CCSA meets today to extend Covid measures, or ease restrictions

[Soidog]

4 hours ago, AdamX said:

The point would be to show how insignificant the covid tragedies are compared to those caused by lockdown in the hope of ending the never ending fear mongering.

Yes I understand @AdamX, but you missed the point of my analogy. How can you compare two sets of numbers in that way? Lockdown clearly has cost lives, increased mental health issues. Raised domestic violence cases etc and cost billions in business losses. However, people will look at this data and perhaps say - “Look at this, 30,000 people have lost their life through suicide as a result of lockdown, compared to only 5,000 from Covid. Lockdowns cost more lives than Covid”.  But it’s lockdowns that are helping to save lives from Covid. Why is that so easily overlooked. If we remove all restrictions the data would hypothetically say 2,000 deaths from suicide and 200,000 deaths from Covid. Everyone would be saying “we should have had more restrictions”. You can’t compare two sets of data in that way. It’s cause and effect.   

[BlueSphinx]

2 minutes ago, Soidog said:

... But it’s lockdowns that are helping to save lives from Covid. Why is that so easily overlooked. ...

But it’s lockdowns that are helping to save lives from Covid. Why is that so easily overlooked.  > Because it's false.  Yes, it seems logical that when limiting the exposure of people by 'locking them down' that infection rates would fall too.  But the actual data show that there is as good as no evidence for that 'logical claim' while lock-downs created immense harm to people's livelihoods.

[AdamX]

19 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Yes I understand @AdamX, but you missed the point of my analogy. How can you compare two sets of numbers in that way? Lockdown clearly has cost lives, increased mental health issues. Raised domestic violence cases etc and cost billions in business losses. However, people will look at this data and perhaps say - “Look at this, 30,000 people have lost their life through suicide as a result of lockdown, compared to only 5,000 from Covid. Lockdowns cost more lives than Covid”.  But it’s lockdowns that are helping to save lives from Covid. Why is that so easily overlooked. If we remove all restrictions the data would hypothetically say 2,000 deaths from suicide and 200,000 deaths from Covid. Everyone would be saying “we should have had more restrictions”. You can’t compare two sets of data in that way. It’s cause and effect.   

I'm not doing a comparison—I'm asking for a inclusion of all factors, not just cases and deaths

I would just like all the data out there, and for minds greater than mine to review and discuss it. This is not happening at the moment, and we have a myopic perspective that, in my opinion is causing more damage than it prevents

You say that lockdowns save lives—I would love for this to be discussed and not accepted as an article of faith. We can look at Florida or Sweden and so on, but the important thing is that we demand all the data

Insisting on the information I identified will lead to much better decisions. 

 

[Soidog]

3 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

But it’s lockdowns that are helping to save lives from Covid. Why is that so easily overlooked.  > Because it's false.  Yes, it seems logical that when limiting the exposure of people by 'locking them down' that infection rates would fall too.  But the actual data show that there is as good as no evidence for that 'logical claim' while lock-downs created immense harm to people's livelihoods.

I sorry but I just simply can not follow that logic at all I’m afraid. In every country where lockdowns have been used, they have brought case numbers down, which in turn resulted in few serious illnesses, which in turn resulted in fewer deaths. This is as logical as night following day. Effectiveness of a lockdown requires social compliance and good governance. It varies in its success across the world, but number fall in every place it has been used. Yes they go back up again once lockdown is relaxed, but that just proves lockdowns result in fewer cases, illness and death  

[Soidog]

3 hours ago, AdamX said:

I'm not doing a comparison—I'm asking for a inclusion of all factors, not just cases and deaths

I would just like all the data out there, and for minds greater than mine to review and discuss it. This is not happening at the moment, and we have a myopic perspective that, in my opinion is causing more damage than it prevents

You say that lockdowns save lives—I would love for this to be discussed and not accepted as an article of faith. We can look at Florida or Sweden and so on, but the important thing is that we demand all the data

Insisting on the information I identified will lead to much better decisions. 

I totally agree we need the data and I said as much in my initial response to your post. I just think that it’s difficult to publish data which simply gives publicity to people who claim lockdowns don’t save lives. Most people would simply look at the data as come to illogical conclusions. We hear and see it every day now:

lockdowns don’t work. Look at the UK

vaccines don’t work people still catch the virus when fully vaccinated. 

Thailand will reopen in 7 weeks time

Most people are so illogical and simply unable to process data that they just create a false narrative. 
 

In the U.K. they have had 3 serious waves of Covid. In each case the numbers have been reversed through lockdown. Nothing else. Now the link between cases and serious illness and death has been broken due to vaccines, the U.K. has been able to fully unlock. Cases have increased (as expected) but deaths remain relatively low. So lockdown to bring the situation under control and vaccines have kept it under control…. 

