News Forum - Prediction for international travellers to Thailand lowered again

[JamesR]

44 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

Prediction for international travellers to Thailand lowered again

Are you trying to say that we'll have more tourists if their planes take off and land in to wind? Is that TAT's latest approach to the crisis? Or do we have a new flying club section? 

 

1 minute ago, Soidog said:

Yes @Bob20 TAT have asked that aircraft take off with a tailwind in order to make tourists arrive and leave quicker. They also believe a tailwind will result in any residual virus being dissipated more quickly

A flying club section seems a great idea

It is a bit like living near an electricity pylon, you receive your electricity supply sooner than anyone else. 

[dmacarelli]

19 hours ago, Chaimai said:

There are many residents of this country who think that is far too risky.

I am not saying that I share that view,.

I understand that. But, if you eliminated the countries with the highest infection rates, and made a good vaccine, and a covid negative test a pre-requisite, a rational mind would understand that the visiting international tourist is taking all the risk by coming here.

We are no longer the zombies. You can see that in Phuket, where 98 out of 7900 covid positives, came from the local zombie population. 

[Chaimai]

27 minutes ago, dmacarelli said:

I understand that. But, if you eliminated the countries with the highest infection rates, and made a good vaccine, and a covid negative test a pre-requisite, a rational mind would understand that the visiting international tourist is taking all the risk by coming here.

We are no longer the zombies. You can see that in Phuket, where 98 out of 7900 covid positives, came from the local zombie population. 

 

98%?

 

In my case you are preaching to the converted. 

 

I fully agree that arrivals are unlikely to be an issue.

 

You can't stop Covid at the moment so we have to find a way to live with it; what you suggest sounds about right. Locals are more at risk from other locals than arrivals; If locals want to be part of the economy get them vaccinated asap,  get others sheltered.

 

The number of Covid cases is barely relevant. If vaccinated there are unlikely to be deaths or ICU requirements.

 

Yesterday the UK reported almost 30,000 (irrelevant) and 156 deaths.

 

Deaths are what matter and the only real guage to whether we are co-existing with Covid. Those numbers in the UK justify opening up the country ...44m are fully vaccinated....obviously less as at Freedom Day.

 

 

[dmacarelli]

1 hour ago, Chaimai said:

98%?

In my case you are preaching to the converted. 

I fully agree that arrivals are unlikely to be an issue.

You can't stop Covid at the moment so we have to find a way to live with it; what you suggest sounds about right. Locals are more at risk from other locals than arrivals; If locals want to be part of the economy get them vaccinated asap,  get others sheltered.

The number of Covid cases is barely relevant. If vaccinated there are unlikely to be deaths or ICU requirements.

Yesterday the UK reported almost 30,000 (irrelevant) and 156 deaths.

Deaths are what matter and the only real guage to whether we are co-existing with Covid. Those numbers in the UK justify opening up the country ...44m are fully vaccinated....obviously less as at Freedom Day.

Closer to 99% of the cases to date in Phuket, since the sandbox started, at Thai nationals. What does that say, and how much of an indictment of the punitive and highly restrictive tourism program, is that?

[Chaimai]

6 hours ago, dmacarelli said:

Closer to 99% of the cases to date in Phuket, since the sandbox started, at Thai nationals. What does that say, and how much of an indictment of the punitive and highly restrictive tourism program, is that?

 

I still think that the tourism needs to remain "punitive and highly restrictive" for a little longer.

 

It actually isn't - the Phuket Sandox 7+7 is absolutely workable.......you can argue semantics about number ot tests etc but it remains a viable entry mechanism into Thailand with no quarantine total freedom after 14 days.

[Soidog]

5 hours ago, Chaimai said:

I still think that the tourism needs to remain "punitive and highly restrictive" for a little longer.

It actually isn't - the Phuket Sandox 7+7 is absolutely workable.......you can argue semantics about number ot tests etc but it remains a viable entry mechanism into Thailand with no quarantine total freedom after 14 days.

I agree it’s a viable option for long term visitors and resturning Thais and expats. But genuine tourists? People who have 20-30 days annual holiday a year can just about do 14 days holiday in one go. I wouldn’t want to spend it in Thailand right now. Not only due to the multiple hoops, but also due to limited nightlife. 

[Jwd]

Please keep it safe and simple.  Proof of vaccination, Negative PCR tests should be enough.  No mandatory hotel stays, required location arrivals, required insurance purchases etc...  Safety and simplicity.

