JCauto

He also can't figure out who he is responding to. Perhaps the brain fog from his bout of COVID is lingering.

Sigh. Look Mr Wikipedia, you are referring to a different poster. The clue is in the name of the poster whom you're responding to. I'm JCauto. You were responding to PremiumLane. Got it? Any comment on my points other than clutching at the one straw you have, that you understand the concept of natural immunity? Do you think natural immunity is perfect and prevents you from ever getting the virus again? Do you think it wears off as time goes on? What's your plan, get reinfected again? Do you have any comments on the relationship between hospitalization and mortality and being vaccinated versus unvaccinated? Or just prattle on about natural immunity while mistakenly identifying the poster? BTW, that indicates sloppiness and lack of fact checking, not the sort of thing one tends to get from proper scientists.

Thanks! You are making some assumptions, and as my old engineering professor used to say "assume makes an ass out of u and me". True that I opted for snark, because it's just too easy. Of course natural immunity exists, that was never in question. It's been shown however that it wears off, just like vaccines do, hence the boosters. So you're just going to keep getting the virus? How's the mortality and hospitalization rates for those vaccinated versus those not vaccinated? Or is that some sort of conspiracy to put out false information? All joshing aside, do yourself and the rest of us a favour and get the jab. While I love to make jokes here, getting COVID and dying on a ventilator is not in any way a fun or funny way to die. Passing on the virus to a vulnerable person who does is sad and unfair. Continuing to serve as a Petri dish for future mutations helps nobody.

Ah, right on schedule! Look at Mr Wikipedia here! Somebody's attained a Wiki Ph.D. after their YU M.Sc. - you know it's bad form to brag to us unedumacated folks after you attain such high distinction? Congrats on at least finding Wikipedia on your way to or from whatever quack anti-vax site you were "REseARChinG" - that's the pinnacle of knowledge to you, innit? Y'all would be amusing to play with except that you are likely infecting the unfortunate well-meaning friends and relatives who remember you from before you went off the deep end.

This cannot possibly succeed. They didn't form a committee!

Well, it's inconvenient to have to print your M.Sc. from YouTube University. Once they complete their research, they have a shot at the ultimate prize, the Herman Cain Award.

Oh, that time of the year is it? Yes...let's add to the pollution with a load of hot air! Blah blah blah. When you're one of the major producers of smoke from burning, and it isn't mostly smallholder farmers just trying to survive but instead is massive agricultural conglomerates, many of whom are well represented both within leadership and as funders of the Thai government, and who similarly undertake these sorts of investments and operations IN those neighbouring countries, the level of hypocrisy rises well above the toxic threshold. Give me a break. Looking forward to these committees pontificating meaninglessly as Chiang Mai chokes their way through March, April and May.

What is it they say about riding tigers? Good to see at least SOME consequence for this ***** for his meddling in democracy and paving the way for the coup. Not that you can ever truly catch an eel as slippery as this one. The Bangkok newspapers deserve a heaping helping of ***** as well for their enabling of this whole mess. They sure hated Thaksin (the legitimate choice of a strong majority of Thai citizens), and were determined to ensure the military stepped in to maintain the status quo. And of course, the better off people in Bangkok were A-OK with sacrificing their democratic rights in order to overturn the will of the rural people. Still waiting for a mea culpa on that one from a single one of these hypocrites.

Bit shocking really! I was expecting him to be "moved to an inactive post". Isn't that the usual harsh punishment for the boys in brown when they get caught no matter the crime?

You might "tent" towards the same sort of gullibility to misinformation. This hesitancy is the reason why we are almost back at square one again.

I've been amused by the survey fiction published by NIDA for years, but this one's a bit OTT. What's next? "NIDA survey finds 98% of Thai people would never charge more for Falang than Thai"? I'll put this with the "popularity of the current government" polls in terms of its accuracy.

I'll admit to browsing through only the first and last (page 6) pages of this topic, however I didn't see the main reason why Thai people don't speak English well (IMHO). That is quite simply that they don't want to lose face by making a mistake ("pood pid, seeah naa"). When I arrived as a volunteer I took 6 weeks of Thai language lessons and was astonished thereafter that even Chula or Thammasat university Masters grads would immediately stop attempting English when they heard my rudimentary Thai. When I asked why, this was invariably the reason given - you're not Thai, so you're not embarrassed to make mistakes and we don't care if you do, but we ARE Thai, and we ARE embarrassed to make mistakes speaking your language. Even after becoming friends and pressing them to use their English else it would never improve, this never changed. Admittedly this was a long time ago (late 80's, early 90's). I then moved to Cambodia and discovered I could hardly use my Khmer in Phnom Penh because the Cambodians were all extremely keen to improve their English since this was the ticket to NGO or UN jobs or selling stuff to Farang and thus the way out of poverty. They also had no "face" issues. Hence Cambodians tend to speak much better English than the Thai, at least in the major city. It's different in the countryside of course, but the same is true in Thailand for the most part.

You think they aren't already making millions out of the sex industry? Clearly the only thing preventing this from moving forward is that it would be TAKING away from what they are already making hence they have no interest in it.

I see an "inactive post" in this man's future.

