News Forum - Thursday Covid Update: 7,982 new cases and 68 deaths

[palooka]

49 minutes ago, Griff1315 said:

I understand that Malc but these are whole villages being locked down no one in no one out. Maybe apart from the young girls heading back to Phuket and Pattaya to work in  the  incredible reopening.

Let's hope they got out before the infections hit.....

Thai villages are like the borders of Thailand extremely porous.

[Soidog]

12 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Thanks for the reply.

I don't doubt that you were posting on this issue long before I was even a member, but if you were reporting any data on excess deaths during my involvement, I did not see it. Had you done so, I would not have been in such a protracted debate with you.

That’s ok and no problem. As you will know, excess deaths is something the likes of Chris Whitty and Co were talking about over a year ago. It’s also something the was used to estimate real death rates during the surge in India where there simply wasn’t time to test dead people. 
 

Anyway. Main thing is that you and I and many others now know the real figures for Covid are being under reported. Having been around Thailand for many years I’m not in the least bit surprised. It’s the same with the 40 million “tourists” a year. The 6,600 tourist arrivals in the first two days in November. The 1% unemployment rate. The foreign reserves held by Thai Banks. The amount of rice they sell each year etc etc etc. They don’t lie, they just have alternative truths….

[Soidog]

30 minutes ago, Tjampman said:

This will all be estimates anyway, no country has exact reporting, some places just get closer to it than others.

Spot on comment. We could debate all year on the published numbers, but I’ll leave that for people who’s job it is. My only gripe is that because some countries do a lot of random testing (such as the U.K.) it makes some people believe the situation in the U.K. is worse than Thailand. Complete nonsense in my opinion. I don’t think Thailand will ever get as bad as the U.K. on respiratory viruses. The hot weather, the outdoor living and the less population density all work in Thailands favour. We see exactly the same thing in other parts of the world.  

[Stonker]

7 hours ago, Bob20 said:

Sorry, no.

You do not send vaccines to covid hotspots. You send vaccines to places before they become hotspots.

Once the cluster has formed you must contain, as vaccination will not take effect quickly anyway. You need other action to curb the spread.

The government have botched things at every opportunity.

They should have had a nationwide strategy, vulnerable people first, then the rest of the elderly etc. Prioritisation by risk, not by area and not by financial or political status.

Again: if a cluster forms, the people infected will get sick or die or recover with some natural immunity. They don't need the vaccine for a while.

Vaccines are not for treatment after the fact (not until natural immunity starts to wane). Vaccines are for prevention.

Sorry, YES, and @Jason is spot on.

It's fine to say "they should have had ..." but the problem is THEY DIDN'T.

The vaccines needed aren't for "treating" those infected but for trying to protect those not yet infected.

 There is no option of hitting a reverse button.

The options are to either:

i) Vaccinate the remaining 75% of the prison population who aren't yet infected in the hope that the vaccines will protect at least some of them ...

or ...

ii) to do nothing because "the government have botched things at every opportunity.

They should have had a nationwide strategy" yadda, yadda, yadda, so leave all the prisoners to take their chances.

... and you want option ii) ?????

 

[Stonker]

7 hours ago, Bob20 said:

Sorry, no.

You do not send vaccines to covid hotspots. You send vaccines to places before they become hotspots.

Once the cluster has formed you must contain, as vaccination will not take effect quickly anyway. You need other action to curb the spread.

(snip)

Again: if a cluster forms, the people infected will get sick or die or recover with some natural immunity. They don't need the vaccine for a while.

So by that logic since Chiang Mai is now a Covid hot spot, it's a waste of time vaccinating anyone in Chiang Mai.

Have you thought this through at all ???

[Griff1315]

50 minutes ago, palooka said:

Thai villages are like the borders of Thailand extremely porous.

40 positive cases now today so let's see if the figures reflect that tomorrow.

If gambling wasn't illegal I'd bet my house on them not ....

[Stonker]

6 hours ago, Bob20 said:

 

Since June to date, Thailand has been showing approximately 15-18% excess deaths compared to previous years. This equates to around an additional 6,325 death per month compared to previous years or an additional 210 per day. Over the last few weeks Thailand has been officially reporting approximately 70-90 Covid deaths per day. What is causing the missing 120-140 additonal deaths per day, if not Covid?

 

Do you have a link to show that additional 15-18% excess deaths since June?

I'm not saying it may not be correct, but you're saying this is actual verifiable figures, not an estimate.

[Bob20]

Yes Stonker, that is what the ATK's are for. To see who doesn't need a jab, while vaccines are in short supply.

You take the figure of 75% out of thin air and in such a closed environment as a prison, chances are high that a huge proportion is already sympomtomlessly infected. And on all those the vaccines are wasted (for the moment).

So you don't blanket vaccinate where you know a huge proportion doesn't benefit, without testing.

Chiang Mai is quite a different story from a closed prison.

