News Forum - Health Ministry warns people to get vaccinated or face possible restrictions

[9S_]

On 11/16/2021 at 9:11 AM, Russell said:

Well maybe this stupid government needs to face restrictions because I personally know of people who are not vaccinated yet because this government stuffed up with the ordering of Moderna vaccine and these people were told that it would be here in October and now it is November and there is only a small trickle of the vaccine has arrived here. My wife is on the list of Thonburi Medical Group and has paid for 2 injections to be administered at a local hospital but her queue number is 316,782 and there is only 36,000 doses allocated to this hospital so far. It is this government with the stuffing up of these vaccine orders that is causing a lot of this problem, so instead of threatening the people who are on waiting lists with restrictions get the vaccine and vaccinate the people.

I ended paying 3x more to get vaccinated. 3,000 for the initial one and 6,000 from someone who already got vaccinated with AZ

Even though I registered with those 2 websites I never received a follow-up appointment to get one. 

[mickkotlarski]

On 11/18/2021 at 3:04 PM, Bob20 said:

Just quickly:

According to the latest research there isn't much difference (if any) between the chance of transmitting the virus from or to a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. For catching and spreading the virus both are virtually the same.

The main difference is the risk to yourself.

When catching the virus, a vaccinated person has a much reduced chance of ending up in hospital and an even more reduced chance of dying.

We see this in the stats because most that end up in severe condition in hospital or die are the unvaccinated.

The other difference is that the unvaccinated claim to make their own choice, but lay the bill for the consequences at the door of society. Because they make an individual choice, for which we pay collectively. And while they fill hospital wards, others are faced with delays or cancellations of treatment.

In that, it is not much different from smoking etc. which increases chances of health problems, but for that at least they contribute extra in added taxes.

But are we as a society okay with someone's choice against a vaccine, to see them roam free and take their chances, and to then see them taking countless hospital beds preventing others from required care, and should society pay their hospital bill and medication, when the majority have taken the risk of the jab for the good of society (and themselves)?

These are difficult matters.

Personally I'm all for choice and not for forced vaccination. But in my opinion free choice comes with accepting the consequences of that choice.

Yes! The numbers back up these statements also. Right now Britain and Russia (among others) are experienced great numbers of people infected with covid19. Both see daily numbers over 35,000 folk affected but the UK has a far lower mortality rate as the % of vaccinated is much higher.

FYI. I/many have a new hope Bob. Its the AGO4 antivirus medications and vaccines being developed at Massachusetts General Hospital. It may be just a pipe dream but if the RNAi and micro RNA effector proteins works then this is when compulsory vaccination should be employed.

Fingers crossed mate. 

[mickkotlarski]

10 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

Great attitude! Just one small thing, some are not given under emergency approval anymore, but are fully registered and approved.

Ahh. Yes that is true...I stand corrected.

[Kwangsanith]

People seem to think vaccines are going to save them. In the US, the states with the HIGHEST vaccination rates also have the HIGHEST infection rates, e.g. Vermont and Colorado. Colorado is right next to Wyoming, which has one of the LOWEST vaccination rates and it also has among the lowest case rates/100,000 people. The CDC changed the definition of a "vaccine". It used to be defined as a drug that conferred IMMUNITY. ,but; the mRNA vaccines do NOT confer immunity, it only reduces symptoms. You can be vaccinated and still transmit Covid 19 to others. Natural immunity is far superior. The Public Health establishment is hiding a lot of information about the dangers of these experimental drugs to encourage people to get vaccinated. If they are so great, why do the Pharmaceutical companies insist on refusing any liability for harm caused by their product?. If you get vaccinated, you are exposing yourself to LONG TERM , UNKNOWN risks to mitigate symptoms of a virus that has a 1% mortality rate. If you do get Covid, there are alternative treatments that have been proven to work, but because these are off patent drugs, there is no money to be made. Why don't you hear about them? Because BIG Pharma and Bill Gates spend hundreds of millions of dollars on Media campaigns to promote vaccines and discredit cheaper alternatives. It's what they are NOT telling you that matters!

[Bob20]

13 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

Yes! The numbers back up these statements also. Right now Britain and Russia (among others) are experienced great numbers of people infected with covid19. Both see daily numbers over 35,000 folk affected but the UK has a far lower mortality rate as the % of vaccinated is much higher.

