richard_smith237

This sort of idiocy belongs in an 'off the beaten path - flat earther' thread... To 'imply' that pools might be more unsafe than open water due to perception is utterly preposterous.... To 'imply' that pools are dangerous because one might bang their head into the side is beyond preposterous... its truly astonishing that an idea even enters the mind... yet it offers an insight as to the deluded nonsense of some.

I'm not entirely sure how far the news about legal marijuana in Thailand has actually spread - it's still a fairly recent development. Some younger travellers I know - friends and family - were genuinely surprised to learn it was legal when they visited. That said, none of them were particularly interested in it anyway, so it just wasn't on their radar to begin with. Maybe there's a degree to which cannabis culture is attracting the wrong crowd - and it only takes a few to shift perceptions. But let's be honest - it's alcohol and hard drugs like yaba that are causing the real problems the media latch onto. It's the 'Benidorm' crowd getting into fights, or the first-time meth user wandering naked down the street. Thailand has always attracted a certain element - and probably always will. The real point is that the country is drawing more tourists than ever, and when you chase mass tourism, consequences like this are bound to follow.

Somewhat more expensive now though.. That was actually the price for a Deluxe Garden Villa for our next visit... Koh Chang is not an option though, its too far for a long weekend. The price of 4000 baht is reasonable given the standard of accommodation, quality of beach and pool etc. Place is ideal for those with kids. The last time we were there it took 7.5 hours to get back to Bangkok - thats just too long.

Only if their parents were averse to having their kids bump their heads on the concrete of pools. Such oddness in every post... Is there any parent ever, who would have their child swim in the sea because a child 'could' bang their head when making a turn in a pool ??? .... honestly... some of the most idiotic bumf I ever read comes from this poster who's managed to convince himself he's smart !!... such delusion really leaves one wondering.

A comment such as this really leaves the mind boggling - the disconnect with reality is astonishing. The probability is zero if you look where you are going !!!... I used to swim a lot, competitively in younger years, and I can honestly say, the risk of bumping my head at the end of the pool is zero...

Thai immigration officers may not be overflowing with warmth, but they’re certainly not ogres either. Like immigration staff anywhere in the world, they tend to be indifferent - which is completely understandable given the mind-numbing nature of the job. Sitting there for hours on end, stamping passports, would drain anyone of the will for small talk. Personally, I’ve had very few negative experiences entering Thailand - or anywhere else, for that matter. There was one instance of an overzealous officer misapplying the rules, but nothing dramatic. On the flip side, I’ve had the occasional pleasant surprise: once, a charming female Immigration officer in Thailand recognised me from a previous visit and struck up a friendly conversation. I’ve had similarly positive encounters elsewhere - once in the UK and again in the UAE, where the officer invited my son into the booth to stamp our passports; a nice human moment. But, for the most part, the experience is defined by quiet, disinterested efficiency. And honestly, that’s about all we should expect.

Agreed... This has nothing to do with permission of stay, and everything to do with the fact that certain percentage of any society is an idiot when drunk and they too are permitted to travel along with anyone else.... It really isn't any more complex than that.

Indeed it is, which is why we've stayed there before... 4000 baht per night for the Deluxe Villa's

Slightly different... But, are there any 1000 Baht hotels, that have a pool and on the beach ? Koh Samet, Koh Chang, Rayong, Jomtien, Phuket, Hua Hin ?? - Anything acceptable in those area's starts at at least 3000 baht per night... 4500 baht a night is a good deal (relatively).

My thoughts exactly... The BMW was not parked in 'regular condo parking'... rather is was parked outside the Condo, in much the same manner a visiting 'guest' may park... the owner [of the BMW] also returned to their car at 02:30am, which suggests he was 'leaving'... which also indicates he had been 'visiting someone'.... First steps... Find out what car the new GF's ex drives !!!!