If they had the vaccines, then they should have sent them earlier. But they still only sent 100.000 of the promised 700.000 after they first claimed CM was nearly fully vaccinated which was another blantant lie.

The stories all hang together with lies.

They should revert to PCR's in high numbers to detect the problem and to give a proper picture of the situation.

And they should use the ATK's, amongst others, to screen when the probability is high that people are already infected and not just blanket vaccinate as long as there clearly is a shortage still.

You know exactly how I've explained this numerous times before.

Edited November 4, 2021 by BigHewer
Provocative content removed

[Stonker]

55 minutes ago, Soidog said:

My only gripe is that because some countries do a lot of random testing (such as the U.K.) it makes some people believe the situation in the U.K. is worse than Thailand.

That's wildly misleading.

The UK does NOT "do a lot of random testing."

Far from it, the UK does virtually NO random testing since even when it claims to do so, such as in February and September, the sample isn't "random" however large it may be.

The "random" samples are all chosen from volunteers, so the one thing they're absolutely not, by any definition, is "random".

[Stonker]

2 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

You haven't changed your tone yet, have you? Maybe a few more reports will teach you?

I make a perfectly reasonable point, that the prisoners shouldn't just be hung out to dry, and that's your response?

3 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

You take the figure of 75% out of thin air

No I don't!

25% have tested positive in full testing of the prison population, as has been widely reported, so by rather elementary maths that means 75% have tested negative.

6 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

So you don't blanket vaccinate where you know a huge proportion doesn't benefit, without testing

They've been tested, @Bob20, as has been widely reported and as is reported every day!

So because 25% have already tested positive, screw the other 75% in jail?

Seriously?

Maybe you didn't see it personally so maybe in your view the testing didn't happen, but that's what's been reported.

9 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

We all know that you're a master in picking things apart when you're in the mood, but you know exactly how I've explained this numerous times before

Well, you've never suggested ditching all the prisoners before, Bob.

The view that 'the government should have done it before, so stuff the prisoners' is extraordinary even by your standards, so I'm hardly surprised your only response to justify it is personal abuse. 

[Bob20]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

Do you have a link to show that additional 15-18% excess deaths since June?

I'm not saying it may not be correct, but you're saying this is actual verifiable figures, not an estimate.

Not my quote, as clearly indicated in the post.

[Bob20]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

 

 

This is a forum where people can disagree without being disagreeable. Your overbearing tone as if everything you say is law, is not something I wish to deal with or visit for here.

My explanation by the way has nothing to do with it being a prison. But nice try to put those words in my mouth and give it that negative twist.

If you have 10.000 vaccines and you have two locations both of 10.000 people where they can go, one has 50% infected and one has 10% infected, that means you're going to waste more vaccines in the location where more people are already infected and do not benefit from the jabs.

Now if you have enough vaccines, you can afford to send them to both locations.

If not, you send them where they will have most effect.

You don't blanket vaccinate with clear higher wastage when there's a shortage of vaccines. 

Alternatively you test before vaccinating to exclude the positives. But still you don't blanket vaccinate.

If they had stock as they keep claiming with numbers of 178.2m doses plus donations for the year (which only has some 7.5 weeks to run) then they should have sent them earlier. You'd certainly expect them to have enough after the promise to jab 1m minimum per day starting 15 September, but they didn't live up to that either.

If, however, they don't have enough vaccines, then the fact that they should selectively use them where they have most effect is yet another less than preferable result of their earlier failings. But you don't waste what is in short supply. You use it for maximum effect. And in the case of vaccines that is not a location with already high infection rate, as the infected don't benefit and the ones not infected will benefit more from other immediate preventative measures than from a vaccine that will arrive after weeks and even then won't be effective for some considerable time yet, requiring other measures to be taken regardless.

 

[Stonker]

38 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

Not my quote, as clearly indicated in the post.

Since you didn't use the quote function or quotation marks it's impossible to tell who said what.

The only thing that appears increasingly clear is that despite all the claims about "evidence" and "data", no actual evidence or data that can be verified in any way or linked to seems to have been put forward at all, so essentially we're back to square one with speculation.

If that's incorrect, then maybe someone (anyone) could give a link to some genuine data - not just to someone saying that someone else said there was some that they'd seen from someone else, etc, etc.

[Bob20]

2 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Since you didn't use the quote function or quotation marks it's impossible to tell who said what.

The only thing that appears increasingly clear is that despite all the claims about "evidence" and "data", no actual evidence or data that can be verified in any way or linked to seems to have been put forward at all, so essentially we're back to square one with speculation.

If that's incorrect, then maybe someone (anyone) could give a link to some genuine data - not just to someone saying that someone else said there was some that they'd seen from someone else, etc, etc.

I don't see anything unclear in the reference at all.

[Stonker]

22 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

 

This is a forum where people can disagree without being disagreeable. Your overbearing tone as if everything you say is law, is not something I wish to deal with or visit for here

That's your view, @Bob20, and obviously you're entitled to it however tedious it is every time you keep repeating it as a precursor to any reply to me - and evidently a growing number here feel the same way about you and your posts.

