Thursday Covid Update: High of 20,920 new cases and 160 deaths

[KWOG]

1 hour ago, 9S_ said:

Let’s see walked my dog around the neighborhood and saw a couple of neighbors drinking beer and hanging out maskless. Kids and their parents playing in the park maskless of course. Teenagers surf sa-keding on the road maskless too. Other neighbors walking their dogs try to have their dog play with my dog maskless too!

Sometimes it’s just people who refuse to follow the rules that causes this. As evidenced in the Thong Lo cluster. 

Excellent. Good for them. 

[AussieBob]

3 hours ago, Lowseasonlover said:

Even give a like to their FB page will help to spread the news so come on guys give them a like

Dont have FBook myself, but the wife has given them a like.

[AussieBob]

2 hours ago, dmacarelli said:

Australia has been the most timid nation on earth. Their lockdowns are draconian, and based on tiny numbers of cases. Sheer ridiculousness and panic mongering. 

It could be that. Or it could be that we have has so few numbers because of the lockdowns. Same thing applies in Taiwan and Singapore.  And dont forget, although the Chinese numbers are dubious, China did succeed in stopping the spread because they introduced draconian lockdowns.  

[AussieBob]

1 hour ago, mcambl61 said:

All of those are islands and while they worked in some fashion, the destruction of the businesses and people's lives, mental health is completely unacceptable. 

Why is it that we know the most vulnerable, we know that people under a certain age have miniscule chances of having any serious issues with the virus unless you have underlying health issues, and yet these draconian measures are applied to the entire population. 

Pure tyranny. 

It is time to stop the ridiculous fear mongering and virtue signaling blather. 

Everywhere. 

There are two sides to this debate - those in favour and those against lockdowns.  I think that ther majority of the world's population agree that until the vaccine rollout is at 70-80% then the lockdowns are 'acceptable'.  One of the State leaders here is copping lots of flak because she did not lock down early enough and soon enough.  But obviously we are not in agreement, but I think we should agree to disagree.  

[Stonker]

47 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

Every day I am saddened to see the numbers being reported under articles like this topic. It has been interesting to see and participate in the debate about happenings not only in Thailand but across the world.

However, I took some time yesterday to ignore all the numbers, debate, back-and-forth scientific claims about Covid-19 and the vaccine and all the conspiracy theories and fake news arguments. Instead, I tried a more local perspective to get an appreciation of what mattered to the people around me in the small rural village I live in.

It seems my village has only ever had one single case of Covid-19 and that was in a young person who had returned from Bangkok. He recovered. We tend to lose people through old age and car accidents than any other single cause.

Our village is about 60km outside of Ubon Ratchathani and like many Thai villages, farmers grow rice and tend to their cows and buffalo. The biggest concern is the Lumpy Skin outbreak seen in various parts of Thailand affecting cows. Amusingly, whispers around the village were that this was an outbreak of Covid-19 in cows, something the village Headman dispelled at Temple.

Very few are currently considering a vaccination. The value in getting it is not seen yet, due to the limited impact of Covid-19, especially when they effectively lose a day working to get it supplied. Food on the table and tending the farms and animals is currently more important.

In more expansive worldwide terms, it is no different to a Cost/Benefit analysis done by companies. At this stage the financial cost is not worth the perceived benefit.

Sadly though, if the delta strain turned up here, the effect could be devastating considering the age of many of the village farmers. It is risky, but hopefully we can avoid that whilst the world debates, so the people here in my village can go about the life they choose unhindered by a vaccination decision so many are troubled by.

I live in, or more accurately near, a village which is in a similar position to yours but probably a few more steps further down the Covid line.

 

We're a kilometre outside the village, but we get a pretty good handle on things not only there but  in my partner's home village which is ten km's further up the hill, at the "end of the road", so we can get a reasonable perspective across three villages, and I cycle 30 kms every day so I also get a reasonable view of what people are up to outside. No farangs within a 10 km radius, and the nearest I know are over 600 kms away!

 

Up  until a month ago the only Covid cases anyone knew were about 30 kms away in a school, passed on from the nearby lottery wholesale market - we knew some of those tested. 

