as with Thailand, there's going to be a  lot of overlap, but however much you allow for that there are still going to be at least 50% of the US population who are "actually vulnerable" by any recognised medical definitions.

The US figures are easier to find more accurately, so rather than cherry pick Thai links that are arguable it's easier to look at the US stats which are clear.

Are you saying (1) that "we should be putting" 50% of the US population "into secure, shielded accommodation"?

Seriously?

Or are you saying (2) that all the  experts who are pretty much unanimous on who is "actually vulnerable" are all wrong?

Or are you saying (3) that those figures I've given for the USA, all of which are very easily and definitively verifiable, are "nonsense"?

Or, if none of the above, then ... well ... over to you.

Not looking to pick your post apart but many of those that you list will be counted more than once. For example, there is correlation between obesity and likely diabetes, Again, hypertension is common in both groups. It's also common in pregnant women. Thus a fat diabetic woman with high BP is counted four  times.

Also there appears to be something wrong with your maths. If the population is 5% pregnant woman (6.3 mill) that suggests a total pop of 126 mill. If 34.5 mill represents 10.5% the pop is about 324 mill, which is probably right. But 45% of 108 mill, suggests 240 mill pop.

Coming back to the pregnant women, as pregnancies last 9 months, that suggests about 8.4 mill live births pa. That I will dispute, The UK which has about 21% of the US pop, has about 700k live births pa. You would expect  it to be nearer to 2.5 mill if the US figure is correct, but instead, it is about 28% of per capita rate of the US.

Regardless, your point is valid even if you just isolate the 108 mill with high BP. That's far too many to isolate in terms of the logistics required. The alternative is that you do nothing and let nature take it's course. I have seen posters on other forums advocating for this and assuring me that the old and vulnerable would gladly make space for the young. I am not so sure about that. I have never lost the image of the American guy who believed that the UK NHS had death panels in an anti-Obamacare ad, who said something like "If we have something like that in America and they come for my grandma, they'll have to come through me.

Just to add, the current mortality rate for those infected with CV, is about 2.3%. Thus if the whole world became infected we would expect 180 mill deaths. That's about the current replacement population for 18 months of the planet. The far greater prob would be treating the 2.5 Billion survivors with long covid.That's why I think we cannot afford to let nature take it's course.

[MattBurgess]

2 hours ago, MelBurn said:

In 70 years Earth's population more than tripled from 2.5 billion to 8 billion. Mortality from this virus is about 4% in general and mostly sick people die. So let the natural selection run its course. 

Your compassion and humanity are touching. Good to know anyone with diabetes, obesity, heart issues, or just kinda old can die. Also with delta we're seeing a lot more people in their 30s and 40s being hospitalised. So... you know. f*** them all. Let natural selection run its course.

I honestly don't know how some people can live with themselves. What a f***ing disgrace.

[SickBuffalo]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Well, that was why I said "over to you" in the hope that he could give an alternative explanation, as someone may be interested to know how putting half the US population, or a third of Thailand's, into secure, shielded accommodation could work.

If he's not willing to explain it, though, I have no problem with that at all.

In some discussions, sadly, there comes a point at which one must recognize that, for some unknown reason, the other person is determined to twist and mischaracterize what you have said.

Here you are, above, suggesting that I want to put half the US population into shielded accommodation. You know, bloody well, that this is not true and, yet, you pump out paragraph after paragraph based upon this false assertion.

No, I won't "explain it" to you.

There is no point in talking to someone who lacks basic integrity, someone who argues in bad faith. You have placed yourself in the category of intellectual midget. Your conclusions are dust in the wind, unanchored to any reality. Nothing you think or have to say is worthy of my time or consideration.

[BlueSphinx]

3 hours ago, SickBuffalo said:

In some discussions, sadly, there comes a point at which one must recognize that, for some unknown reason, the other person is determined to twist and mischaracterize what you have said.

Here you are, above, suggesting that I want to put half the US population into shielded accommodation. You know, bloody well, that this is not true and, yet, you pump out paragraph after paragraph based upon this false assertion.

No, I won't "explain it" to you.

There is no point in talking to someone who lacks basic integrity, someone who argues in bad faith. You have placed yourself in the category of intellectual midget. Your conclusions are dust in the wind, unanchored to any reality. Nothing you think or have to say is worthy of my time or consideration.

Well put!  And yes, it borders on 'trolling' when the other person is determined to twist and mischaracterize what you have written.  Ignore is often the only option in such cases, as you responding is their goal so they can drag you into a mud-fight.  But that's sometimes difficult especially when you are falsely accused, and in that case a short humoristic sarcastic remark can also do wonders.   

 

[Stonker]

16 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Not looking to pick your post apart but many of those that you list will be counted more than once. For example, there is correlation between obesity and likely diabetes, Again, hypertension is common in both groups. It's also common in pregnant women. Thus a fat diabetic woman with high BP is counted four  times.

Also there appears to be something wrong with your maths. If the population is 5% pregnant woman (6.3 mill) that suggests a total pop of 126 mill. If 34.5 mill represents 10.5% the pop is about 324 mill, which is probably right. But 45% of 108 mill, suggests 240 mill pop.