Maybe it would do the forum and anyone interested in the topics a favour if we both just kept our replies on topic rather than personal, as I'll try to.

27 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

My explanation by the way has nothing to do with it being a prison. But nice try to put those words in my mouth and give it that negative twist.

The problem is that it has everything to do with it being a prison:

32 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

 

 If you have 10.000 vaccines and you have two locations both of 10.000 people where they can go, one has 50% infected and one has 10% infected, that means you're going to waste more vaccines in the location where more people are already infected and do not benefit from the jabs.

Now if you have enough vaccines, you can afford to send them to both locations.

If not, you send them where they will have most effect.

You don't blanket vaccinate with clear higher wastage when there's a shortage of vaccines. 

 

... and you're completely disregarding "it being a prison", as if the situations are similar, as if you're comparing Chiang Mai and, say, Hua Hin, when they're anything but.

Arguably  "you're going to waste more vaccines in the location where more people are already infected and do not benefit from the jabs", but only if you vaccinate those already testing positive which no-one has suggested  -  and assuming there's a roughly similar fatality rate (as discussed elsewhere, the fatality rate in prisons seems unusually low), then you're potentially going to save far,far more lives per dose in a prison than in Chiang Mai as there are far more options in Chiang Mai that are impossible in a prison.

Above all, in Chiang Mai, or any other 'normal' area, people can choose to socially distance, go home, live, exercise and sleep apart etc, not mix in large groups, take extra precautions with hygiene and so on, so limiting the spread of Covid even without vaccines.

In a prison clearly that's impossible. People are sleeping 20, 60 and 100 to a cell - they can't keep 20cm apart, let alone 2 metres.

They can't wash their hands when they want and be careful with the bathroom, as the 'bathroom' when locked in their cells is a couple of buckets.

That's the first and most obvious difference - far from it being "nothing to do with it being a prison", it's everything to do with it being a prison.

As if that wasn't bad enough, if as you suggest one area has 50% infected and one area only 10% infected, then those uninfected in the area that's 50% infected are obviously five times as likely to be infected so the vaccines are likely to be needed to do their job five times as much, with five times less "wastage".

1 hour ago, Bob20 said:

Alternatively you test before vaccinating to exclude the positives. But still you don't blanket vaccinate.

The prisons have already been tested to exclude the positives, who as far as possible are separated from those testing negative / yet to test positive.

Nobody, apart from you, has ever suggested vaccinating the positives - at least not until later.

1 hour ago, Bob20 said:

 

If they had stock as they keep claiming with numbers of 178.2m doses plus donations for the year (which only has some 7.5 weeks to run) then they should have sent them earlier. You'd certainly expect them to have enough after the promise to jab 1m minimum per day starting 15 September, but they didn't live up to that either.

If, however, they don't have enough vaccines, then the fact that they should selectively use them where they have most effect is yet another less than preferable result of their earlier failures.

What "should" have been done before is academic - this is about what should be done now.

1 hour ago, Bob20 said:

But you don't waste what is in short supply. You use it for maximum effect.

"Maximum effect" is reached where there's maximum threat and maximum need.

If five times as many around you are infected, the maximum effect is likely to be five times greater.

1 hour ago, Bob20 said:

And in the case of vaccines that is not a location with already high infection rate, as the infected don't benefit and the ones not infected will benefit more from other immediate preventative measures than from a vaccine that will arrive after weeks and even then won't be effective for some considerable time yet, requiring other measures to be taken regardless.

It most certainly is "a location with already high infection rates" because, again, it's all about it being a prison.

There's far more testing than outside, so the infected have been far better identified and are far better known so it's far easier to avoid vaccinating them unnecessarily - and they're far less likely to complain.

As for "other immediate preventative measures" such as social distancing, reducing group sizes, etc, and that's perfectly possible normally outside, what "preventative measures" other than vaccination can you take in a prison with 100 to a cell with a bucket for a toilet?

The only issue that raises is that prisoners should probably be a priority for Pfizer due to the reduced gap times for maximum efficacy.

As I said at the start, while your "explanation by the way has nothing to do with it being a prison", the problem has everything to do with it being a prison.

[Andrew Reeve]

Heated debate on this thread by several members and all have made their points and we are now going around in circles. The thread is now closed.

Etiquette – How to be “nice”!

We would like you to be civil, polite, and respectful in your interactions with other members. These guidelines can help you be a good member!

1.   We encourage and love debate but be courteous even when disagreement may be vigorous!

2.   The forum values and welcomes diverse opinions. So, it is likely you will come across opinions you do not agree with! It is fine to disagree with and challenge opinions, ideas, and facts. Attacking another member because their opinion differs, is not.

3.   Respect that each member is entitled to make personal decisions for themselves, and to have them respected, even if you think they are “driving the train to Loonyville”!