[BlueSphinx]

4 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I sorry but I just simply can not follow that logic at all I’m afraid. In every country where lockdowns have been used, they have brought case numbers down, which in turn resulted in few serious illnesses, which in turn resulted in fewer deaths. This is as logical as night following day. Effectiveness of a lockdown requires social compliance and good governance. It varies in its success across the world, but number fall in every place it has been used. Yes they go back up again once lockdown is relaxed, but that just proves lockdowns result in fewer cases, illness and death  

Just take a look at this 1/2 hour video-presentation by Nick Hudson from PanData aptly titled the Definitive Lockdown Presentation.  The vid already dates from February 2021, and in it he makes a compelling case fully supported by facts/data that lockdowns simply do NOT work.

 

[Benroon]

6 hours ago, palooka said:

You think Hua Hin would be better, more golf courses yes, but still Covid dark red zone, so not much happening.

All Hua Hin golf courses are closed until October ! You will find bars open, well closed but just knock or go round the back.

[King Cotton]

32 minutes ago, Benroon said:

You will find bars open, well closed, but just knock or go round the back.

Reminds me of the old village pub, way back when, when the coppers used to call to check we weren't spilling our beer . . . ah, happy days!

[Soidog]

24 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Just take a look at this 1/2 hour video-presentation by Nick Hudson from PanData aptly titled the Definitive Lockdown Presentation.  The vid already dates from February 2021, and in it he makes a compelling case fully supported by facts/data that lockdowns simply do NOT work.

Thanks for the video, I’ve just watched it and certainly some very interesting data and facts presented. However, I think there is still some massive misunderstanding of what it is I’m advocating and I think most people who support periods of lockdowns.
 

In the video he makes this dramatic, climactic statement that “Lockdowns do not reduce the total number of deaths”. And right there, in a sentence, is the mistake! I totally agree, lockdowns of themselves  won’t ultimately change the number of people getting sick or dying from Covid. I never thought they did. But what they do do, is slow that rate. They buy you time to hold the spread of the virus and increase the area under the curve of deaths versus time. In that time you develop better treatments. You develop better nursing techniques for sick patients. You learn that placing people on ventilators too soon is a bad thing. You discover readily available anti-inflammatory drugs help. Finally, you develop vaccines and you roll them out. That is what lockdowns do. No point in having lockdowns if your hospitals can handle the spike in admissions and you have to no plan to vaccinate. No point in locking down at all if that’s your strategy. But if you have limited medical resources (most countries do). If you have limited knowledge of how to treat the virus (the whole world was new to it) and you plan to develop and roll out vaccines (smart countries do), then lockdowns buy you that time. They are a brake on the speed of transmission. They won’t reduce death rates but they will stop hospitals being overwhelmed. They will stop some of the horrific scene we saw in India being replicated in London, Paris, Hong Kong etc. 

There were also a number glib remarks about the cruise ship. “Only 12 people died out of 3700. That’s 0.3%. Apply that to the world population and that’s 24 million dead. Let’s say it’s half that as the cruise ship had a lot of old people. It’s still 12 million dead in a very short space of time. Currently there are only 4 million dead. The other 8 million will not doubt die over the coming years, but it’s more manageable as it’s spread over years and not months and if we vaccinate, that number could be 8 million. 
 

So, lockdowns do work as they are intended. They are intended to buy you time. Slow the rate of infection, illness and deaths. Are they intended to ultimately reduce the number of infections illness and deaths? No they are not. That’s where vaccines come in, but I guess that’s another debate. 

[DiJoDavO]

How come that in the UK they opened everything and nothing seems to get worse? 

Also in the Netherlands, I watch football matches where people are super close to each other and nothing gets worse.

So why not try it too? 

This virus is so strong because people social distance and not get their immune system up to date, not touching things outside, or breathing each other's air. 

Everytime I'm back from outside, I notice I'm lowkey sick, because of exactly this. My body doesn't get challenged anymore by any bacteria, virus or anything else. 

Maybe young people still go out a bit or have a stronger immune system than older people. When in lockdown, older people who already had a weak immune system, will be even weaker. That's why they die so quick. 

And nowadays when you say this, doctors say you are wrong. But then that means what we have learned in school must be just bs??? 

[Benroon]

24 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Thanks for the video, I’ve just watched it and certainly some very interesting data and facts presented. However, I think there is still some massive misunderstanding of what it is I’m advocating and I think most people who support periods of lockdowns.
 

