Jump to content

News Forum - Study shows 99.7% of Bangkok wearing masks properly


Thaiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, vvdb.fr said:

The mask is very effective if used correctly.

Which is not the case in the general population which has not been educated for and which often does not have the money to afford several masks per day and the hydroalcoholic solution at hand at all times.

The number of people putting on and taking their masks out of handbag pockets is staggering.

if it was done well, would there be that many clusters?

 

1 hour ago, vvdb.fr said:

The UN health agency (WJO) has updated its guidance taking into account the actual use of the mask in some countries.  As it always does in such circumstances, it identified the advantages and disadvantages of this practice, leaving it to the decision-makers in each country to arbitrate, depending on economic, political or social factors.

they also insist on user training ... because it is very difficult for the general population to do things correctly.

During the first wave of COVID-19, caregivers were heavily contaminated cause the misuse of wearing masks.

for example in Belgium the practice among nurses was to lower the mask under the chin and put it back on the face all day long!

Using condoms does not 100% prevent pregnancy (incorrect use, tears etc). That it's not 100% effective doesn't mean it doesn't help!

Same analogy with face masks.

You keep pushing the message that the WHO doesn't advise their use, which is blatantly untrue. Now you say they changed their advice. Then better check first before you write.

And now you claim in Belgium nurses wore them wrong. Secret: many auxiliary staff and medics do/did the same.

And STILL it helps to prevent the spread, even if it's not 100%.

Give it a rest. The mask debate is old. They work, even if not used perfectly. And nobody cares if nurses in Belgium do something silly.

You should care that you and the persons next to you wear a mask! 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Thaiger said:

While anti-mask sentiment can seem widespread and popular on social media, a new survey shows that, in Bangkok at least, almost 100% of people are wearing their masks. The surprising “AI Mask” project by the Ministry of Higher Education Science Research and Innovation found that 99.7% of Bangkok residents were not only wearing their masks but wearing them correctly. The Centre for Covid-19 Situation Administration announced the findings yesterday and encouraged all provinces around Thailand to follow Bangkok’s great example and mask up. The survey checked on 6,130 people across 29 districts in Bangkok and found that only 0.02% did […]

The post Study shows 99.7% of Bangkok wearing masks properly appeared first on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

Unfortunately the masks they were wearing were made from tissue paper and not the N95 ones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

Using condoms does not 100% prevent pregnancy (incorrect use, tears etc). That it's not 100% effective doesn't mean it doesn't help!

Same analogy with face masks.

You keep pushing the message that the WHO doesn't advise their use, which is blatantly untrue. Now you say they changed their advice. Then better check first before you write.

And now you claim in Belgium nurses wore them wrong. Secret: many auxiliary staff and medics do/did the same.

And STILL it helps to prevent the spread, even if it's not 100%.

Give it a rest. The mask debate is old. They work, even if not used perfectly. And nobody cares if nurses in Belgium do something silly.

You should care that you and the persons next to you wear a mask! 

Just for balance, there is no evidence that the  tissue paper face coverings work to protect from viruses. The is no face covering manufacturer that will say this not are there any credible studies to support the use of these fig leaves.

If they did, there would be no pandemic

N95 masks are another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AdamX said:

Just for balance, there is no evidence that the  tissue paper face coverings work to protect from viruses. The is no face covering manufacturer that will say this not are there any credible studies to support the use of these fig leaves.

If they did, there would be no pandemic

N95 masks are another story.

How many times does it have to be repeated, FFS?

Masks are NOT "to protect from viruses" 😠!

They're to protect others from you, not you from others ...

... and that includes N95, 94, and the triple-layer masks I think you're referring to as "tissue paper", but not masks with valves, from cotton or lycra, etc.

It's not about protecting yourself but about everybody protecting everybody else, which is what these selfish anti-mask bar-stewards refuse to do.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Stonker said:

How many times does it have to be repeated, FFS?

Masks are NOT "to protect from viruses" 😠!

They're to protect others from you, not you from others ...

... and that includes N95, 94, and the triple-layer masks I think you're referring to as "tissue paper", but not masks with valves, from cotton or lycra, etc.

It's not about protecting yourself but about everybody protecting everybody else, which is what these selfish anti-mask bar-stewards refuse to do.

References for this assertion please.

Also,

 

Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stonker said:

How many times does it have to be repeated, FFS?

Masks are NOT "to protect from viruses" 😠!

They're to protect others from you, not you from others ...

... and that includes N95, 94, and the triple-layer masks I think you're referring to as "tissue paper", but not masks with valves, from cotton or lycra, etc.

It's not about protecting yourself but about everybody protecting everybody else, which is what these selfish anti-mask bar-stewards refuse to do.

Simple question.  Okay so masks are to protect eveyone from you so we should assume we all have Covid?  If you are vaccinated why would you have Covid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Stonker said:

How many times does it have to be repeated, FFS?