Do I believe that everybody being vaxxed will kill off the virus? Yes, I do. Have you seen much Smallpox about lately? How about Polio? Why not? That you believe that nobody was developing mRNA vaccines before 4 months ago tells us everything we need to know about your knowledge and expertise.

This question or line of thought seems to be becoming relatively common even amongst some whom I know are otherwise sensible, so let's look at it clearly shall we? 1. Unvaccinated people are more likely to get the virus than vaccinated people. This is clearly true, and can be understood by the common person when you remember that those who are vaccinated and get the virus are classified as having gotten a "breakthrough" infection. That means that, despite the additional protection offered by the vaccine, it's not a 100% preventive and so even vaccinated people can get the virus. However, it is obvious that two identical twins - one vaccinated, one not - who are exposed to the same circumstances will have the unvaccinated one more likely to get the virus. Therefore, statistically, you ARE more likely to have the virus if you're unvaccinated with all other factors unconsidered. This is the main reason for restrictions. If you're a vector, I don't want you wandering around near me. In addition, if you DO get the virus, the unvaccinated are more likely to get long-haul COVID, have a longer time with the virus before recovery and have more serious impacts from the virus. This makes them a burden on the healthcare system and families who have to care for them and a higher risk because they're actively transmitting the virus for a longer period of time after getting it than the vaccinated are by virtue of their being able to recover more quickly and completely. 2. Unvaccinated people are more likely to behave with less caution in terms of getting or transmitting the virus. I would say that there are two camps of unvaccinated based on my observation. First are those who are genuinely concerned about the vaccine impacts on their personal health but who recognize that the virus is a serious health concern and take extra precautions (being especially careful about masking, avoiding crowds, maintaining social distancing etc.) knowing that they haven't got the vaccination to provide additional protection. Those people are not problematic because they're behaving in a way that protects themselves and others from what they recognize as a public health danger. With their behaviours and masking, they're not recklessly exposing others to the virus, although they're personally in more danger should they get infected despite their precautions. The second camp are the real problem - the "I know better than the scientists" crowd, the "muh freedumbs", the "vaccine-shedding", the "micro-chipping", the "sheeple" and the "whatabouters"...it's been a revelation to me that this group extends far wider and deeper than previously believed and includes people who ARE scientists and health professionals. However, as one who grew up in a medical family, it's actually not that unusual for health professionals to eschew what they know to be sound medical advice in favour of doing what they want despite the impacts. In these cases, there are usually two main reasons underlying those choices: (1) Political belief, (2) Personal convenience/pleasure, (3) Fatalism, (4) Susceptibility to conspiracy theory, and (5) Mental illness. These people have politicized a public health issue and are not willing to either consider other people's rights as being as valid as their own, or are basically of the opinion "we're all gonna die one day and this place is going to hell in a handbasket anyway" or have become influenced by deliberately targeted and malevolent social media to act as the "sheeple" they so despise. In addition, because of the politicization of the issue, these people are also now gathering with other like-minded individuals to promote their point of view, and of course not taking the pre-cautions to prevent transmission of the disease so are higher in actual exposure to the virus. These people are a real and present danger to the public. They are the reason for the restrictions and why, suddenly, after a lifetime of getting vaccinated, there are all of these internet experts "DoInG thEIr ResEARch" to tell us all about the science and epidemiology they haven't previously given a thought to for their entire existence. But of course without the grounding to understand a whit of it. The biggest problem is separating these two groups of unvaccinated people. Since there's no easy, obvious or scientific way to do so that is practical, unfortunately for the first group, they're going to have the restrictions imposed on the second group. Those restrictions are necessary to protect the rest of us who are complying with the public health mandates and practices. TL;DR: You are statistically more likely to be a danger to someone else in terms of transmitting COVID-19 if you are unvaccinated because your likelihood of getting the virus is higher and you're more likely to transmit the virus due to your views that have lead you to not get the vaccination. This is not universal behaviour among the unvaccinated, but in order to manage the virus practically, this group has to be treated uniformly in order to protect the majority of the population and, especially, the vulnerable.

As one of the billions of potential tourists who have been deemed "low quality", may I ask if that was the Thai Government's "inside voice" speaking again?

That's the sensible way to go about it. Don't talk to any of the thousands of actual expats who live in Thailand to find out how they might keep them here and attract similar sorts - have some senior Thai guys get together to figure out how to attract the sort of expats who don't and won't come to Thailand. Sure to bring about the expected result! Which is true, since the expected result is greasing of palms, drinking of expensive scotch and wine and cavorting about with attractive young ladies while "discussing" this difficult issue.

While you are correct in theory, in practice one tends to learn about sex from one's peers, generally in the single digit age bracket. These are not the most well-informed and experienced people to learn from. However, they're by far the most likely to broach the subject and expound upon it at that age. Parents have many delusions about their influence, it's actually less than you think.

As to the gals... 1. Vietnam 2. Singapore 3. Thailand 4. Vietnam 5. Cambodia

Where are the Gui (Suay) people in that ethno-linguistic map? I guess subsumed within the surrounding populations like they've been for thousands of years... There remain numerous pockets in Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, but they're doomed to fade into obscurity even faster than the highland peoples.