News Forum - Tourism ministry wants Thailand fully re-opened, without quarantine, by January

[JamesE]

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

I admire your tenacity here @Bob20  some people think that because multiple sources report the same data coming out of Thai central government, that it constitutes several independent and verifiable sources of data. I read reports in U.K. and EU news daily about Thailand opening up. You can see it’s just quotes from the Thai government or TAT that fill column inches. It’s not true or even close to true. However it looks like multiple independent sources.
Wasting your time I think. Best thing is to sit back and wait. See where we are with vaccination in 3 months time and how this relates  to reality on the ground 

You point out one of the major disservices modern "media" provides: the lack of context. We've gotten to a statement-based paradigm where the "why" part of the story is pretty much completely ignored in the service of "what". Secondary services, like The Thaiger, which merely scrape their coverage from other sources, merely amplify the issue and become - as you say - just another "source" (especially with their nonsensical "this story first appeared on The Thaiger" claims).

The underlying problem I see - the key bit that links the stories - is that by conflating vaccinations, case levels, and the various sandboxes the "why" part of each of them is missed. TAT reported yesterday that 81+% of Phuket's population is fully vaccinated, yet cases remain at their high level. Why? Of the 31K arrivals into the sandbox 93 have tested positive. Was that a number they expected? Is that a "safe" number now that most of Phuket is vaccinated? Given that low percentage (particularly the mere 6 that tested positive on the third test) can the testing requirement be reduced or eliminated? There's no context, just rule following. And what about the mere 5% of 2109 arrivals? Can that sustain any kind of recovery? Is that expected to pick up? Will the numbers be similar as other areas "reopen" with their own sandboxes?

Why?

I agree with your assessment. This is a wait and see situation that really won't be figured out until after the fact.

[Soidog]

33 minutes ago, JamesE said:

You point out one of the major disservices modern "media" provides: the lack of context. We've gotten to a statement-based paradigm where the "why" part of the story is pretty much completely ignored in the service of "what". Secondary services, like The Thaiger, which merely scrape their coverage from other sources, merely amplify the issue and become - as you say - just another "source" (especially with their nonsensical "this story first appeared on The Thaiger" claims).

The underlying problem I see - the key bit that links the stories - is that by conflating vaccinations, case levels, and the various sandboxes the "why" part of each of them is missed. TAT reported yesterday that 81+% of Phuket's population is fully vaccinated, yet cases remain at their high level. Why? Of the 31K arrivals into the sandbox 93 have tested positive. Was that a number they expected? Is that a "safe" number now that most of Phuket is vaccinated? Given that low percentage (particularly the mere 6 that tested positive on the third test) can the testing requirement be reduced or eliminated? There's no context, just rule following. And what about the mere 5% of 2109 arrivals? Can that sustain any kind of recovery? Is that expected to pick up? Will the numbers be similar as other areas "reopen" with their own sandboxes?

Why?

I agree with your assessment. This is a wait and see situation that really won't be figured out until after the fact.

That’s a great post @JamesE and explains many of the problems associated with current reporting. The very fact test numbers and many of the parameters  you highlight are not easily come by, shows how manipulative the authorities wish the situation to remain. The more of a detailed plan they announce with associated “go/no go” parameters, the less wriggle room they have when they are not met. I honestly don’t know what they are trying to achieve with the various “sandboxes” and “sealed routes” etc. If you are operating a service business such as s hotel or restaurant, there is a minimum customer capacity that makes it worthwhile opening. I don’t think for one moment the Thai government believe the current numbers help at all. It is all face saving and an attempt to show those that would perhaps demonstrate, that things are improving, so please give us more time. I think the words are “Cynical ploy”. In a normal developed society, the government would run the risk of all manner of civil legal cases against them. They would also need to financially support people and businesses more. Neither of these are going to happen in Thailand and the Thai people will pay for this with more hospitalisations and more unnecessary death. Tragic situation indeed and those who support the actions or try to justify them in anyway, are essentially a part of the problem. 
 

 

[AdamX]

17 hours ago, Stonker said:

 

I don't see many people complaining about the number of jabs they've had for tetanus or flu, for example, or their effectiveness.

Thats because they are not being forced on people who are unwilling

[AdamX]

18 hours ago, Stonker said:

Your assumptions are based on fallacies, @AdamX.

The idea of 70 or 75% for herd immunity has long gone, except amongst the TAT crowd. It was based on a low 'r' number, not much more than 1, and vaccine efficiency of at least 95%+, neither of which are correct any more.