 

Vaccinations weren't even an option, as although the staff in the hospital had all been vaccinated and most of the government staff and their families, with the hospital used as a vaccination centre, the province has had virtually no vaccines so no-one's even been able to register for two months.

 

Lottery sellers returning from other provinces were "encouraged" to self-quarantine outside the villages (in huts in the fields), or they just stopped coming back week-on / week-off. Despite that, a block of new nurses' accommodation was converted to a quarantine block for the district, isolating Covid cases that weren't serious.

 

In the last month, though, things have changed. All three local villages have had Covid cases from "returnees" from other provinces and Bangkok, all of whom except one the villages and PYB (poo yai baan) knew about in advance - the one who tried to keep it quiet wasn't popular.  Some of the others were brought back by converted mini-bus by the government programme to return those testing positive to be quarantined at home.

 

My partner's home village can isolate itself as it's at the end of the road, so outsiders aren't welcome, but with no mains water and only a couple of small mini-marts they can hardly be self-sufficient.

 

The quarantine block at the hospital is now full, so another one is quickly being converted.

 

In less than a month it's become all too real for everyone.

[Stonker]

41 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

I find it sad that you are in favor of even more draconian measures that completely disregard the harm to businesses, jobs, substance abuse and mental health that are far more destructive than the virus. 

All the while not considering the data and known low fatality rates for people under 60 in reasonable health. 

Targeted areas might have some short term benefits. Months long term have exponentially worse effects to the population. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/03/25/study-finds-us-lockdowns-didnt-make-a-big-difference-in-stopping-covid-but-that-doesnt-mean-theyre-pointless/?sh=392b3e20329e

I find it sad, too, but what's the option?

 

It's not a case of it being a good option, just the least worst.

[stuhan]

36 minutes ago, billywillyjones said:

So the better solution is to isolate and lockdown entire populations.  Present the logic please.

In a nutshell yes (short term) they can slow down infection's & spread in a slow vaccine rollout situation. This reuters extract  show the logic you requested in brief.

 

LOCKDOWNS

Reuters has reported on international studies that have determined that lockdowns potentially have saved millions of lives here .

However, it is also true that some lockdown measures may have a direct impact on a person’s income and mental health. Further reading about short, mid and long-term effects of lockdowns are visible here .

The World Health Organization (WHO) explains here that such measures can have “a profound negative impact on individuals, communities and societies by bringing social and economic life to a near stop”, something that according to the organization, disproportionately affect vulnerable groups.

 

But evidence also suggest that stringent but temporary restrictions, could actually benefit the economic recovery because they reduce the spread of the disease. The International Monetary Fund, for example, determined here that while lockdowns “impose short-term costs” they may lead to “a faster economic recovery. The organization states that “by bringing infections under control, lockdowns may thus pave the way to a faster economic recovery as people feel more comfortable about resuming normal activities” ( bit.ly/2UXoIUy page 74).

Reuters contacted two experts, Dr. Elizabeth Stuart, Associate Dean for Education at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health ( here ) and Dr. Stuart Ray, infectious disease expert with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ( here ) . Both confirmed that lockdowns do reduce transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 and highlighted that a more “targeted” or “proportional” approach of restrictions can mitigate the risk of infection, while balancing other concerns about the economy and mental health.

 

[AussieBob]

3 hours ago, Donald said:

Easy talk from a position of privilege. If the choice is starvation and desperation or possibly catching a virus with a survival chance of 99% plus, then I think I know what the answer from most people will be.

We know the answer - lockdowns.  And it is not 99% - that is a falsehood.  Covid is proven to kill 2.2% of those infected - which is 4-5 times more than the common flu.  But, and this is the big thing, it is extremely aggressive in certain people.  Although it might not kill a person, it can make them seriously ill and it causes lots of complications that take up the available medical resources.  I have a mate who thought the same as you - until he caught it.  If it was not for a friend who called the ambulance he would have died trying to prove it was just a flu.  He was in ICU for 4 days and hospital for 3 weeks - he lost almost 15kgs in weight. That was over 6 months ago - he was 'effed' for almost 2 months - and he is still 'not 100%'. 

