richard_smith237

Right... I'm off to get a Vaccine... ... Its a vaccine that protects me from exposure to the utterly stupid.... Seems to be working....

Perfectly put.... Its often exhausting being dragged down to that level of stupidity... I call it the 'water fallacy' just to highlight the stupidity of such comments.... "Everyone I have ever met has consumed water and died"

Blind tests would be needed to prove that... Put people in a room, introduce SARS-CoV-2.... 100,000 are vaccinated 100,000 people are not vaccinated Observe the results (Results from AI). The estimates provided are based on data from reputable health organisations and studies that have consistently demonstrated the protective effects of COVID-19 vaccination. These sources indicate that unvaccinated individuals face higher risks of infection, severe illness, and death compared to those who are vaccinated. Key Findings from Notable Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): A study reported that during the late BA.4/BA.5 period, unvaccinated individuals had COVID-19 mortality rates 14.1 times higher than those who received a bivalent booster. The infection rate was also 2.8 times higher in unvaccinated persons compared to those vaccinated with a bivalent booster. cdc.gov Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): Research indicated that during the Delta variant predominance, unvaccinated individuals were 6.2 times more likely to be infected, 21.0 times more likely to be hospitalised, and 15.4 times more likely to die from COVID-19 compared to vaccinated individuals. cidrap.umn.edu JAMA Internal Medicine: An analysis found that COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates were 10.5 times higher in unvaccinated persons compared to those who had received a booster dose. jamanetwork.com The studies collectively highlight the substantial benefits of vaccination in reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection, severe disease, and mortality. The earlier estimates were derived by applying these observed relative risks to hypothetical populations of 100,000 vaccinated and 100,000 unvaccinated individuals, illustrating the potential large-scale impact of vaccination. Obviously actual numbers can vary based on factors such as the specific variant in circulation, individual health conditions, and adherence to public health measures. However, the overarching conclusion remains consistent: vaccination significantly reduces the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 (these results were mostly relevant to the initial outbreaks of Covid-19). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7206a3.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/severe-covid-19-death-lowest-far-among-vaccinated-canadians?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2796235?utm_source=chatgpt.com

So .... still defending him, I see. And playing the race card ("bigot") as a final desperate Hail Mary. Yes, if he were Thai, or German etc.. there may be less hate.... If he were Israeli, I'd also expect to see a lot of 'pile-on' against him... because many people are bigots - so yes, the 'race card' is most definitely being played here because I think its a clear factor in how people are considering this issue. And no... perhaps you are not intelligent enough to comprehend the point I am making - what contact was there ????.... was it a hand on the shoulder and the rider didn't like it ? Because IMO - thats perfectly normal when getting on a bike. But... IF the Iranian did try to 'grope her breasts' then yes, throw the book at him... See... thats not defending the Iranian, thats just refusing to be a blind as you are to this issue.... Of course you believe your Thai friend blindly. This female grab rider too must be a liar. 100% I believe him, I've known him closely for 20 years.... there is no chance he did anything other than place his hand on her shoulder when getting on and off the bike. I suspect she (the rider) didn't like this and complained about physical contact - over reacted and Grab, rightly so, protected their employees, but didn't investigate properly. So... Advice for you - Be careful when you 'get on a grab-bike' or moto-taxi (especially if the rider is female) because they may not like the manner in which you 'steady yourself' as you get on and off the bike.... Thus: my comments here are: There are other possibilities that people might want to consider if viewing this story without bigotry or bias.... for others like yourself... "hang-em" he's Iranian...

OK... but thats not the whole picture... - The severity of there Measles ? - The length of time they are contagious and 'how severely contagious' they are ? - The probability of tranmission compared to unvaccinated ? Thus: the vaccine efficacy of 97% implied by your comment ignores other vital factors... For example: If I take a an Influenza vaccine and I still catch Influenza, my symptoms may be less, and last for a shorter period, I'm less likely to transmit to other people even though the Influenza vaccines is known to have an efficacy of approximately 40-60% in any one year. In aggregate, its far more effective - and this is something people need to be understanding when arguing about (or against) vaccines.

For anyone who is 'anti-vaccination'.... It would be interesting to see them go back and live in times with our current knowledge on hygiene and diet... and see how long they last. With full access to antibiotics and we were to send 2 million people back in time.... to pre-vaccination era, with the current dietary and hygiene and medical knowledge... 1) half of the test group are fully vaccinated against all known diseases 2) half the test group are not... What would the survival rates be between the two groups of 1 million people ? Predicted Death Toll Vaccinated Group: Likely loses 1-5% of people due to accidents, some bacterial infections, and other environmental risks. Unvaccinated Group: At least 30-50% could die from viral pandemics over time, especially smallpox and measles. Conclusion: The vaccinated group would likely have a near-modern survival rate (95-99%) thanks to their immunity to viral diseases. The unvaccinated group would suffer from high mortality (30-50%) due to deadly viral infections, despite access to antibiotics, good hygiene, and diet. The greatest killers in the past were viruses, which modern medicine only controls through vaccines, antibiotics alone wouldn’t be enough to protect the unvaccinated.