Isn’t that the sign in large letters in the TAT office. 
 

Maybe the CCSA needs to get a copy, but then again it is Thailand and there’s plenty of non believers or people that just don’t listen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, billywillyjones said:

Simple question. (snip)  If you are vaccinated why would you have Covid?

Simple answer.

Vaccinations don't stop you getting or transmitting Covid.

They just reduce the severity (considerably) and transmissibility (arguably / variably).

Once enough people are vaccinated and have natural (post infection) protection then obviously it won't matter so much if people are infected so masks won't be necessary.

I think you've asked this before, and had the same answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.

So those who are sacrificing their freedom for other people's safety "deserve neither".

Maybe you could explain why .....

..... or maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The no of foreigners I see walking round with masks below their nose ,thinking they are being clever ,makes me his survey is not accurate. I've seen one particular guy twice walking round in Tesco with his  mask below his chin,no Thai staff challenging him. Or walking foreigners walking down Phrom Phong,mask in hand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AdamX said:

Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.

 

On a very basic level, those sacrificing their freedom for other people's safety are those wearing masks and locking down.

The blue light services, fire and rescue, life guard and coastguard, nurses and ambulance crews, the police and the military, on the other hand, sacrifice their freedom and their lives every day for other people's safety.

The idea that they "deserve neither" in return for that is probably the most despicable comment I've ever read here.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Australia we have four mask wearing personalities. I can't share images, so just use your imagination.                             1. Accepts Science - wears mask over nose and mouth closely 2. Denies Science - Doesn't wear a mask 3. Doesn't understand science - wears mask over mouth but not nose 4. Believes in magic - wears mask under chin (not covering either nose or mouth).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

Simple answer.

Vaccinations don't stop you getting or transmitting Covid.

They just reduce the severity (considerably) and transmissibility (arguably / variably).

Once enough people are vaccinated and have natural (post infection) protection then obviously it won't matter so much if people are infected so masks won't be necessary.

I think you've asked this before, and had the same answer.

I think the "clan" ask the same questions in turn to keep you busy ☺️

Unless it really goes above their level of comprehension.

Or they collectively suffer from short time memory loss.

All is a waste of time.

But 👍👍 for fighting the good fight 😉

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Stonker said:

On a very basic level, those sacrificing their freedom for other people's safety are those wearing masks and locking down.

The blue light services, fire and rescue, life guard and coastguard, nurses and ambulance crews, the police and the military, on the other hand, sacrifice their freedom and their lives every day for other people's safety.

The idea that they "deserve neither" in return for that is probably the most despicable comment I've ever read here.

Strawman!!

How exactly are the brave blue light services sacrificing their freedom? They gallantly chose to protect us, and in return we are forcing them to take a vaccine they do not want.

If we  actually cared about them, we would not support mandatory vaccines.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AdamX said:

Strawman!!

How exactly are the brave blue light services sacrificing their freedom? They gallantly chose to protect us, and in return we are forcing them to take a vaccine they do not want.

If we  actually cared about them, we would not support mandatory vaccines.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

No, anything but a "strawman".

They're "sacrificing their freedom" because while "they gallantly chose to protect us" that isn't open-ended and in return they have a right to expect those they're protecting to do their part, not to deliberately and unnecessarily put their lives at risk.

Doing things "they do not want" is an unavoidable part of the job and a condition when they sign up, voluntarily, whether it's for blue light services or the military, and that includes vaccinations whether it's Covid or pre-GW1 when all those who went had a mandatory, totally experimental vaccination that led to GWS. That's the choice they make.

7 hours ago, AdamX said:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

Benjamin Franklin

Agreed - but that's very different from "Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither" as you've ommitted that it's about "essential liberty", not open-ended, and  "a little temporary safety", not human lives.

His sentiment is laudable.

Your twisted version of what he said is despicable.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

No, anything but a "strawman".

They're "sacrificing their freedom" because while "they gallantly chose to protect us" that isn't open-ended and in return they have a right to expect those they're protecting to do their part, not to deliberately and unnecessarily put their lives at risk.

Doing things "they do not want" is an unavoidable part of the job and a condition when they sign up, voluntarily, whether it's for blue light services or the military, and that includes vaccinations whether it's Covid or pre-GW1 when all those who went had a mandatory, totally experimental vaccination that led to GWS. That's the choice they make.

Agreed - but that's very different from "Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither" as you've ommitted that it's about "essential liberty", not open-ended, and  "a little temporary safety", not human lives.

His sentiment is laudable.

Your twisted version of what he said is despicable.

My freedom is essential to me, and the vaccines are, as proven, only temporary protection.

And it seems like many hospital workers, fireman, pilots and policemen are leaving their jobs because they don't want to put their lives on the line taking a treatment that is being forced on them. 