Just the other day over here in Aust a young man died after being sick for 3 days - his wife was admitted to hospital - but he said he was OK.  They found him dead in bed the next day. He was 27 and fit and no smoking no alcohol and no underlying medical issues at all.  The flu does not kill people like that - it kills very old very sick people. 

[mcambl61]

5 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I find it sad, too, but what's the option?

It's not a case of it being a good option, just the least worst.

Sorry Stonker, but crushing the entire economy and people's lives and economic future is absolutely not the best way to go about this. 

 

We have known at risk categories. They are the only ones that should be isolating and being vaccinated and taking more precautions. 

 

Crushing the entire population and industries is not acceptable. 

[mcambl61]

4 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

We know the answer - lockdowns.  And it is not 99% - that is a falsehood.  Covid is proven to kill 2.2% of those infected - which is 4-5 times more than the common flu.  But, and this is the big thing, it is extremely aggressive in certain people.  Although it might not kill a person, it can make them seriously ill and it causes lots of complications that take up the available medical resources.  I have a mate who thought the same as you - until he caught it.  If it was not for a friend who called the ambulance he would have died trying to prove it was just a flu.  He was in ICU for 4 days and hospital for 3 weeks - he lost almost 15kgs in weight. That was over 6 months ago - he was 'effed' for almost 2 months - and he is still 'not 100%'. 

Just the other day over here in Aust a young man died after being sick for 3 days - his wife was admitted to hospital - but he said he was OK.  They found him dead in bed the next day. He was 27 and fit and no smoking no alcohol and no underlying medical issues at all.  The flu does not kill people like that - it kills very old very sick people. 

Sorry, but the data is quite clear what the fatality rate is for every age group. 

 

Draconian measures applying to the entire population is completely unnecessary and unacceptable. 

[KWOG]

6 minutes ago, stuhan said:

In a nutshell yes (short term) they can slow down infection's & spread in a slow vaccine rollout situation. This reuters extract  show the logic you requested in brief.

LOCKDOWNS

Reuters has reported on international studies that have determined that lockdowns potentially have saved millions of lives here .

However, it is also true that some lockdown measures may have a direct impact on a person’s income and mental health. Further reading about short, mid and long-term effects of lockdowns are visible here .

The World Health Organization (WHO) explains here that such measures can have “a profound negative impact on individuals, communities and societies by bringing social and economic life to a near stop”, something that according to the organization, disproportionately affect vulnerable groups.

 

But evidence also suggest that stringent but temporary restrictions, could actually benefit the economic recovery because they reduce the spread of the disease. The International Monetary Fund, for example, determined here that while lockdowns “impose short-term costs” they may lead to “a faster economic recovery. The organization states that “by bringing infections under control, lockdowns may thus pave the way to a faster economic recovery as people feel more comfortable about resuming normal activities” ( bit.ly/2UXoIUy page 74).

Reuters contacted two experts, Dr. Elizabeth Stuart, Associate Dean for Education at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health ( here ) and Dr. Stuart Ray, infectious disease expert with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ( here ) . Both confirmed that lockdowns do reduce transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 and highlighted that a more “targeted” or “proportional” approach of restrictions can mitigate the risk of infection, while balancing other concerns about the economy and mental health.

None of which supports the contention that 'locking down' the entire population is more practical, workable, sensible than 'locking down' the small percentage deemed to be at most risk.  Or letting the latter lock themselves down, or not,  for that matter.    If I was scared to leave my house, I wouldn't need the government to even okay it much less mandate it.  

[AussieBob]

6 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Sorry Stonker, but crushing the entire economy and people's lives and economic future is absolutely not the best way to go about this. 

We have known at risk categories. They are the only ones that should be isolating and being vaccinated and taking more precautions. 

Crushing the entire population and industries is not acceptable. 

All you have to do is stand for election and state that your policy is that when the next pandemic arises the virus will be allowed to spread - with isolation of only the old and frail.  I dont like your chances of winning - anywhere in the world. I would also point out that in Thailand it was when Songkran was 'allowed' that the virus started to seriously spread and the deaths started to increase. That was because of masses of your 'not at risk groups' all travelling together and taking the problem back home.   

[KWOG]

18 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I find it sad, too, but what's the option?