FYI. I/many have a new hope Bob. Its the AGO4 antivirus medications and vaccines being developed at Massachusetts General Hospital. It may be just a pipe dream but if the RNAi and micro RNA effector proteins works then this is when compulsory vaccination should be employed.

Fingers crossed mate. 

Unless we get to a vaccine that protects and reduces transmission, we won't even reach herd immunity.

For the foreseeable future, we will have to live with this virus. The vaccines will improve further and protect the ones that receive them to a high level.

The rest will have restrictions forced upon them. Not as discrimination, but to protect the health services and simply let them accept the consequences of their personal choice.

[mickkotlarski]

5 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

Unless we get to a vaccine that protects and reduces transmission, we won't even reach herd immunity.

For the foreseeable future, we will have to live with this virus. The vaccines will improve further and protect the ones that receive them to a high level.

The rest will have restrictions forced upon them. Not as discrimination, but to protect the health services and simply let them accept the consequences of their personal choice.

That's what I tried to explain to Shark. There is continual research in developing a vaccine that can prevent the spread. Some folk seem to take pleasure in disagreeing about this but until that happens covid is here to stay.

Agreed also about having to adjust to Covid but I'm concerned about punishing the unvaccinated. There may come a point when the protests happening globally and repercussions will hit home.

If people get denied employment, refused to be accepted in public facilities and discriminated against by some. Then mother democracy has taken a hit.   

 

[Bob20]

2 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

That's what I tried to explain to Shark. There is continual research in developing a vaccine that can prevent the spread. Some folk seem to take pleasure in disagreeing about this but until that happens covid is here to stay.

Agreed also about having to adjust to Covid but I'm concerned about punishing the unvaccinated. There may come a point when the protests happening globally and repercussions will hit home.

If people get denied employment, refused to be accepted in public facilities and discriminated against by some. Then mother democracy has taken a hit.   

I really don't see it as discrimination.

They call us reckless for taking the risk with a new vaccine and fear all sorts of ill effects. That is the risk we accept for the protection it gives and if in time we face consequences for that, so be it.

They refuse to take that risk, and will face the consequences of that choice just the same.

[mickkotlarski]

2 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

I really don't see it as discrimination.

They call us reckless for taking the risk with a new vaccine and fear all sorts of ill effects. That is the risk we accept for the protection it gives and if in time we face consequences for that, so be it.

They refuse to take that risk, and will face the consequences of that choice just the same.

My hope is the consequences don't go too far. Good point on the folk that supported the vaccines being called reckless. Just goes to show that all agreements can produce hard headed gits.

[Bob20]

1 minute ago, mickkotlarski said:

My hope is the consequences don't go too far. Good point on the folk that supported the vaccines being called reckless. Just goes to show that all agreements can produce hard headed gits.

I find that 3rd thumb quite handy actually

[JohninDublin]

On 11/16/2021 at 2:27 AM, Russell said:

What about the people on waiting list for their shots but because of this government stuffing the order up these people still have not been vaccinated but they have already paid cash for their vaccinations. Are they to stay off public transport and away from crowds of responsible people. Are you including them as your selfish ones.

I have sympathy or people who are in this position through no fault of their own, but suppose an exception was made for them? They represent exactly the same risk as those who refuse to be vaxxed. Wouldn't it be ridiculous to say two identical risk groups, "You are free to come in because even though it is not your fault that you are unvaxxed, because you want a vax" and to the other group, "You can't come in because you don't want to be vaxxed"?

[SkipsPa]

On 11/18/2021 at 8:04 AM, Bob20 said:

Just quickly:

According to the latest research there isn't much difference (if any) between the chance of transmitting the virus from or to a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. For catching and spreading the virus both are virtually the same.

The main difference is the risk to yourself.

When catching the virus, a vaccinated person has a much reduced chance of ending up in hospital and an even more reduced chance of dying.

We see this in the stats because most that end up in severe condition in hospital or die are the unvaccinated.

The other difference is that the unvaccinated claim to make their own choice, but lay the bill for the consequences at the door of society. Because they make an individual choice, for which we pay collectively. And while they fill hospital wards, others are faced with delays or cancellations of treatment.

In that, it is not much different from smoking etc. which increases chances of health problems, but for that at least they contribute extra in added taxes.

