toolpush

2 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

Once again, this law has been in place since long, long before 2015. 

Purachai Piemsombun , Thaksin's Interior Minister brought in this mandate circa 2001-2002 to supposedly cut down on school kids purchasing alcohol during school hours.

20 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

Thailand is the center of the world and when Mr Prayuth came in power he said that Thai was a world language... I have explained so many times that students should learn English because it used everywhere and on the internet, but the only response I get is speak Thai is better.....Refusing to participate in the lessons and never try to say a word English. 
I noticed that in the 15 years I am teaching English went downhill in speedtime...But I retire after this semester because the unwillingness of the students. Results are visible.. and than you have to watch DLTV when the Thai teachers teach English..... than you know no wonder...... 

The level of your English skills in your post may be an indicator of why your Thai students don't take you seriously?

The accumulator tank is waterlogged. There should be a head of air in the tank but it has depleted and water has taken it's place.. A quick fix is to shut off the pump, bleed off any pressure, drain the tank, restart the pump and away you go. There are several possible causes of it being waterlogged which I wont go into here. Best long term fix is to acquire an accumulator tank with an air bladder inside.

4 hours ago, kiteman9 said:

I rarely see anyone wearing a i-95 surgical mask which are the only masks that are supposed to work.

When everyone is virtue signalling, does the nature of the item being used to signal virtue really matter?

5 hours ago, tonray said:

Next time you go in for open heart surgery...I hope the surgeon and nurses don't follow your advice...cough, cough

Surgical masks are to prevent the doctors and nurses from infecting an open wound which is normally caused by bacteria which are an order of magnitude larger than virus's. Secondly I fail to see how a doctor not wearing a mask would infect a patient that would be wearing a breathing air mask with a respiratory covid virus.

Here is a link to an interesting study on wearing masks during surgery: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1853618/

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

You sure about that?

Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows

A large, randomized trial led by researchers at Stanford Medicine and Yale University has found that wearing a surgical face mask over the mouth and nose is an effective way to reduce the occurrence of COVID-19 in community settings.

It also showed that relatively low-cost, targeted interventions to promote mask-wearing can significantly increase the use of face coverings in rural, low-income countries. Based on the results, the interventional model is being scaled up to reach tens of millions of people in Southeast Asia and Latin America over the next few months.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html

How about this? https://fee.org/articles/new-study-casts-more-doubt-on-effectiveness-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-spread/

Or this? https://fee.org/articles/new-danish-study-finds-masks-don-t-protect-wearers-from-covid-infection/

14 hours ago, freedomnow said:

Yes, because wearing masks outside is not necessary with no data to back its use up.

 

But bah, lets make it a rule anyway...just bcoz.

There is no credible data to back up the use of masks inside either.........

16 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

It appears, after nearly two years of the dreaded COVID ERA, that there isn't an accepted standard of protocol and measures as to how it's been handled. 

Everywhere, it's all been approached differently - and everyone has had their share of mishandlings, ebbs and flows, surges and declines and noted positives - and surely shouldn't be looked upon in a cultural competitive mode, as in many instances it's perceive by way of a comparative and superlative race......and most of these notions have the usual fanciful manner in place. 

 

One thing to keep in mind: the nasty bug isn't political - it will always have an upper hand as long as we continue to see it as such. 

What we really should be fearful of are the convenient systems of establishment.

Sweden.....

2 hours ago, edgarfriendly said:

The genuine answer is it has zero to do with health & logic

Exactly. Follow the money. Ask yourself, who gains?

2 hours ago, Toolong said:

I don't wish to shift too much from the main issue here, which is essentially the possible imposition of restrictive & puntive social sanctions against those unvaccinated, but could someone just explain to me why I might be incorrect in thinking that if vaccinated people can still become infected with C19.....and if vaccinated people can still infect others with C19, why should it be assumed that UNvaccinated people are a particular risk to others? (A risk to themselves, yes.) It's a genuine query and I am happy to be shown up as having faulty logic or as being uninformed if that is the case. 

 

(I am fully vaccinated btw, but only cos I could see exactly this kind of s**t coming down the road.....and lo, here it comes.)

That is the 64 million dollar question; If the "vaccines" are effective, why are the un-vaccinated a threat to the vaccinated? If the un-vaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated then that implies that the "vaccines" are ineffective. If the "vaccines" are ineffective, why should the un-vaccinated get vaccinated?

6 hours ago, blackprince said:

As we all know, the overwhelming majority of research studies (97-99%) by experts in the field confirm man-made climate change and nowadays the overhwelming majority of the public agree. The small rump of deniers is unsurprisingly over-represented on these comments.

 

Just skimming through the comments it seems that one of the the key global issues and one that is very relevant to Thailand has not been mentioned yet - food security.

 

Being a major food producer and exporter Thailand is in a fortunate but also risky position as climate change affects food production and food security, but no where near as risky as certain nations who depend on food imports to survive and who lack the farmland to redeploy.

Apparently you haven't learned that the 97% number is bogus and has been disproven many times?