It's not a case of it being a good option, just the least worst.

The option is don't do it.  THAT would be the least worst. 

[stuhan]

1 minute ago, KWOG said:

None of which supports the contention that 'locking down' the entire population is more practical, workable, sensible than 'locking down' the small percentage deemed to be at most risk.  Or letting the latter lock themselves down, or not,  for that matter.    If I was scared to leave my house, I wouldn't need the government to even okay it much less mandate it.  

Makes sense to me if it saves lives and the economy in the long run, it's here and we have to deal with it.

[mcambl61]

1 minute ago, AussieBob said:

All you have to do is stand for election and state that your policy is that when the next pandemic arises the virus will be allowed to spread - with isolation of only the old and frail.  I dont like your chances of winning - anywhere in the world. I would also point out that in Thailand it was when Songkran was 'allowed' that the virus started to seriously spread and the deaths started to increase. That was because of masses of your 'not at risk groups' all travelling together and taking the problem back home.   

What a ridiculous post. 

 

More ridiculous fear mongering and panic pushing. 

 

Zero consideration of the data or the decades long financial ruin of the population. 

 

Truly obtuse. 

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

59 minutes ago, dmacarelli said:

This is not Bubonic plague. This is Covid.

“Whatever will be, will be. …………. The government will have to try to cope with that later.” – Thai PM Prayut Chan-o-cha.

 

 

[Stonker]

55 minutes ago, billywillyjones said:

So your solution is to lockdown the entire population because you can't lockdown 30 percent?  That is what is happening right now in many countries.

 

It's a question of the degree of lockdown required.

 

In order to shield and secure the third of the population that are vulnerable, with the other two-thirds carrying on a "normal" life, the third that are vulnerable would have to be shielded, isolated, quarantined and supervised.  That would require not only the facilities to do so, but the staff.

 

In Thailand the facilities simply don't exist.  Even with only 150,000 active cases, there are still some 20,000 just in Bangkok who have nowhere to be quarantined. A third of the country isn't 150,000 though, it's over a hundred times that.

 

Even if the facilities did somehow exist, though, and many could shield at home, who would staff and look after them?  

 

If you lockdown the whole country, though, allowing essential services to continue and limited shopping and exercise, then you can still give the vulnerable third the same level of protection but without needing the facilities or the staff to shield and supervise them.

 

There are simply three choices:

 

Option 1. Forget about the vulnerable and let them die. Treatment isn't an option, as that would overwhelm the medical services and treating Covid cases would be all they could do.

 

Option 2. Shield the vulnerable third indefinitely, until everyone can be vaccinated.  Impossible, unfortunately, as there are neither the facilities nor the staff.

 

Option 3. Lockdowns for all, with realistic but limited restrictions to balance protection and inconvenience.

 

If you can think of another option, then feel free ......

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

22 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Sorry Stonker, but crushing the entire economy and people's lives and economic future is absolutely not the best way to go about this. 

So your going into politics?

20 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Sorry, but the data is quite clear what the fatality rate is for every age group. 

And the data rate for the numbers infected? That are carrier’s?

22 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Draconian measures applying to the entire population is completely unnecessary and unacceptable. 

But, one thing to remember, as you say it’s the older generation at risk, …. What Generation have political and financial control of this country? 

[KWOG]

Just now, AussieBob said:

All you have to do is stand for election and state that your policy is that when the next pandemic arises the virus will be allowed to spread - with isolation of only the old and frail.  I dont like your chances of winning - anywhere in the world. I would also point out that in Thailand it was when Songkran was 'allowed' that the virus started to seriously spread and the deaths started to increase. That was because of masses of your 'not at risk groups' all travelling together and taking the problem back home.   

I might not make the best candidate for office but I'd support anyone with that position. Except I wouldn't support the mandatory indefinite isolation of the old and the frail either.  There are many districts, provinces/states, I dare say nations where it would find a majority, if that was the one issue at stake.  Not nearly as many as there ought to be, thus the necessity of putting that sort of message out. 

  Franklin Roosevelt said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Our 21st century nanny statists say we have nothing to fear but exposing our faces to fresh air, getting within 6 feet of each other, . .... etc. etc.   Horrible message, horrible policy.  Talk about appealing to our basest instincts. 