But are we as a society okay with someone's choice against a vaccine, to see them roam free and take their chances, and to then see them taking countless hospital beds preventing others from required care, and should society pay their hospital bill and medication, when the majority have taken the risk of the jab for the good of society (and themselves)?

These are difficult matters.

Personally I'm all for choice and not for forced vaccination. But in my opinion free choice comes with accepting the consequences of that choice.

As a newbie to this site I'm not sure whether a new topic might be discussed. I'm a 77-yr old male in England and have an inguinal hernia. This could be operated on but I'm reluctant to add more work on to the hospitals whilst they have the heavy burden that Covid has added.

[Artemis080]

7 hours ago, SkipsPa said:

As a newbie to this site I'm not sure whether a new topic might be discussed. I'm a 77-yr old male in England and have an inguinal hernia. This could be operated on but I'm reluctant to add more work on to the hospitals whilst they have the heavy burden that Covid has added.

Get it fixed? While your motives for delay are altruistic, successive governments underfund the NHS to exactly beneath what is actually needed no matter what. The pressure on health care services globally doesn't seem to easing anytime soon.

[Shark]

13 hours ago, mickkotlarski said:

Sorry but first statement doesn't make sense. Do you mean to say that research on a full proof non emergency vaccine will stop until every person on the planet is vaccinated? Or that mutations are only limited to non vaccinated? Physicians and researchers have mentioned that part of the mutation is the virus altering to combat vaccines. Vaccinated people have contracted the virus and spread it to others.

Perhaps i've wrote it a bit messy as I'm not a native speaker.
My point was that until people are vaccinated up-to a really high number (we're not there yet, I believe it's 99 or 98% due to some poor countries people won't travel to our from).

There was a statement made upon which I replied about vaccination that if we don't reach the high numbers 9x% people not vaccinating don't contribute to a better "get rid of covid-19 vaccine" it was after a statement that somebody wanted a vaccine that removes it completely, this will only happen if there are no new forms anymore, I lost upon which Greek alphabet letter we are now.

Do you understand me better now Mick? I hope so.
The rest of you post I agree with fully.

[Shark]

10 hours ago, Bob20 said:

For the foreseeable future, we will have to live with this virus. The vaccines will improve further and protect the ones that receive them to a high level.

this was my point too, people expecting one vaccine (or one dose of two vaccines) to prevent something for a lifetime which hasn't became stable yet (mainly due to anti-vaxxers) currently it's ~ 6-8 months after 2nd dose and there's no form that covers all letters of the Greek alphabet.

[AussieBob]

9 hours ago, Bob20 said:

I really don't see it as discrimination.

They call us reckless for taking the risk with a new vaccine and fear all sorts of ill effects. That is the risk we accept for the protection it gives and if in time we face consequences for that, so be it.

They refuse to take that risk, and will face the consequences of that choice just the same.

They estimated that 60-70% of the world's population caught the Spanish Flu in 3 years - which they estimate killed about 30-50 million people. Covid has so far killed 5 million people - and the reason it has not killed a lot more is the vaccines and the social distancing etc. With all the international travel these days, about 80-90% of the world's population are going to catch Covid, and just like the Spanish Flu it aint ever going to go away.  The choice is clear - do you want to catch it with or without being vaccinated (or do you really think you will be one of the 10-20%).  The fact is that you are going to catch Covid from another person - that is how viruses spread. Some do not want the vaccine/s, and that is their choice. But the majority do not want the increased risk of getting Covid from an unvaccinated person, and they dont want unvaccinated people spreading Covid in numbers too large for the medical systems to handle things.  This below is based on very anecdotal numbers - but it looks about right to me:

 

[AussieBob]

3 minutes ago, Shark said:

this was my point too, people expecting one vaccine (or one dose of two vaccines) to prevent something for a lifetime which hasn't became stable yet (mainly due to anti-vaxxers) currently it's ~ 6-8 months after 2nd dose and there's no form that covers all letters of the Greek alphabet.

Covid will be one day included within the annual flu vaccine - just like the Spanish Flu and its variations since the 1910s. 

[Shark]

2 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

Covid will be one day included within the annual flu vaccine - just like the Spanish Flu and its variations since the 1910s. 

Most likely this is the way forward or they find something to really work both of them as they're strange cousins to the gutter - Which would be great but again this would also depend on peoples willingness and that still remains very low.