100% agree - what tourist has ever genuinely expressed concern about marijuana being available for those who want it? Absolutely none. As you rightly pointed out, it’s just manufactured outrage, whipped up for media sensationalism. People will take it at face value simply because it appears in an article, which is absurd. Nonsense like that shouldn’t even be given oxygen.

As far as Beach holidays are concerned - Malaysia doesn't have the same standard compared to Thailand. Penang is a bit of a hole.... only the beaches up north on Batu Ferrengi are ok. Langkawi is good - often overlooked but worth a visit, often awkward to get to. Tioman island is nice - very local small feel, very awkward to get to, for the same effort, there are lots of Thai Islands that are better. On the mainland Malaysia, the beaches are very poor, much like the south east coast of Thailand. As a City break, KL is a very good visit, Bangkok is much better for tourists. After the towers, Merdeka square and Batu-caves - there's not much to see in KL. Nightlife is limited - Bangsar. Thailand has a lot more to offer than Malaysia: If Tourist want more civilisation than Thailand, Singapore is close enough for that high end city break, for Beaches and the 'holiday vibe', Thailand just does it better.

Exactly what we do... When we holiday in Thailand, we tend to opt for a known quantity - a certain standard, beachfront location - which usually means significantly higher prices than the 800 Baht rooms people have mentioned. More often than not, we stick with international hotel chains we trust, where we can count on a consistent level of service, cleanliness, and room quality. We've tried renting villas in the past, but after a couple of misadventures, we’ve steered away from that option- it just feels like too much of a gamble. The article makes a fair point: Thailand has undeniably become more expensive. A beer that once cost 120-160 baht is now closer to 180-220 Baht in popular places (decent bars, clubs etc). Hotels that used to be 3,500–4,000 baht a night are now running 5,500 to 7,000 baht for the same rooms. That said, the places are still full - ultimately, the market decides. Two-tier pricing is a different issue altogether. It’s not universal, but where it does happen, it leaves a sour taste for tourists. Understandably so. Thailand can still be inexpensive at the lower end - basic air-conditioned rooms, street food, that kind of thing -but that’s not really our scene, especially when travelling as a family. When I was planning a getaway this April, I actually considered Vietnam given the rising prices in Thailand. But we ended up finding a good deal at a travel fair and stuck with Thailand - it was just easier, especially since we had the car. Hotel dining and mini-bar prices have always been steep in mid-to-upmarket hotels. We usually ask staff to clear the mini-bar and then make a quick trip to 7-Eleven - stocking up on wine, craft beers, soft drinks, and snacks to fill the fridge ourselves. Simple and sensible. We’re planning another trip in a couple of months, and it’ll have to be in Thailand since we’ll be travelling with several Thai families. Convenience is key - so we’re looking for somewhere drivable, beachfront, with a large pool for the kids and good restaurants nearby. When you put all those boxes together, it almost always points to an international chain. No one wants surprises, and that’s exactly what the big names offer: consistency, reliability, and peace of mind - unfortunately the price for that peace of mind is increasing. Hopefully there is another travel fair or the rao-tiew-duay-kan promo's (which offer great discounts for Thai's so the Wife can get it).

I watched this video a few days ago - The manner in which the driver nonchalantly smokes in front of the BiB and acts with arrogant petulance is quite insulting... ... He should have been locked up just for his disrespect....

The puritanical 'outrage' is rather hypocritical IMO: I always thought the 'consensus' was the other way round in area's such as Phuket and Pattaya.... Whereby the foreigners are actively targeted. Conversely, elsewhere in Thailand, the BiB aren't interested in foreigners anymore than Thai's - but, anywhere in Thailand, money talks and thats neither specific to foreigners or Thai's.