[EdwardV]

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

I agree it’s a viable option for long term visitors and resturning Thais and expats. But genuine tourists? People who have 20-30 days annual holiday a year can just about do 14 days holiday in one go. I wouldn’t want to spend it in Thailand right now. Not only due to the multiple hoops, but also due to limited nightlife. 

Agreed. The Phuket scheme is a working viable option to everyone but the 1-2 week tourist. Even if you get 3 weeks its iffy at best. Problem for Thailand is the two week millionaires are the backbone of the tourism industry. Every new scheme they come up with, whether it’s for Pattaya, Chiang Mai or Hun Hin makes Phuket look better and better as it get closer to year end. 

[JackIsAGoodBoy]

The chances of dying of Covid is 1 out of 75 000 for people under 30, according to Swedish statistic, probably the most relaxed restriction country in the world.

1: 25000 for all people under 50.

1: 3500 for 50-59

1: 1000 for 60-69

1: 270 for 70-79

1: 50 for over 80.

There are no medical reasons for these restrictions except for people over 70. Or we should ban basically all international tourism with these ratios. One out of tens of thousands of tourists dies of some reason anyway while on holiday.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/521717/sweden-population-by-age/

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by JackIsAGoodBoy

[TiT]

When pigs fly... TAT.

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, JackIsAGoodBoy said:

The chances of dying of Covid is 1 out of 75 000 for people under 30, according to Swedish statistic, probably the most relaxed restriction country in the world.

1: 25000 for all people under 50.

1: 3500 for 50-59

1: 1000 for 60-69

1: 270 for 70-79

1: 50 for over 80.

There are no medical reasons for these restrictions except for people over 70. Or we should ban basically all international tourism with these ratios. One out of tens of thousands of tourists dies of some reason anyway while on holiday.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/521717/sweden-population-by-age/

I don’t think the lockdowns are based just on the probability of people dying. They are based on the number of hospitalisations and the impact that may have if they peak on or around the same time. The impact to hospitals could be overwhelming. As I’ve explained a few times now. Can you imagine the knock on effect to people who are awaiting treatment for other things such as cancer, along with the impact of A&E capabilities. Then there is the issue of hundreds of factories having to close due to large numbers of working age people off ill with Covid. Transportation drivers. Emergency services such as police and fire. Teachers and refuge collection services. Power systems and telecoms systems. All of these are at risk if you simply allow numbers to accelerate unabated. The actual numbers spread over a year are manigable, but when they all come within 4-8 weeks they are potentially overwhelming to society.   

[JackIsAGoodBoy]

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

. All of these are at risk if you simply allow numbers to accelerate unabated. The actual numbers spread over a year are manigable, but when they all come within 4-8 weeks they are potentially overwhelming to society.   

Sweden did not do much during the first 6 months of pandemic and it did not overwhelm the society. 70-80 percent of fatalities were over 70 and in care homes already. This is no bubonic plague, this is 1968 Hong Kong flu like pandemic. Harsh to the elders and otherwise compromised.

The lockdown and shutdown overreaction is the menace here, causing untold damage to people and to the economy.

[HiuMak]

5 hours ago, Soidog said:

I agree it’s a viable option for long term visitors and resturning Thais and expats. But genuine tourists? People who have 20-30 days annual holiday a year can just about do 14 days holiday in one go. I wouldn’t want to spend it in Thailand right now. Not only due to the multiple hoops, but also due to limited nightlife. 

This can also be a squeeze on their annual leave if these travellers need to do a 14 days or even 21 days quarantine when returning back to home country. Thailand is on the red list currently.

[JamesR]

8 hours ago, Soidog said:

I don’t think the lockdowns are based just on the probability of people dying. They are based on the number of hospitalisations and the impact that may have if they peak on or around the same time. The impact to hospitals could be overwhelming. As I’ve explained a few times now. Can you imagine the knock on effect to people who are awaiting treatment for other things such as cancer, along with the impact of A&E capabilities. Then there is the issue of hundreds of factories having to close due to large numbers of working age people off ill with Covid. Transportation drivers. Emergency services such as police and fire. Teachers and refuge collection services. Power systems and telecoms systems. All of these are at risk if you simply allow numbers to accelerate unabated. The actual numbers spread over a year are manigable, but when they all come within 4-8 weeks they are potentially overwhelming to society.   

