News Forum - COVID-19 SUNDAY UPDATE: Vaccinations, provincial totals

[Thaiger]

Today, the CCSA reported 7,079 new Covid-19 infections, up 22 since yesterday, and 47 Coronavirus-related deaths, down 8 from yesterday. Since April 1, in the latest wave of the virus in Thailand, a total of 1,989,547 confirmed Covid-19 infections have been reported. In the 24 hour period since the last count, the CCSA has reported 6,917 recoveries, down 476 from yesterday. There are now 95,528 people currently receiving treatment for Covid-19, up 115 from yesterday, including 1,808 in the ICU and 425 on ventilators, figures that have mostly been dropping each day. Of the new Covid-19 infections, 171 were found […]

The story COVID-19 SUNDAY UPDATE: Vaccinations, provincial totals as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Jason]

I'm impressed! Vaccination stats and everything! 

[JohninDublin]

My guess is that TAT is providing these figures using a random number generator.

Take a look at the vax numbers on this thread, and then take a look at the "reported" figures here: https://covidvax.live/en/location/tha and I can't see any figures that are duplicated.

[Guevara]

20 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

My guess is that TAT is providing these figures using a random number generator.

Take a look at the vax numbers on this thread, and then take a look at the "reported" figures here: https://covidvax.live/en/location/tha and I can't see any figures that are duplicated.

Surely John you are not suggesting TAT would massage, manipulate or manufacture the figures 555

[JohninDublin]

5 minutes ago, Guevara said:

Surely John you are not suggesting TAT would massage, manipulate or manufacture the figures 555

Not at all. I am suggesting that all figures supplied by TAT, are produced by a random number generator. They probably have two machines. The one used for tourism has an extra couple of digits (hahaha)

[semrand753]

 

What is the source used for the vaccination data? (I know it's "DDC", but I mean the actual link.)

I can imagine how vaccine stats for the last couple of days may be subject to real-time updates, but all vaccine stats (4-13 nov) published in this article are slightly higher than what the DDC publishes via https://ddc.moph.go.th/vaccine-covid19.

NB: the differences are marginal so it's in no way a a big deal; however there are people who might claim this is "proof" of nefarious data-dodging/manipulation on some side (be it news outlets or government branches), so it's good to be clear about sources.

BTW: section "สำหรับบุคลากรทางการแพทย์ > สถานการณ์การฉีดวัคซีนโควิด 19 ประจำวัน" of the above link is updated daily (& historical data available!) and gives nice break-downs to provinces (and even vaccine types and age groups).

 

[MikeW]

The junta is keeping the southern provinces locked down with curfews when Bangkok has way more new cases. More military control 

[Stonker]

10 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

My guess is that TAT is providing these figures using a random number generator.

Take a look at the vax numbers on this thread, and then take a look at the "reported" figures here: https://covidvax.live/en/location/tha and I can't see any figures that are duplicated.

Not "duplicated",@JohninDubin, but very, very similar - for example numbers fully vaxxed here are shown as 36,592,056 while your link showed that as 36, 573,200+ so a marginal difference.

The problem is how they're shown here - you're blaming the wrong people.

Read them in the original, and read them carefully here, and they show that:

i) 45,250,758 have had one jab or more.

ii) Of those, 36,592,056 have had two jabs or more (fully vaccinated).

iii) Of those, 2,820,231 have had three jabs or more.

Alternatively:

i) 8,658,702 have had one jab

ii) 33,771,825 have had two jabs

iii) 2,820,231 have had three or more jabs.

Those are within around 0.1% of any other figures, such as those in your link.

The problem isn't the government figures or the DDC but it's Google translate / Google re-write or whoever's producing the figures here in the format they are.

[JohninDublin]

19 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Not "duplicated",@JohninDubin, but very, very similar - for example numbers fully vaxxed here are shown as 36,592,056 while your link showed that as 36, 573,200+ so a marginal difference.

The problem is how they're shown here - you're blaming the wrong people.

Read them in the original, and read them carefully here, and they show that:

i) 45,250,758 have had one jab or more.

ii) Of those, 36,592,056 have had two jabs or more (fully vaccinated).

iii) Of those, 2,820,231 have had three jabs or more.

Alternatively:

i) 8,658,702 have had one jab

ii) 33,771,825 have had two jabs

iii) 2,820,231 have had three or more jabs.

Those are within around 0.1% of any other figures, such as those in your link.

The problem isn't the government figures or the DDC but it's Google translate / Google re-write or whoever's producing the figures here in the format they are.

I've been looking at "reported" figures, which I would presume should match up.

[davedavies0000]

So pleased to have a realistic breakdown of figures , COVID is real for all of us not just the key provinces.

[Stonker]

7 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

I've been looking at "reported" figures, which I would presume should match up.

Well, the " "reported" "  figures in your link DO "match up" with the figures from the DDC, at least to a 99.9% match.