Not quite... The claim that independent researchers have unanimously concluded, based on VAERS and EudraVigilance data, that COVID-19 vaccinations should be halted is not supported by the broader scientific consensus. While some groups, such as the World Council for Health, have called for a halt to COVID-19 vaccinations based on their analyses of pharmacovigilance data, these views are not representative of the scientific community at large. The majority of independent researchers and public health authorities continue to support COVID-19 vaccination, emphasising that the benefits outweigh the risks. For instance, the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) states that real-world data from billions of administered doses show that vaccines have a very good safety profile. https://www.icmra.info/drupal/en/strategicinitiatives/vaccines/safety_statement Thus, while there are isolated calls for halting COVID-19 vaccinations based on interpretations of VAERS and EudraVigilance data, these are not unanimous among independent researchers. The prevailing scientific consensus supports the continued use of COVID-19 vaccines, recognising their role in preventing severe illness and death. That said - given the publicity, I don't see there being any harm in carrying out independent and impartial investigations. But, if an independent and impartial investigation concluded that vaccines were safe and the Covid-19 vaccines were also safe, would you accept that, or simply double down and claim conspiracy ?

If the US government can find millions for 'transgender studies' in remote countries, they can find the money for this. I don't think that is a problem. Wholly valid point - no argument from me there at all.

I don't believe the available information warrants further investigation, particularly when considered against the sheer number of individuals being vaccinated. Where exactly should the 'line in the sand' be drawn? Should we launch a full investigation based on a single report in VAERS or EudraVigilance, or would it take 100,000 reports? The only reason I would advocate for an independent and impartial investigation would be to put conspiracy theories to rest. However, I doubt that even a thorough, unbiased inquiry would satisfy the anti-vaccination crowd. Thus, such an investigation seems largely pointless—unless, of course, the data itself clearly indicates a need for it. And therein lies the crux of the argument: experts maintain that no further investigation is warranted, while anti-vaccination advocates vehemently disagree. So who covers the costs ?? - that will always lead to some conspiracist thinking.

You make valid points. I agree that my analogy understated the importance of temporal causality in the context of VAERS and EudraVigilance data, where the emergence of 'any' patterns would clearly warrant further investigation. That said, I do not believe the current VAERS or EudraVigilance data indicate any causality. Nonetheless, I am not opposed to further studies aimed at settling these questions - though I remain sceptical as to whether such inquiries would ever fully resolve them.

Ah ok - got it now... I was picturing a mechanical car wash or something similar when you mentioned 'car wash'.. I see both sides of the bias - although my analogy illustrates an improbable temporal causality, yours attempts something different: using circumstantial evidence to justify suspicion, but ultimately sidestepping the underlying problem of flawed causal assumptions. In my analogy - just because symptoms appear after a vaccination doesn't mean the vaccination caused them, any more than rain the day after washing a car means the car wash caused the storm - I highlight the fundamental danger of mistaking correlation for causation, especially when emotions run high. Your analogy - the police responding to screaming and finding a man covered in blood holding a knife - may seem superficially compelling, but it fundamentally differs. In that situation, the police are acting on immediate, tangible evidence of a potential crime - physical indicators that something likely did occur. However, post-vaccination symptoms are neither direct evidence of causality nor necessarily evidence of harm. They are expected in a biological process that is inherently complex. Thus, your analogy overstates the case: you're comparing obvious forensic clues pointing toward a specific incident with ambiguous, non-specific symptoms that, without clear evidence, cannot be presumed to indicate causation. Investigating is reasonable in both cases - but presuming or implying guilt based on circumstantial timing alone is precisely the logical trap my analogy warns against.

It's a bit OTT, but as you like to use such analogies yourself (c.f. the one about the carwash and the storm – if I recall correctly), I thought I would add it there for good measure, though the gist of my message lies in the previous paragraphs. You've mixed me up with someone else - I've no idea what the 'carwash and the storm' even is. There's no need to use exaggerated analogies that are so flawed - leave that to those who are trying their hardest to 'fear monger' with misinformation rather that take on an intellectual debate involving data sources.

The "smoking gun" argument is both extreme and highly flawed when regarding VAERS and EudraVigilance and any pretty much any such data when attempting to apply temporal causality.