"Pharma" don't "want to redefine herd immunity" at all - they're not even talking about it any more. Only the TAT crowd and the like are, as it's ancient history and a flawed concept for Covid as it's too contagious.

"Pharma" aren't talking about "immunity" any more, nor are informed government and scientists - it's now about protection, not immunity.

Thats my exact point.

The definition of vaccine has been changed from something that gave immunity to give protection. They are not the same thing.

In any case, lets cut to the chase.

Do you support mandatory vaccine, vaccine passports, masks and lockdown.

Do you support removing people freedoms?

You can lock yourself down or take as many jabs as you wish, but you have no right to force them on me. 

Its not a medical issue, its a human rights issue

 

 

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, AdamX said:

Thats my exact point.

The definition of vaccine has been changed from something that gave immunity to give protection. They are not the same thing.

Your "exact point" is wrong, as I have tried to point out.

No vaccines give sterile immunity.

None.

If you think they do, then name one.

[Stonker]

14 hours ago, Bob20 said:

Seek and you shall find. Sinovac deliveries (11m) until 2 July. I'll find the rest too at some stage. Plus 1.5m Pfizer and plus AZ, I still think 39m is overly optimistic to already have found its way into arms.

Congratulations, @Bob20.  You've found some "verifiable data" / "hard verifiable numbers" that isn't "figures plucked from different unverifiable places" or  "whatever unofficial hearsay you could find".

Maybe you could give the source, to show why it's so different to everything else you've been given here from  foreign governments, foreign embassies, manufacturers, suppliers, the Thai government, the CCSA, or the media?

... and maybe you could also explain what point you're making, since it's not only over two months old but it doesn't actually say anything different to all the information you've been given for the last seven pages which you dismissed as "someone else's opinion"?

Just to remind you, the number of reported Sinovac jabs given to date as part of the 39 million, which @oldcpu told you back in #57594, was 14.4 million. As you're now apparently satisfied that Sinovac had delivered 11 million doses over two months ago, over a period of the previous five months, why exactly do you find it "overly optimistic" that Thailand may have received another 3.4 million in the last two months and been able to give the 14.4 million as jabs over the seven month period?

Maybe I should also remind you of your previous post:

 

22 hours ago, Bob20 said:

I don't see how 40m here could be even remotely possible in 4-5 months with at least half of that time doing nothing because of shortages and the rest of the time doing mostly only BKK. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Since you're now also apparently satisfied that vaccinations started seven months ago in February, as @oldcpu and others have been trying in vain to explain to you and @Soidog, not the "4-5 months" or "4 months" you both keep referring to, at 39 million so far that's some five million a month here compared to the ten million a month in the UK. As you and @Soidog have doubts that Thailand could match the UK's delivery ... well ... they evidently haven't had to match it, as just half would be sufficient.

You seem to have proven yourself wrong on all counts - I'm happy that makes you happy.

[AussiePom]

On 9/6/2021 at 4:54 AM, Thaired said:

Deluded. Thailand needs to get all provinces into yellow or green zone status, get all nightlife and entertainment venues back open and remove all restrictive measures if it expects tourism to return in any worthwhile volume. What Phuket has shown the world is that "no quarantine" is actually "different" quarantine, and international tourists, especially from the west, are not so easily duped by their deflective language. Potential tourists from Europe have cheaper, closer (1-4 hours flight times) and less restrictive resort options around the Mediterranean, Adriatic and Aegean seas during summer months, and will do that rather than endure the 13 hours flight time, four covid test nonsense, restricted movement for 14 days and have bars, clubs and nightlife still closed! 

you're in dreamland - if they reopened "all nightlife and entertainment venues" right now, with most people not being vaccinated, that would be a recipe for disaster and put everything back. Let's be honest: you're calling for bars and massage parlours to be allowed to reopen. Close personal contact is exactly what those places do. Crazy, reckless suggestion imo - but I agree with the rest of the post. Foreigners aren't daft and will find easier places to visit closer to home. In fact, you can forget 99% of Brits going to Thailand until they remove it from its red list

[oldcpu]

36 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Congratulations, @Bob20.  You've found some "verifiable data" / "hard verifiable numbers" that isn't "figures plucked from different unverifiable places" or  "whatever unofficial hearsay you could find".

 

Its good news that he is looking. 

If he keeps looking, he will eventually come up with the 39-million number of doses given. I've seen 3 independent sources produce that number.

But will he believe what he finds?  That's another matter.