[mickkotlarski]

4 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

Covid will be one day included within the annual flu vaccine - just like the Spanish Flu and its variations since the 1910s. 

Fauci is talking about 6 month boosters for Pfizer and Moderna. Every 2 months for J&J.

[Faraday]

13 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

Fauci is talking about 6 month boosters for Pfizer and Moderna. Every 2 months for J&J.

Have you got a link to that please, Mick?

[Shark]

20 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

Fauci is talking about 6 month boosters for Pfizer and Moderna. Every 2 months for J&J.

+ AstraZeneca is around this time too 6-8 months.

[Bob20]

1 hour ago, AussieBob said:

They estimated that 60-70% of the world's population caught the Spanish Flu in 3 years - which they estimate killed about 30-50 million people. Covid has so far killed 5 million people - and the reason it has not killed a lot more is the vaccines and the social distancing etc. With all the international travel these days, about 80-90% of the world's population are going to catch Covid, and just like the Spanish Flu it aint ever going to go away.  The choice is clear - do you want to catch it with or without being vaccinated (or do you really think you will be one of the 10-20%).  The fact is that you are going to catch Covid from another person - that is how viruses spread. Some do not want the vaccine/s, and that is their choice. But the majority do not want the increased risk of getting Covid from an unvaccinated person, and they dont want unvaccinated people spreading Covid in numbers too large for the medical systems to handle things.  This below is based on very anecdotal numbers - but it looks about right to me:

Although there were indications and some studies showing that vaccinated individuals spread the virus less, the latest research says that there is little difference.

So that isn't a reason to limit unvaccinated individuals in their movement any more than vaccinated ones.

The reason for now is really the fact that unvaccinated are overpopulating the hospitals, using all resources and blocking care for regular patients.

[mickkotlarski]

22 minutes ago, Faraday said:

Have you got a link to that please, Mick?

https://www.rt.com/usa/540907-fully-vaccinated-fauci-covid-boosters/

Hi Faraday. Link attached above. I also saw it on CNN.

I don't know how long this measure will take effect for but its the latest.

[mickkotlarski]

53 minutes ago, Shark said:

Perhaps i've wrote it a bit messy as I'm not a native speaker.
My point was that until people are vaccinated up-to a really high number (we're not there yet, I believe it's 99 or 98% due to some poor countries people won't travel to our from).

There was a statement made upon which I replied about vaccination that if we don't reach the high numbers 9x% people not vaccinating don't contribute to a better "get rid of covid-19 vaccine" it was after a statement that somebody wanted a vaccine that removes it completely, this will only happen if there are no new forms anymore, I lost upon which Greek alphabet letter we are now.

Do you understand me better now Mick? I hope so.
The rest of you post I agree with fully.

No problem. Point made.

[AussieBob]

48 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

Although there were indications and some studies showing that vaccinated individuals spread the virus less, the latest research says that there is little difference.

So that isn't a reason to limit unvaccinated individuals in their movement and more than vaccinated ones.

The reason for now is really the fact that unvaccinated are overpopulating the hospitals, using all resources and blocking care for regulate patients.

What I have seen is that the viral 'load' between vaccinated and unvaccinated is about the same. BUT those who are vaccinated catch it less frequently than those who are not, and those who are vaccinated clear the virus out of their system quicker than those unvaccinated. That is why vaccinated people spread the virus far less than unvaccinated - they get it less and they have it for less time - plus they get less sick than the unvaccinated.  It is not about the individual - it is about the herd - we are all better off if people are vaccinated. But mandatory is not acceptable - but exclusions are acceptable.  It is OK to exclude someone with a serious contagious disease - the rights of the herd over-rule the rights of the individual. 

[Bob20]

1 hour ago, Shark said:

this was my point too, people expecting one vaccine (or one dose of two vaccines) to prevent something for a lifetime which hasn't became stable yet (mainly due to anti-vaxxers) currently it's ~ 6-8 months after 2nd dose and there's no form that covers all letters of the Greek alphabet.

Morning Mr.Shark. As there likely will be other variants and vaccines don't necessarily work against future variants, just like with the normal flu, boosters with updated vaccines may well be the optimal choice. Chances that we will find a sterilising vaccine are small.

If you like to know more, this is an informative piece:

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer