nkg

There's no point in buying electric tuk-tuks or motorbikes with gas prices as cheap as they are. Tuk tuks get about 80 mpg. With gas prices at 40 baht/litre, you are talking 1 baht per kilometer - a small fraction of what you can charge your passenger for a journey.

ICE tuk tuk parts are cheap, repairs are cheap, gas is cheap and available everywhere. There is zero economic reason to buy small electric vehicles for now.

Just to clarify, I'm a fan of electric cars and trucks, where the economics of ownership make a lot more sense.

14 hours ago, webfact said:

The Thai Hotels Association is urging the government to come up with measures to promote domestic tourism

Oh yeah, I'm sure some domestic tourism will make up for the 20% of GDP lost when the farangs stopped coming.

Maybe they'd like to drop the requirements for a compulsary 2 week hotel stay, 4 PCR tests and the lucrative Thai covid insurance?

10 hours ago, Jimbo2014 said:

Its the same.  India had international agreements and broke them and the world understood because people were dying.  They were supposed to be a hub of production.  Same will be for Thailand if the powers that be can give up the tea money that comes with international sales.  No-one will think the worse of Thailand.  These are extraordinary times.  In any case I posted my original post with reference to India as a precedent.  I felt your rebuttal was harsh given my reference to an identical precedent.  

That's an interesting point. Thailand could certainly use India's actions as a bargaining tool. "Let us keep more of our production, or we'll stop exporting just like India did.".

Now that the rush to vaccinate the Europe and North America has ended, demand for AZ vaccine must have slowed considerably. But the factories are still churning it out 24/7. Who are these new supplies going to? Thailand could use their status as SE Asia's AZ supplier to negotiate for some European manufactured vaccines.

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

And how will that ease infection rates?

 

Why a doctor would not want to ease infection rates is beyond me.

 

My question stands.

 

So I repeat, how does the doctor think ending lockdown restrictions will slow/ease the spread of the virus?

 

My question was how will ending lockdowns ease infection rates.

 

However that does not answer the question I posed.

 

It’s not the one I asked.

 

The point about vaccination is one I agree with but it was not the one I questioned.

 

How does any of that relate to the question I asked? How, in the middle of rising numbers will ending lockdowns ease infection rates?

 

However that was not my point; I asked how ending lockdown in the midst of record rising numbers would ease infection rates.

 

None of which has anything to do with the question I raised about how an end to lockdown at this point will ease infection rates.

 

And how we learn to live with covid 19 has nothing to do with the point I raised asking how ending lockdown in the midst of rising numbers will ease infection rates.

Yes, we get it Bluespunk. Maybe nobody is interested in answering the one question that you've fixated on. Maybe other people want to broaden the debate.

36 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

How does any of that relate to the question I asked?

 

How, in the middle of rising numbers will ending lockdowns ease infection rates?

Ending lockdowns won't ease infection rates. It wouldn't have much of an effect either way. It might help alleviate hunger and poverty amongst the poorest of Thailand, though.

Quote

Hunger rife among Thai poor as Covid-19 batters economy. Starvation a looming prospect for millions driven to the edge of dire poverty

https://www.ucanews.com/news/hunger-rife-among-thai-poor-as-covid-19-batters-economy/89639#

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Ah ngk the master of abuse when can’t answer points made. 
 

My question was how will ending lockdowns ease infection rates. 

You seem very thin-skinned today, Bluespunk ???? The doctor's point was that the vaccine program is far more important than lockdowns.

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Asking questions is criticism? My but you are thin skinned. 
 

Why a doctor would not want to ease infection rates is beyond me. 

Ah Bluespunk, master of the facile comment ???? Anyone who questions something that you say must obviously be "thin-skinned" ????

You didn't answer my question last time. What do you suggest that Thailand do that would be more effective than buying more vaccines? You seem to be very knowledgable about "easing infection rates".

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

And how will that ease infection rates?

 He didn't claim to be trying to "ease infection rates". Don't you agree with him that getting more vaccines is more important than ineffective lockdowns?

I like how you criticize what he says without making any alternative suggestion of your own.

45 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

No I am looking above that. Of course these things are important but the rest of Thailand seems to have missed out whilst the focus was on a face saving exersise to show that Thailand is ready to open up. Economic gain and in reality not that much and in the end will have caused more hardship for the population and economy as a whole. 