I wonder if there is any nearby CCTV... To lose control like that he must have been 'motoring' (i.e. suggestion of speeding).... I wonder what is BAC test will return... At least no one was killed, this could so easily have been another needless loss of life.

What you are witnessing, I believe, is a reflection of the same quiet indifference with which many Thais interact outside their immediate circles of influence. While often observed specifically within Thai society, this phenomenon, I would argue, is simply a mirror of a broader, universal human pattern. Across cultures and societies, the nature of our interactions is largely shaped by invisible, concentric circles of connection and familiarity. These circles of influence can be described as follows: 1. Inner Circle: Family and Dearest Friends Within this circle, interactions are marked by deep care, generosity, and emotional investment. Relationships here are intimate, nurturing, and resilient, often carrying a profound sense of duty and devotion. 2. Middle Circle: Friends, Acquaintances, Business and Work Associates In this space, interactions are governed by politeness, mutual respect, and social convention. While relationships can be warm and even meaningful, they are often transactional and bounded by context rather than unconditional loyalty. 3. Outer Circle: Strangers and the Unconnected Beyond the familiar, most people slip into a landscape of general indifference. Strangers are barely acknowledged, unseen until their presence overlaps or interrupts our own path. Here, interactions are minimal, incidental, or absent altogether. I don't think this layered social dynamic is unique to Thailand; it seems almost innate to the human condition. At its core, it reflects the natural limitations of emotional bandwidth - the reality that genuine care cannot be infinitely extended without diluting its meaning. In Thai culture, this structure may feel more visible because of the country's strong emphasis on social harmony (known as 'kreng jai') and its distinct separation of social roles. But the underlying principle - warmth within, coolness without - transcends borders and speaks quietly of how all of us, in our own ways, prioritise intimacy and conserve emotional energy.

The statement provided misrepresents data from EudraVigilance by implying causation where only suspicion exists, omitting necessary context such as total vaccination numbers and baseline mortality rates, and using emotional rather than scientific framing. As a result, it draws misleading conclusions about vaccine safety without appropriate evidence or analytical rigour... here is why... Misleading interpretation of EudraVigilance data: Problem: EudraVigilance collects suspected adverse event reports, not confirmed ones. Anyone - doctors, patients, even lawyers - can submit reports (much like VAERS). A report in the database does not prove the vaccine caused the outcome. Causality is not established by mere reporting - exactly the same temporal causality flaw exists as it does with VAERS - the criticism are the same. Contradiction: Claiming that EudraVigilance "reported fatalities" suggests proven causality, but that's false - they reported suspicions, not confirmed causes. No context for injury numbers: Problem: 5,315,063 "injuries" sounds enormous without context - but: The denominator - the total number of COVID-19 shots given - is missing. (Europe administered hundreds of millions of doses.) Contradiction: Without comparing injury rates to the total number of doses, the claim is sensationalist, not analytical. Ignoring baseline death rates: Problem: People naturally die every day from many causes. Vaccination campaigns target entire populations, including the very old, frail, and sick - groups who already have high baseline mortality rates. Contradiction: Saying 50,663 deaths followed COVID-19 shots suggests a vaccine effect without asking: How many deaths would have occurred anyway? Was mortality higher than expected for age-matched, vaccinated cohorts versus unvaccinated ones? Appeal to emotion, not science: Problem: The phrase "do you consider these figures to be within the scope of acceptability?" emotionally pressures the reader without addressing: Benefit vs. risk (e.g., prevention of millions of deaths and hospitalisations). Risk comparison (e.g., risk of COVID-19 infection vs. risk of vaccine side effects). Contradiction: The risk of vaccine injury is framed in isolation without weighing against the risk of COVID-19 itself - a basic flaw in any fair risk analysis. In Summary..... Misleading causality.... "Suspected" does not equal "Proven" deaths from vaccines. Missing denominator.... No comparison to number of doses given. Ignoring background mortality.... Deaths happen regardless of vaccination. Emotional framing.... Science requires balanced risk assessment.