[Stonker]

6 hours ago, AdamX said:

In any case, lets cut to the chase.

It would be nice if you did me the courtesy of answering my questions, which you've ignored, if you expect me to do you the courtesy of replying to yours, but OK.

6 hours ago, AdamX said:

Do you support mandatory vaccine, vaccine passports, masks and lockdown.

"Mandatory vaccines", no, I think that's an entirely personal choice and should remain so.

What I do support, though, is a similar personal choice for those who don't want to share public  or private transport or public or private places, shops, cinemas, or workplaces, etc,  with those who aren't vaccinated. Just as people shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated against their will, so people shouldn't be forced to associate with those they don't want to who aren't vaccinated.

It's all about "freedom" and personal choice.

"Vaccine passports", yes, I have no problem with that as long as long as it's a personal choice whether to have one or not and whether to show it or not. If you don't want one or to show it to someone then that should be your choice, just as it's anyone else's choice to refuse you entry if you don't.

Again, it's all about "freedom" and personal choice.

"Masks", as vaccine passports - if you don't want to wear one that should be a personal choice but if you're refused entry to anywhere from public transport to public places or private malls then that's also a personal choice. If that cuts your options down to your private property or a private car then ... well ... that's your choice.

Again, it's all about "freedom" and personal choice.

"Lockdowns" are different as there's no room for a personal choice element - either they're mandatory lockdowns or they're not lockdowns at all, and under those circumstances the personal choice of the majority has to apply.

Freedom and personal choice works both ways when your freedom and personal choice affects others.

6 hours ago, AdamX said:

Do you support removing people freedoms?

It all depends on what you mean by "people's freedoms".

Your freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road?

To drop your trousers and have a dump in the middle of the pavement?

To deliberately vomit over the person next to you in the bus?

To have sex with a five year old, as long as they agree?

To fly a plane into the Empire State Building?

All varying extremes, but all about "freedom". If your "freedom" affects other people's "freedom" then a balance has to be made.

6 hours ago, AdamX said:

You can lock yourself down or take as many jabs as you wish, but you have no right to force them on me.

I'm not suggesting forcing them on you - just as I'm not suggesting that you should be able to force the consequences of your choices on me, which seems to be what you're suggesting. What I'm suggesting is a balance that gives maximum freedom for everyone, not just you or a minority at everyone else's expense.

  Why should you be able to force the consequences of your choices on others, while they can't force choices on you?  That's not "freedom" for anyone - except you.

 

6 hours ago, AdamX said:

Its not a medical issue, its a human rights issue

Agreed - EVERYBODY'S human rights, not just yours.

[oldcpu]

Here is a 4th source of the # of doses given in Thailand (a government source): https://dashboard-vaccine.moph.go.th/

Again - these are the statistics on jabs.

It has a lot of detail, but it is all in Thai language. I had my Thai wife translate the status for today's 13-Sep-2021 report.  Some of the #'s translated:

As of today, 40,756,397 jabs have been given in Thailand

Of these 27,421,448 were a 1st jab, and 12,587,746 were a second jab, and 746,723 were a 3rd jab, and 480 were a 4th jab.

* 17.617-million AstraZeneca jabs have been given

* 16.719-million Sinovac jabs have been given

*  5.32-million Sinopharm jabs have been given

* 1.091-million Pfizer jabs have been given

* 0.006-million J&J jabs have been given

- - -

As for age group:

> age-80:  0.28-million to men, and 0.40-million to women

age-61-80:  3.57-million to men, and 4.44-million to women

age-41-60: 7.08-million to men, and 8.62-million to women

age-21-40:  7.06-million to men, and 8.18-million to women

age-18-20:  0.50-million to men, and 0.52-million to women

- - - - -

As for the different groups of those receiving the above noted jabs:

- 22.28-million to 'normal people'

- 8.13-million to those age > 60 

- 4.79-million to those with underlying conditions

- 3.43-million to medical workers

- 2.05-million to front line workers

- 0.08-million to pregnant women

My Thai wife translated more on that page for me, but I think I have provided enough of the statistics here.

 

 

[AdamX]

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

Your "exact point" is wrong, as I have tried to point out.

No vaccines give sterile immunity.

None.

If you think they do, then name one.

I point you to how the CDC conveniently redefined the word in September 2021.

 

[AdamX]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

It would be nice if you did me the courtesy of answering my questions, which you've ignored, if you expect me to do you the courtesy of replying to yours, but OK.

"Mandatory vaccines", no, I think that's an entirely personal choice and should remain so.