That was the exact policy and reasoning here in the UK and it seems to have worked as we have been open and free for a few months now.

Strict lockdown, vaccinate the majority of people and then open up.

Cases are rising again but the facts are far few people have severe symptoms due to the vaccines, hospitals are not filling up, trains etc are running,  it is like the virus never happened at the moment to the majority of people. 

[JamesR]

5 hours ago, HiuMak said:

This can also be a squeeze on their annual leave if these travellers need to do a 14 days or even 21 days quarantine when returning back to home country. Thailand is on the red list currently.

I have 365 days a year 'annual leave' but I am waiting before returning to Thailand, what is the point of putting ourselves in jail when we are free in our own countries now?

[Bob20]

Interesting article.

Besides Thailand being on red-lists, travelers are considering the ethics of visiting low vaccination countries, exposing them to problems for the sake of their having a "fun-holiday".

Here we are being pushed into experiments to make some money and take risks with the population.

Good to see some are looking further than their wallet.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/12/ethical-travel-experts-delta-coronavirus?

[Soidog]

7 hours ago, JackIsAGoodBoy said:

Sweden did not do much during the first 6 months of pandemic and it did not overwhelm the society. 70-80 percent of fatalities were over 70 and in care homes already. This is no bubonic plague, this is 1968 Hong Kong flu like pandemic. Harsh to the elders and otherwise compromised.

The lockdown and shutdown overreaction is the menace here, causing untold damage to people and to the economy.

I can see why people say this is flu and no worse than 1968, but the figures really don’t support that. Also remember that with the 1968 flu, unlike with Covid, most governments didn’t lockdown and so the virus was allowed to do it worst. 

Estimates for global death for 1968 flu range from 1-4 million. Covid is currently 4.55 million and still killing around 7,000 per day. The 1-4 million is a large range and so it’s best to take a country like the US or U.K. where data was more reliably gathered. 
 

U.S. 1968 100,000 deaths. U.S Covid 600,000 (6 times as many)

U.K 1968 33,000 deaths. U.K. Covid 134,000 ( 4 times as many) 
 

The case fatality rate for Covid is around 2%. For 1968 flu it was around 0.2%.

Finally, the 1968 flu  lasted from July 1968 until the end of 1969 (18 months)  Covid is around the same at 20 months but it is still ongoing

This really is not like the 1968 HK flu epidemic. And again I would remind you that although the numbers above speak for themselves, remember this is with global restrictions and lockdowns in place for Covid. 
 

The reference to Sweden is interesting in that they are the only known developed country to take the action they did, an action even they now agree was incorrect. The worst performing Scandinavian nation. I think some countries can “get away” with the Swedish approach. Low population density and few major cities. It could have a similar impact if Thailand was to do the same though Thailand population density is 5 times higher than Sweden’s. However, such an approach would be lethal in countries like the U.K. France, Germany and most major European countries. 
 

I agree the economic impact has been as devastating for many as the virus itself. Even worse if you are sat in you closed business with no income and no sign of Covid. It’s hard to square that seemingly illogical circle. However, governments have to take the big picture and make these impossibly hard decisions. 
 

 

[JamesR]

19 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

Interesting article.

Besides Thailand being on red-lists, travelers are considering the ethics of visiting low vaccination countries, exposing them to problems for the sake of their having a "fun-holiday".

Here we are being pushed into experiments to make some money and take risks with the population.

Good to see some are looking further than their wallet.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/12/ethical-travel-experts-delta-coronavirus?

I saw the article and it stated :

"But does that mean it’s a good idea to buy that plane ticket, even if you’re vaccinated? And if you’re comfortable assuming some degree of personal risk, is it unethical to do so?

 

Kelly Hills: The short answer is that it depends on where you live. Are we talking about a country with a relatively successful public health response where 80% or more of the eligible population are fully vaccinated, and there is low overall incidence of Covid-19 both where you live and where you are traveling to? Then no, it isn’t unethical. But that doesn’t describe most of the world."

My answer is it is not ethical, if you have had your vaccinations and fly into a country with low incidence of Covid-19 you can still give the virus to those people.

It would be ethical if you were vaccinated and flew to another country where 80% of the locals were also vaccinated. 

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by JamesR
typo

[JamesR]

5 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I can see why people say this is flu and no worse than 1968, but the figures really don’t support that. Also remember that with the 1968 flu, unlike with Covid, most governments didn’t lockdown and so the virus was allowed to do it worst. 