[Stonker]

8 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

What a ridiculous post. 

More ridiculous fear mongering and panic pushing. 

Zero consideration of the data or the decades long financial ruin of the population. 

Truly obtuse. 

Up to now I thought it was all being pretty mutually respectful ...

 

If you have a better option, let's hear it.

 

So far you've come up with nothing apart from saying that lockdowns are unacceptable without detailing any alternative, and giving New York City as your only example of a lockdown that hasn't worked when it's a prime example of one that has.

[KWOG]

18 minutes ago, stuhan said:

Makes sense to me if it saves lives and the economy in the long run, it's here and we have to deal with it.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but again, how could it easier or more workable to lock down an entire population than a small portion of it.  To continue the horse analogy, would you rather be paid 1000 dollars for corralling  100 horses or paid 1000 dollars for corralling a dozen.  

[AussieBob]

6 minutes ago, KWOG said:

I might not make the best candidate for office but I'd support anyone with that position. Except I wouldn't support the mandatory indefinite isolation of the old and the frail either.  There are many districts, provinces/states, I dare say nations where it would find a majority, if that was the one issue at stake.  Not nearly as many as there ought to be, thus the necessity of putting that sort of message out. 

  Franklin Roosevelt said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Our 21st century nanny statists say we have nothing to fear but exposing our faces to fresh air, getting within 6 feet of each other, . .... etc. etc.   Horrible message, horrible policy.  Talk about appealing to our basest instincts. 

Nah. You are part of a small boisterous minority. 

[Stonker]

23 minutes ago, KWOG said:

The option is don't do it.  THAT would be the least worst. 

Well, detail your alternative then.

 

It's very easy to disagree and dislike, but you don't seem able to actually come up with anything constructive as an alternative.

11 minutes ago, KWOG said:

Franklin Roosevelt said we have nothing to fear but fear itself

... and as Churchhill said, "Fear is a reaction. Courage is a decision".

 

You don't seem to have much courage, despite all your talk about fear.

[Stonker]

11 minutes ago, KWOG said:

Hate to beat a dead horse, but again, how could it easier or more workable to lock down an entire population than a small portion of it.  To continue the horse analogy, would you rather be paid 1000 dollars for corralling  100 horses or paid 1000 dollars for corralling a dozen.  

What part of this don't you understand:

26 minutes ago, Stonker said:

It's a question of the degree of lockdown required.

In order to shield and secure the third of the population that are vulnerable, with the other two-thirds carrying on a "normal" life, the third that are vulnerable would have to be shielded, isolated, quarantined and supervised.  That would require not only the facilities to do so, but the staff.

In Thailand the facilities simply don't exist.  Even with only 150,000 active cases, there are still some 20,000 just in Bangkok who have nowhere to be quarantined. A third of the country isn't 150,000 though, it's over a hundred times that.

Even if the facilities did somehow exist, though, and many could shield at home, who would staff and look after them?  

If you lockdown the whole country, though, allowing essential services to continue and limited shopping and exercise, then you can still give the vulnerable third the same level of protection but without needing the facilities or the staff to shield and supervise them.

There are simply three choices:

Option 1. Forget about the vulnerable and let them die. Treatment isn't an option, as that would overwhelm the medical services and treating Covid cases would be all they could do.

Option 2. Shield the vulnerable third indefinitely, until everyone can be vaccinated.  Impossible, unfortunately, as there are neither the facilities nor the staff.

Option 3. Lockdowns for all, with realistic but limited restrictions to balance protection and inconvenience.

If you can think of another option, then feel free ......

 

[KWOG]

1 minute ago, AussieBob said:

Nah. You are part of a small boisterous minority. 

 Surely you're not asserting that there are no elected officials who've taken a position, run on a position against 'lockdowns' and the like.    I'd say your side has only a slim majority in my country, the US.  And a minority in many states , at which level such authority is more effectively imposed....or preferably not. Have the nanny statists and the medical industrial complex been prevailing for the most part worldwide ? Of course. That's why humanity is in this pathetic, shameful state.