What I do support, though, is a similar personal choice for those who don't want to share public  or private transport or public or private places, shops, cinemas, or workplaces, etc,  with those who aren't vaccinated. Just as people shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated against their will, so people shouldn't be forced to associate with those they don't want to who aren't vaccinated.

It's all about "freedom" and personal choice.

"Vaccine passports", yes, I have no problem with that as long as long as it's a personal choice whether to have one or not and whether to show it or not. If you don't want one or to show it to someone then that should be your choice, just as it's anyone else's choice to refuse you entry if you don't.

Again, it's all about "freedom" and personal choice.

"Masks", as vaccine passports - if you don't want to wear one that should be a personal choice but if you're refused entry to anywhere from public transport to public places or private malls then that's also a personal choice. If that cuts your options down to your private property or a private car then ... well ... that's your choice.

Again, it's all about "freedom" and personal choice.

"Lockdowns" are different as there's no room for a personal choice element - either they're mandatory lockdowns or they're not lockdowns at all, and under those circumstances the personal choice of the majority has to apply.

Freedom and personal choice works both ways when your freedom and personal choice affects others.

It all depends on what you mean by "people's freedoms".

Your freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road?

To drop your trousers and have a dump in the middle of the pavement?

To deliberately vomit over the person next to you in the bus?

To have sex with a five year old, as long as they agree?

To fly a plane into the Empire State Building?

All varying extremes, but all about "freedom". If your "freedom" affects other people's "freedom" then a balance has to be made.

I'm not suggesting forcing them on you - just as I'm not suggesting that you should be able to force the consequences of your choices on me, which seems to be what you're suggesting. What I'm suggesting is a balance that gives maximum freedom for everyone, not just you or a minority at everyone else's expense.

  Why should you be able to force the consequences of your choices on others, while they can't force choices on you?  That's not "freedom" for anyone - except you.

Agreed - EVERYBODY'S human rights, not just yours.

The crux of what you are generally saying, is that if you have a fear, then I need to modify my behavior based on a fear that I do not share.

 

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

It would be nice if you did me the courtesy of answering my questions, which you've ignored, if you expect me to do you the courtesy of replying to yours, but OK.

"Mandatory vaccines", no, I think that's an entirely personal choice and should remain so.

What I do support, though, is a similar personal choice for those who don't want to share public  or private transport or public or private places, shops, cinemas, or workplaces, etc,  with those who aren't vaccinated. Just as people shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated against their will, so people shouldn't be forced to associate with those they don't want to who aren't vaccinated.

It's all about "freedom" and personal choice.

"Vaccine passports", yes, I have no problem with that as long as long as it's a personal choice whether to have one or not and whether to show it or not. If you don't want one or to show it to someone then that should be your choice, just as it's anyone else's choice to refuse you entry if you don't.

Again, it's all about "freedom" and personal choice.

"Masks", as vaccine passports - if you don't want to wear one that should be a personal choice but if you're refused entry to anywhere from public transport to public places or private malls then that's also a personal choice. If that cuts your options down to your private property or a private car then ... well ... that's your choice.

Again, it's all about "freedom" and personal choice.

"Lockdowns" are different as there's no room for a personal choice element - either they're mandatory lockdowns or they're not lockdowns at all, and under those circumstances the personal choice of the majority has to apply.

Freedom and personal choice works both ways when your freedom and personal choice affects others.

It all depends on what you mean by "people's freedoms".

Your freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road?

To drop your trousers and have a dump in the middle of the pavement?

To deliberately vomit over the person next to you in the bus?

To have sex with a five year old, as long as they agree?

To fly a plane into the Empire State Building?

All varying extremes, but all about "freedom". If your "freedom" affects other people's "freedom" then a balance has to be made.

I'm not suggesting forcing them on you - just as I'm not suggesting that you should be able to force the consequences of your choices on me, which seems to be what you're suggesting. What I'm suggesting is a balance that gives maximum freedom for everyone, not just you or a minority at everyone else's expense.

  Why should you be able to force the consequences of your choices on others, while they can't force choices on you?  That's not "freedom" for anyone - except you.

Agreed - EVERYBODY'S human rights, not just yours.

 So we agree on masks, vaccines and passports,

These should be personal choice, and the right to refusal for a private business can go both ways. Prove you don't have a vax to get in, or masked people not allowed.  That's ok...right?

 On the issue of lockdown, I disagree with you.

If you believe lockdown are effective, this does not require my participation as you have the choice of locking yourself down. Why do I have to join in, as you are not going out anyway?

 

[Stonker]

33 minutes ago, AdamX said:

The crux of what you are generally saying, is that if you have a fear, then I need to modify my behavior based on a fear that I do not share

No, that has nothing remotely to do with what I've said.

What you're saying is that if you don't think molesting five year olds does them any harm then you should be allowed to because you shouldn't need to modify your behaviour based on a fear you don't share.

Fortunately that isn't the way the civilised world works, and laws oblige you to respect others even if you don't think you should have to.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

I point you to how the CDC conveniently redefined the word in September 2021.

You seem to have a basic problem understanding what people write, whether it's me, the CDC, or Benjamin Franklin, reading whatever you want to into things which clearly don't say what you imagine they do.

Re-writing something isn't "re-defining" it to give it a different meaning, although that's what you're doing regularly.

It's simply re-writing it to make it easier for those reading it to understand and to update it, particularly in the light of scientific progress.

There are numerous versions of the Bible, or the Canterbury Tales, but what the Prophets and Chaucer wrote hasn't fundamentally changed.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, AdamX said:

The crux of what you are generally saying, is that if you have a fear, then I need to modify my behavior based on a fear that I do not share.

 So we agree on masks, vaccines and passports,

These should be personal choice, and the right to refusal for a private business can go both ways.

No, we evidently don't agree at all - I've very clearly said anywhere, public or private, can be subject to safety precautions and regulations, mandatory mask wearing, etc, and if necessary should be, and you've consistently  disagreed with that.

2 hours ago, AdamX said:

Prove you don't have a vax to get in, or masked people not allowed.  That's ok...right?

If that's what the owner of the private business wants, by all means as long as they observe the general rules for whatever the business is. No alcohol, for example, if there's a no alcohol rule, and masks / vaccinations if required, on the same basis as safety belts and motorbike helmets.

Your right to an unmasked manicure, for example, shouldn't take priority over anyone else's need for a hospital bed.

2 hours ago, AdamX said:

If you believe lockdown are effective, this does not require my participation as you have the choice of locking yourself down. Why do I have to join in, as you are not going out anyway?

 What you're suggesting isn't a lockdown, or even a partial lockdown, but shielding - two totally different concepts, done for two totally different reasons with two very different aims.

If you don't understand the difference between a lockdown and shielding and you haven't taken enough interest to find out despite all your posts, maybe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing rather than anything else, and I'm not interested in that.

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

5 hours ago, oldcpu said:

Here is a 4th source of the # of doses given in Thailand (a government source): https://dashboard-vaccine.moph.go.th/

Only problem with this source ….. a government source.

At a guess if they took a survey in Thailand what would be the percentage that believes what the government releases to the public.  
 

‘’Also your 3 other sources got their source material from where? Just like all the information regarding numbers of vaccination in any country it is all released through a government agency. 
 

 

[oldcpu]

30 minutes ago, AdvocatusDiaboli said:

Only problem with this source ….. a government source.

At a guess if they took a survey in Thailand what would be the percentage that believes what the government releases to the public.  
 

In this case? I suspect a LOT higher believe than your cynicism.

 

30 minutes ago, AdvocatusDiaboli said:

‘’Also your 3 other sources got their source material from where? Just like all the information regarding numbers of vaccination in any country it is all released through a government agency. 
 

One for certain from the government.

The other a twitter account of a well known expat who gave / gives a daily summary of the vaccinations. 

The 3rd a wiki, which references press articles of the vaccine deliveries and press articles (which is the least accurate as one must then make assumptions as to the jabs based on the confirmed distributions) - but in ALL cases it supports the 39-million.   

Tell, what is your reference to prove otherwise? None?  I suspect that's what I thought. You likely have none. 

Just a cynical opinion? Well we all have an opinion, but I think in this case the government reference is superior to your cynical opinion - but please, give me a better more accurate reference to prove me otherwise.

I think you will find in every country in the world, where the government is administering the vaccine, that the central source of statistics IS the government. 

You 'might' be able to go to individual hospitals across all of Thailand (hundreds ? ) and get their individual statistics (which the government ALREADY has done for you)  - but I would bet the Thai government statistics on this, despite your cynicism, is superior to any other statistics you can possible come up with.

Then again - my guess is you have no statistics.  So please - prove me wrong here with solid statistics (with references - not made up out of thin air).

I have 4 sources. You? None so far.

Edited September 13, 2021 by oldcpu