In the video he makes this dramatic, climactic statement that “Lockdowns do not reduce the total number of deaths”. And right there, in a sentence, is the mistake! I totally agree, lockdowns of themselves  won’t ultimately change the number of people getting sick or dying from Covid. I never thought they did. But what they do do, is slow that rate. They buy you time to hold the spread of the virus and increase the area under the curve of deaths versus time. In that time you develop better treatments. You develop better nursing techniques for sick patients. You learn that placing people on ventilators too soon is a bad thing. You discover readily available anti-inflammatory drugs help. Finally, you develop vaccines and you roll them out. That is what lockdowns do. No point in having lockdowns if your hospitals can handle the spike in admissions and you have to no plan to vaccinate. No point in locking down at all if that’s your strategy. But if you have limited medical resources (most countries do). If you have limited knowledge of how to treat the virus (the whole world was new to it) and you plan to develop and roll out vaccines (smart countries do), then lockdowns buy you that time. They are a brake on the speed of transmission. They won’t reduce death rates but they will stop hospitals being overwhelmed. They will stop some of the horrific scene we saw in India being replicated in London, Paris, Hong Kong etc. 

There were also a number glib remarks about the cruise ship. “Only 12 people died out of 3700. That’s 0.3%. Apply that to the world population and that’s 24 million dead. Let’s say it’s half that as the cruise ship had a lot of old people. It’s still 12 million dead in a very short space of time. Currently there are only 4 million dead. The other 8 million will not doubt die over the coming years, but it’s more manageable as it’s spread over years and not months and if we vaccinate, that number could be 8 million. 
 

So, lockdowns do work as they are intended. They are intended to buy you time. Slow the rate of infection, illness and deaths. Are they intended to ultimately reduce the number of infections illness and deaths? No they are not. That’s where vaccines come in, but I guess that’s another debate. 

Reasoned analysis such as that is going to scream over the heads of the conspiracy theorists - they cannot function without raging against the machine however outlandish their claims and regardless of the patently obvious in front of them.

[Benroon]

1 hour ago, King Cotton said:

Reminds me of the old village pub, way back when, when the coppers used to call to check we weren't spilling our beer . . . ah, happy days!

The pub after closing hours is where you would find the local coppers !

Remember Sunday Lunchtimes when pubs were only open 12-2 - there used to be a queue at the door and you would nearly drown in beer before the dreaded 2pm bell was rung !!

Also peanuts all over the bar until some bright spark claimed there were 8 different peoples urine over them ! 

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, DiJoDavO said:

How come that in the UK they opened everything and nothing seems to get worse? 

Also in the Netherlands, I watch football matches where people are super close to each other and nothing gets worse.

That’s because in the U.K. over 60% of the population is fully vaccinated and in the Netherlands it’s around 54%. Case numbers are rising in the U.K. but hospitalisations and deaths remain relatively low. So life can go on as near normal as possible 

[AdamX]

3 hours ago, Soidog said:

I totally agree we need the data and I said as much in my initial response to your post. I just think that it’s difficult to publish data which simply gives publicity to people who claim lockdowns don’t save lives. Most people would simply look at the data as come to illogical conclusions. We hear and see it every day now:

lockdowns don’t work. Look at the UK

vaccines don’t work people still catch the virus when fully vaccinated. 

Thailand will reopen in 7 weeks time

Most people are so illogical and simply unable to process data that they just create a false narrative. 
 

In the U.K. they have had 3 serious waves of Covid. In each case the numbers have been reversed through lockdown. Nothing else. Now the link between cases and serious illness and death has been broken due to vaccines, the U.K. has been able to fully unlock. Cases have increased (as expected) but deaths remain relatively low. So lockdown to bring the situation under control and vaccines have kept it under control…. 

And I believe more and more people are starting to realize this, however, I have been utterly staggered at how easily people not only accepted narratives, but immediately accepted opposite narratives as soon as the narratives were changed.

 

[Mynemesis]

On 8/16/2021 at 11:17 AM, Skokholm said:

I am one of those rare beasts -a Phuket Sandbox tourist!. I was clearly naive in my planning because the restrictions here make it a less than enjoyable experience. I arrived the day that new restrictions were enforced (1 Aug) and this has limited my options. Would not have come here if I knew what I now know.

There is one boring restaurant in my hotel. And in nearby Patong most are closed. Also, as a responsible drinker,  I do like a glass of wine or beer with my meal, and I fail to see how banning that controls covid .

There is a lack of information (But Thaiger is helpful) . I am considering moving to Hua Hin where I have friends but am getting coflicting advice on how to get there.

Nobody (TAT?)has asked for any input from me.

On a positive side , I have had several rounds of millionaire golf (no  one behind or in front of me ). The caddies regard me as something unique! One day last week they had only six visitors!

Any thoughts on how or if I travel to Hua Hin?

Cheers

Richard

 

It seems that you might be on your own, so why not try Phang nga for a little while. Rent a car and maybe a little brown friend for company.

Go and make Eden Beach (SHA+) your base, on my phone it’s showing 1271thb with breakfast (booking.com or phone direct), and that is a great offer, there are also plenty of places around to eat.

You could play Karinara Golf Course, it is very nice and/or stay at Katathong Golf Resort.

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by Mynemesis