For example 36,592,056 from the DDC vs 36,573,200+ from your link for fully vaxxed. They're never going to match exactly as it depends on what the sources are and when and how they get their data - again, for example, your link is constantly changing as it receives more information and is updated as it was being last night at 3 in the morning when I read it, hence the "200+" as the numbers were going up every second although obviously no-one was being vaxxed at the time.

Obviously there are going to be differences unless they're all taken at the same point in time from the same source, but within 99.9% identical from all sources shows beyond much reasonable doubt that they're about as accurate as it gets anywhere in the world, and far from "random generated", however much it suits some agendas to constantly suggest they are.

[JohninDublin]

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well, the " "reported" "  figures in your link DO "match up" with the figures from the DDC, at least to a 99.9% match.

For example 36,592,056 from the DDC vs 36,573,200+ from your link for fully vaxxed. They're never going to match exactly as it depends on what the sources are and when and how they get their data - again, for example, your link is constantly changing as it receives more information and is updated as it was being last night at 3 in the morning when I read it, hence the "200+" as the numbers were going up every second although obviously no-one was being vaxxed at the time.

Obviously there are going to be differences unless they're all taken at the same point in time from the same source, but within 99.9% identical from all sources shows beyond much reasonable doubt that they're about as accurate as it gets anywhere in the world, and far from "random generated", however much it suits some agendas to constantly suggest they are.

I think you are missing my point. When you look at the figures on Worldometers, they do match up. 

Whatever the reasons for the discrepancies, I am not getting into another game of ping-pong with you.

[Stonker]

3 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I think you are missing my point. When you look at the figures on Worldometers, they do match up. 

Whatever the reasons for the discrepancies, I am not getting into another game of ping-pong with you.

Not missing it, but I just don't know what your point is. Thailand's figures for vaccines match those on any recognised site by 99.9% - including the site you chose yourself!

[JohninDublin]

16 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Not missing it, but I just don't know what your point is. Thailand's figures for vaccines match those on any recognised site by 99.9% - including the site you chose yourself!

Two points here: 

My original post: 

 

My guess is that TAT is providing these figures using a random number generator.

Take a look at the vax numbers on this thread, and then take a look at the "reported" figures here: https://covidvax.live/en/location/tha and I can't see any figures that are duplicated.

What part of that are you determined to "correct"?

The other, my previous post to you: 

"Whatever the reasons for the discrepancies, I am not getting into another game of ping-pong with you".

What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Stonker]

12 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Two points here: 

My original post: 

My guess is that TAT is providing these figures using a random number generator.

Take a look at the vax numbers on this thread, and then take a look at the "reported" figures here: https://covidvax.live/en/location/tha and I can't see any figures that are duplicated.

What part of that are you determined to "correct"?

Well ... umm ... all of it.

The figures are 99.9%+ identical.

Any 0.1% disparity, if that's your problem and you think a "random number generator" would somehow come that close, every time, is because they're taken from different sources at different times.

17 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

The other, my previous post to you: 

"Whatever the reasons for the discrepancies, I am not getting into another game of ping-pong with you".

What part of that do you not understand?

I understood all of it - but evidently that isn't correct either .

[JohninDublin]

It's either right or it's wrong. 99.9% is not 100% so therefore both figures cannot be right. I think sensible people would say that "these figures are not duplicated", which was my point. But you in your own, "I can never be wrong" style want to make an issue of the accuracy of my post even though it is correct. You really need to get a better hobby.

Then in spite of the fact that you are clearly wrong, you resort to your No 1 ploy: Saving face; Save face with your tedious game of ping-pong somewhere else. You are going on my ignored list for the duration. I've been down this road with you before. I've not forgotten how you cropped a US State Department website text, that contradicted the wrong claims you made then. I told you I wasn't interested but you can't be seen to lose face. Hence your resorting to such ludicrous posts.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

It's either right or it's wrong. 99.9% is not 100% so therefore both figures cannot be right. I think sensible people would say that "these figures are not duplicated", which was my point. But you in your own, "I can never be wrong" style want to make an issue of the accuracy of my post even though it is correct. 

Well, no, both can very easily be "right" if they're taken at different times and / or based on different returns.

... and I think "most sensible people" would say that if the numbers are 99.9% consistent then they're clearly not "random number generated", which makes your comment  obviously ... well ... umm ... anything but "correct" .

I was simply trying to be helpful since you seemed unable to understand the figures, so I tried to explain them in a way that was as easy to understand as it was to verify.

I'm sorry if that's apparently somehow upset you so much, but you seem to be getting upset with a lot of people that don't agree with you lately.

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

Then in spite of the fact that you are clearly wrong, you resort to your No 1 ploy: Saving face; Save face with your tedious game of ping-pong somewhere else. You are going on my ignored list for the duration. I've been down this road with you before. I've not forgotten how you cropped a US State Department website text, that contradicted the wrong claims you made then. I told you I wasn't interested but you can't be seen to lose face. Hence your resorting to such ludicrous posts

It takes two to ping-pong .

(and no "cropping" of US State Dept posts on my part, BTW )