Its despicable for you to force them to take a chance with their live when they already sacrifice so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 7:18 AM, AdamX said:

References for this assertion please.

Also,

Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.

That really is a total irrelevance. The freedom you are sacrificing in this case is the freedom to infect others.

Have you heard of "Typhoid Mary"? She was a carrier of Typhoid, who poisoned dozens of people in multiple case including at least three confirmed daeths. The cause of this was an asymptomatic infection in her gall bladder, which was easily treatable by removal of this non-essential organ. She refused to have the op, so she was detained in medical custody for the rest of her life. She exercised her freedom to refuse the treatment, and the NY health authorities were able to apply to the courts for her detention.

Do you think she should have the freedom to infect multiple unsuspecting persons? That is not "freedom". That is "Freedumb". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 7:21 AM, billywillyjones said:

Simple question.  Okay so masks are to protect eveyone from you so we should assume we all have Covid?  If you are vaccinated why would you have Covid?

You obviously have not been following the studies into vax efficacy. Sinovax, which is the most common vax in use in TH, has an efficacy rate of 55% of antibodies, and these deteriorate at the rate of 50% every 40 days. Thus after 4 months, the Sinovax antibody count is down to 3%. 

Even the Western Vaxxes, are not impervious to the Delta Variant, though just like masks they do improve resistance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 10:46 AM, Jason said:

In Australia we have four mask wearing personalities. I can't share images, so just use your imagination.                             1. Accepts Science - wears mask over nose and mouth closely 2. Denies Science - Doesn't wear a mask 3. Doesn't understand science - wears mask over mouth but not nose 4. Believes in magic - wears mask under chin (not covering either nose or mouth).

Not to disagree with you. I do understand the science, but am obliged to wear my mask under my nose, because of my glasses "fogging up". It takes less than a minute, and without my glasses, I have severe visual impairment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohninDubin said:

You obviously have not been following the studies into vax efficacy. Sinovax, which is the most common vax in use in TH, has an efficacy rate of 55% of antibodies, and these deteriorate at the rate of 50% every 40 days. Thus after 4 months, the Sinovax antibody count is down to 3%. 

Even the Western Vaxxes, are not impervious to the Delta Variant, though just like masks they do improve resistance.

I think he meant why you'd have Covid if you're vaccinated.

That is because the vaccine protects the vaccinated person from getting seriously sick or dying, but they can still carry the virus and transmit it to other people.

They know, see post #57693 ⬆️, but they keep asking the same question. That's why I blocked them and only see this in "quotes" 🤣

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

I think he meant why you'd have Covid if you're vaccinated.

That is because the vaccine protects the vaccinated person from getting seriously sick or dying, but they can still carry the virus and transmit it to other people.

They know, see post #57693 ⬆️, but they keep asking the same question. That's why I blocked them and only see this in "quotes" 🤣

Thanks. I did understand the question. As I read these matters, it appears that the anti-body count deteriorates in all vaccines, but none so rapidly as Sinovax. At present, it looks like we will need to take regular booster shots for the foreseeable future.

As for blocking those that spout rubbish, frustrating as it may be, I think this is far too important an issue to allow them to have the floor unopposed. I am sure that if Franklin in particular were alive today, he would protest vehemently at the twisting of his words in this case,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

That really is a total irrelevance. The freedom you are sacrificing in this case is the freedom to infect others.

Have you heard of "Typhoid Mary"? She was a carrier of Typhoid, who poisoned dozens of people in multiple case including at least three confirmed daeths. The cause of this was an asymptomatic infection in her gall bladder, which was easily treatable by removal of this non-essential organ. She refused to have the op, so she was detained in medical custody for the rest of her life. She exercised her freedom to refuse the treatment, and the NY health authorities were able to apply to the courts for her detention.

Do you think she should have the freedom to infect multiple unsuspecting persons? That is not "freedom". That is "Freedumb". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

In the example above, there is a clear and identifiable reason to detain for one person

Don't conflate this with the mass lockdowns we have now, which have no verifiable benefit, but plenty of quantifiable economic and health costs

To use the example of one person to justify removing the freedoms of everyone is straight out of tyranny 101

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

Thanks. I did understand the question. As I read these matters, it appears that the anti-body count deteriorates in all vaccines, but none so rapidly as Sinovax. At present, it looks like we will need to take regular booster shots for the foreseeable future.

As for blocking those that spout rubbish, frustrating as it may be, I think this is far too important an issue to allow them to have the floor unopposed. I am sure that if Franklin in particular were alive today, he would protest vehemently at the twisting of his words in this case,

I agree in part, but giving them a platform to repeat their claims many fold makes it more likely that others are influenced. That's the reason they keep interjecting everywhere with the same question that they know the answer to already... 😉 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use