Coming back to the pregnant women, as pregnancies last 9 months, that suggests about 8.4 mill live births pa. That I will dispute, The UK which has about 21% of the US pop, has about 700k live births pa. You would expect  it to be nearer to 2.5 mill if the US figure is correct, but instead, it is about 28% of per capita rate of the US.

Regardless, your point is valid even if you just isolate the 108 mill with high BP. That's far too many to isolate in terms of the logistics required. The alternative is that you do nothing and let nature take it's course. I have seen posters on other forums advocating for this and assuring me that the old and vulnerable would gladly make space for the young. I am not so sure about that. I have never lost the image of the American guy who believed that the UK NHS had death panels in an anti-Obamacare ad, who said something like "If we have something like that in America and they come for my grandma, they'll have to come through me.

Just to add, the current mortality rate for those infected with CV, is about 2.3%. Thus if the whole world became infected we would expect 180 mill deaths. That's about the current replacement population for 18 months of the planet. The far greater prob would be treating the 2.5 Billion survivors with long covid.That's why I think we cannot afford to let nature take it's course.

@JohninD, thanks for a rational and reasoned answer, rather than the sadly inevitable "you've twisted what I said so I'm not going to reply" wailing, when what was said was absolutely crystal clear and needed no twisting from me to show how badly wrong it was.

 

To put the numbers in perspective, Thailand at the moment has 145,000 active cases which, leaving aside any argument about whether they should be quarantined or not, it is barely able to shield and secure.

 

If the number of "actually vulnerable" is a third of the population (which is what all the available figures point to), that's 150 times that many.

 

Even if you only isolate and shield the pregnant women (taking your figure for the UK, for the sake of argument, with a similar population) and completely ignore the old, obese, those with diabetes, hypertension, etc, as if they're not actually vulnerable, that's still FIVE TIMES the number that Thailand is unable to shield and secure now!

 

The argument's clearly got no validity or rationality at all, but that still won't stop those who want to ignoring reality and pretending it somehow makes sense while flaming anyone who disagrees.

 

To answer the points you raised, which were all fair:

 

I agree 100% that many could have several medical issues, which was why I said that you need to "allow for a considerable amount of overlap between the vulnerabilities" - if you don't and you just add the percentages together you'd end up with maybe 150% of the US population, but as 40% is the minimum (with 40% obese), then 50% seems more than reasonable.

 

The "maths" weren't mine. Rather than change numbers to percentages or vice-versa and face being accused of cherry-picking or fudging the figures I simply quoted them verbatim so they could be easily checked.

 

The argument for securing and shielding only those who are "actually vulnerable" while letting everyone else get on with their "normal" lives has been put forward countless times, most famously with the Barrington Declaration which proposed "focused protection", but none arguing for it have ever been able to explain how it could be done or to address the numbers issue. 

I suppose I should have known better  than to ask for anything more here.

[JohninDublin]

26 minutes ago, Stonker said:

@JohninD, thanks for a rational and reasoned answer, rather than the sadly inevitable "you've twisted what I said so I'm not going to reply" wailing, when what was said was absolutely crystal clear and needed no twisting from me to show how badly wrong it was.

To put the numbers in perspective, Thailand at the moment has 145,000 active cases which, leaving aside any argument about whether they should be quarantined or not, it is barely able to shield and secure.

If the number of "actually vulnerable" is a third of the population (which is what all the available figures point to), that's 150 times that many.

Even if you only isolate and shield the pregnant women (taking your figure for the UK, for the sake of argument, with a similar population) and completely ignore the old, obese, those with diabetes, hypertension, etc, as if they're not actually vulnerable, that's still FIVE TIMES the number that Thailand is unable to shield and secure now!

The argument's clearly got no validity or rationality at all, but that still won't stop those who want to ignoring reality and pretending it somehow makes sense while flaming anyone who disagrees.

To answer the points you raised, which were all fair:

I agree 100% that many could have several medical issues, which was why I said that you need to "allow for a considerable amount of overlap between the vulnerabilities" - if you don't and you just add the percentages together you'd end up with maybe 150% of the US population, but as 40% is the minimum (with 40% obese), then 50% seems more than reasonable.

The "maths" weren't mine. Rather than change numbers to percentages or vice-versa and face being accused of cherry-picking or fudging the figures I simply quoted them verbatim so they could be easily checked.

The argument for securing and shielding only those who are "actually vulnerable" while letting everyone else get on with their "normal" lives has been put forward countless times, most famously with the Barrington Declaration which proposed "focused protection", but none arguing for it have ever been able to explain how it could be done or to address the numbers issue. 

I suppose I should have known better  than to ask for anything more here.

And thank you for your reasoned response too.

Regardless of the arithmetic, the concept remains the same. Even if you decided to only isolate the 10% most vulnerable who are not already in care homes, you are talking about 6.75 mill people perhaps spread probably over 3 mill + addresses and many will be on assisted living home care with health and mobility problems. I can't even begin to guess at the infrastructure that would require..

Add to that, the carers themselves are in the general population and therefore at risk of infection which can then be spread to the client base.

Like, you, I will wait until someone can explain how this can be done.