Yes, as always in Thailand face-saving is involved. In March 2021 when the "sandbox" was announced, Thailand had less than 100 total deaths. Vaccinations were a minor issue.

The Phuket Sandbox is just a trial. It hasn't been a financial success, but it has shown that vaccinated foreigners aren't a danger to Thailand.

Thailand can't simply drop their restrictions on tourism until they have enough data to show that it is safe to do so.

6 hours ago, Scrotobike said:

Sorry - was this for me? "For whatever reason, you're happy that there are less foreigners in Thailand than normal. Not as much competition at your local bar, eh?" 

 

1. Bars are closed

2. No bars where I live that I would go to

3. I care about the death of old (venerable) Thais who should have been vaccinated instead some young healthy person. I think old people are no less valuable than young, in most cases they are more valuable. 

A large proportion of people who post on this forum are pleased that there aren't many tourists in Thailand. That's great, unless you're one of the millions of Thais whose livelihoods have been destroyed.

Suicides are way up, record numbers of homes have been repossessed, millions of Thais who have worked hard all their lives have lost everything.

2 minutes ago, Scrotobike said:

In the UK this is called spin (Malcom Tucker for you Brits)

 

"Thailand on Wednesday (August 11) reported 21,038 new COVID-19 cases and 207 additional deaths over the past 24 hours."

 

My spin - and 207 (mostly/partly) avoidable deaths had decent vaccines been given to the sick and elderly instead of the other "priorities" including the litter box (oops I mean sand box).

 

The total number of vaccines sent to Phuket represent less than 1 day's vaccinations in Thailand.

For whatever reason, you're happy that there are less foreigners in Thailand than normal. Not as much competition at your local bar, eh?

How on earth do they think that 1,000,000 people are not already jobless? Thailand has 70 million people, are we really supposed to believe that less than 1/70 Thais are unemployed?

5 hours ago, chang1 said:

I think I  can disagree with everything you say. 

You don't need to increase volume or prices to make money, only to make more money and neither is certain to do that. Increasing prices may end up reducing volume giving a net reduction. Increasing volume may require dropping prices giving a net reduction. 

Forcing people into 5 star hotels may cut down visitors drastically reducing net spending. Making small guest houses SHA+ compliant could encourage many backpackers to come which would help the poorer locals far more and give a larger net spend.

How does the sandbox affect the rest of the country adversely in any way apart from diverting an insignificant amount of vaccines?

How would tourists and others not going to Phuket help the rest of Thailand?

Finally - would you give up your first holiday in 2 years and give the money away thus ensuring another year stuck at home? I think you can guess what I  think about that  idea. If I  was not here in Phuket now all that money would have gone to Greece instead of Thailand. Maybe you should canvass the locals here in Karon about what they think of your ideas.

There are several SHA+ hotels priced at under 10,000 baht for 14 nights. 600 baht/night is not expensive.

There isn't much point in opening all the hotels when tourist numbers are 100 times lower than normal.

16 minutes ago, kimamey said:

Although some Thais will be returning from overseas I would imagine that most who have contracted covid are Thais travelling domestically or residents. The requirements for domestic arrivals were far less stringent than for international visitors although the rules have changed now. It seemed obvious to me that the original requirements would lead to more Thais bringing covid from the rest of Thailand than international visitors from the rest of the world given the stricter rules.

 

One thing to remember is that there will be more Thais than non Thais on Phuket so we really need to be looking at percentages as well as raw numbers.

Your reasoning seems valid. However, I thought that domestic arrivals didn't need to do any kind of quarantining? They just had to show a week-old test result or proof of vaccination, and then they could roam the island freely?

I didn't think that domestic arrivals counted as part of the "sandbox" experiment, since they didn't have to stay in SHA+ hotels or do further PCR tests.

13 hours ago, sallecc said:

What? Of all 15k Sandboxers, only 2 foreigners tested positive, and the rest 34 infected were all Thai, how come such big difference? I remember last year Thais didn't need a test abroad before a flight to Thailand, is that still the case?

Correct - those numbers are astonishing. Why are Thais 10-20 times more likely to test positive than foreigners, considering they are supposed to be following the same rules?

I'd be interested to know the reason why.