Estimates for global death for 1968 flu range from 1-4 million. Covid is currently 4.55 million and still killing around 7,000 per day. The 1-4 million is a large range and so it’s best to take a country like the US or U.K. where data was more reliably gathered. 
 

U.S. 1968 100,000 deaths. U.S Covid 600,000 (6 times as many)

U.K 1968 33,000 deaths. U.K. Covid 134,000 ( 4 times as many) 
 

The case fatality rate for Covid is around 2%. For 1968 flu it was around 0.2%.

Finally, the 1968 flu  lasted from July 1968 until the end of 1969 (18 months)  Covid is around the same at 20 months but it is still ongoing

This really is not like the 1968 HK flu epidemic. And again I would remind you that although the numbers above speak for themselves, remember this is with global restrictions and lockdowns in place for Covid. 
 

The reference to Sweden is interesting in that they are the only known developed country to take the action they did, an action even they now agree was incorrect. The worst performing Scandinavian nation. I think some countries can “get away” with the Swedish approach. Low population density and few major cities. It could have a similar impact if Thailand was to do the same though Thailand population density is 5 times higher than Sweden’s. However, such an approach would be lethal in countries like the U.K. France, Germany and most major European countries. 
 

I agree the economic impact has been as devastating for many as the virus itself. Even worse if you are sat in you closed business with no income and no sign of Covid. It’s hard to square that seemingly illogical circle. However, governments have to take the big picture and make these impossibly hard decisions. 
 

Good comment, I will cut and paste it into an email to friend of mine who is in most matters intelligent but for some reason he thinks the virus is just a flu.

[Bob20]

2 minutes ago, JamesR said:

I saw the article and it stated :

"But does that mean it’s a good idea to buy that plane ticket, even if you’re vaccinated? And if you’re comfortable assuming some degree of personal risk, is it unethical to do so?

Kelly Hills: The short answer is that it depends on where you live. Are we talking about a country with a relatively successful public health response where 80% or more of the eligible population are fully vaccinated, and there is low overall incidence of Covid-19 both where you live and where you are traveling to? Then no, it isn’t unethical. But that doesn’t describe most of the world."

My answer is it in not ethical, if you have had your vaccinations and fly into a country with low incidence of Covid-19 you can still give the virus to those people.

It would be ethical if you were vaccinated and flew to another country where 80% of the locals were also vaccinated. 

The article has several points of view. I think it's good that it's being discussed as it shows a moral concern.

And as far as allowing big unnecessary movements within a country is concerned (whether coming from national or international travelers doesn't matter), I think it should only be allowed once a high degree of vaccination has been established. But I think you know that from my previous posts.

[dmacarelli]

17 hours ago, Soidog said:

I agree it’s a viable option for long term visitors and resturning Thais and expats. But genuine tourists? People who have 20-30 days annual holiday a year can just about do 14 days holiday in one go. I wouldn’t want to spend it in Thailand right now. Not only due to the multiple hoops, but also due to limited nightlife. 

And 60 plus nations agree with you, and are reaping the tourism dollars. Thailand the timid coward is not. 

The Thais are the Zombies now. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by dmacarelli

[JamesR]

13 minutes ago, dmacarelli said:

And 60 plus nations agree with you, and are reaping the tourism dollars. Thailand the timid coward is not. 

The Thais are the Zombies now. 

I suppose it is easy for a person to be brave after having both inoculations, the Thais still have to protect themselves and their children as most of them have not had even one vaccination, most Thais I know do not want to have mass tourism introduced yet. 

The vast majority of Thais are not affected by the loss of tourism. 

The zombies to me are the ones who do not understand this. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by JamesR
typo

[Changnam43]

On 9/10/2021 at 2:31 PM, Bob20 said:

Not sure what that would stand for...

They are hardly an authority though.

So if you replace Authority with Institute the abbreviation may be closer to the truth already

It is British Slang.  Google it.  I am not going to explain it here for fear of getting jumped on by moderators.

[Bob20]

1 minute ago, Changnam43 said:

It is British Slang.  Google it.  I am not going to explain it here for fear of getting jumped on by moderators.

I think my joke escaped you...

[Changnam43]

1 hour ago, Bob20 said:

I think my joke escaped you...

OK.  I scrolled back and I get your 'joke'. 

Must try harder.