You didn't really think about that one... You've just provided an perfect example of 'Survivorship bias' the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data. i.e. the WW2 It was identified during WW2: The bullet holes in the returning aircraft represented areas where a bomber could take damage and still fly well enough to return safely to base. Therefore, it was proposed that the Navy reinforce areas where the returning aircraft were unscathed, inferring that planes hit in those areas were the ones most likely to be lost. In your example - You've used 'Survivorship bias' to suggest that older generations could survive the viruses, yet you have completely overlooked that viruses 'did' take people... the ones who survived were lucky, were unexposed or had natural immunity... ... more more so than that, many were vaccinated.... perhaps not with MMR... but with separate vaccines individual for Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella etc etc... Why not together ??? the vaccines are 'exactly the same' if issues separately, the only difference is the Antigen... i.e. the Live attenuated measles virus, Live attenuated mumps virus or the Live attenuated rubella virus.... every other part of the vaccine (preservatives, adjuvants etc etc) is identical, so there is no logical reason to not to mix it into one vaccine. And this is the issue with a debate on such matters - there is such an void of scientific understanding.... I can understand the cynicism of the mRNA vaccines, particularly when concerning vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.... However, even there, the arguments against often exist in a complete void of understanding... I've even heard people suggest how those vaccines 'change our DNA'. Just to be clear - Its not the pro and anti vaccination arguments that I oppose - its stupidity.

Do you know the reason why the child is unvaccinated? Thought not. You have already been swayed by a dramatic headline.... Thats true - the headline is very easily misleading and lends one to the conclusion that the parents deliberately chose not to vaccinate their child through 'anti-vax' sentiment. If they had not vaccinated their child because their child had allergies to vaccinations (some) then I'd be far more sympathetic, but then there are 'alternative delivery methods' which surely the article would have mentioned. There is no information that states 'other reasons' why the parents opted out of vaccination. Thus: while it is an assumption, the assumption is the parents opted out of vaccinating their child due to anti-vaccination preferences.... which placed their child in grave danger.

No idea... but your question belies your bias, though I am cynical of many studies, there is also overwhelming evidence from any / every study carried out. IMO - to question the efficacy of these vaccines to question gravity or the sphericity of the earth - the debates and discussions are exhausting because its takes so much effort to argue at that level , as perfectly exampled Philomena Cunk's satire. There's a strong possibility you and many of us would not be alive today without vaccination - that belies my bias... and its pointless going down the rabbit-hole with anti-vaxxers.

And you think you have an IQ of 127-143 !!!... such hilarious statements made by fools who simply have no idea of the world around them.... ignorance is bliss.. But the most amusing part is that you appear to be suggesting that national average IQ is related to life expectancy.... The correlation coefficient between total life expectancy and average national IQ is 0.234, with a p-value of 0.849. A correlation of 0.234 suggests a weak positive correlation, meaning that higher IQ may be slightly associated with higher life expectancy, but the relationship is not strong. The p-value (0.849) is very high, indicating that this correlation is not statistically significant, meaning there is no strong evidence that national IQ and life expectancy are directly related. In short: Data does not show a strong direct relationship between national IQ and life expectancy. Why the Correlation is Likely False (Other Influencing Factors): Healthcare Quality & Access: Countries with universal healthcare systems (like the UK) tend to have higher life expectancy, regardless of IQ. Economic Development & Wealth: GDP per capita and income inequality have a stronger influence on life expectancy than IQ. Public Health & Sanitation: Clean water, sanitation, and disease control measures significantly impact life expectancy. Nutrition & Living Conditions: Malnutrition and living standards directly affect longevity, but are not linked to IQ. Crime & Violence Rates: Countries with high crime or war see reduced life expectancy, regardless of IQ. Education & Health Awareness: General health literacy and education impact longevity more than raw intelligence scores. Lifestyle Factors (Smoking, Diet, Exercise): Cultural habits around smoking, alcohol, and diet have a major impact. Environmental Pollution & Climate: Air pollution, exposure to toxins, and climate factors affect national life expectancy. Genetic & Biological Factors: Some populations may have genetic predispositions affecting longevity, unrelated to IQ. Conclusion: While higher IQ might contribute to better decision-making regarding health and education, it is not a major driver of life expectancy. More significant factors like healthcare, wealth, lifestyle, and public infrastructure play a much bigger role. Finally... this is why I would usually ignore posters such as yourself - because you think you are clever, you amusingly claim this higher IQ yet remain persistent in proving your mediocrity - In short you are a waste of time and I've wasted 10 minutes putting together a response to an idiot who's only going to drag me down to his level...

Measles and deaths due to measles is on the rise... Its directly because of Anti-vaxxers.....

Dramatic - Yes.... Inaccurate No.... The Parents are directly complicit in the death of the child by actively choosing not the vaccinate. This would be as equally complicit as me not putting my child in an infant car seat when our child was a baby, not using a car seat now and not insisting on a seat belt. My actions and negligence would be directly responsible for the death or serious injury in the event of an accident - effectively killing, in this case the term is 'killing' is highly emotive and designed to trigger debate - never the less, the 'over exaggeration' of using the word 'kill' does not diminish the culpability of the parents in their child's death due to their poor decision making.

A comment which directly contradicts your own IQ claim.... Its always highlight entertaining when idiots think they have an above average IQ yet prove so clearly they don't know what they don't know !!!...

No... in this case you have to 'thank' stupid and uneducated parents for their galactic stupidity.

Without the MMR vaccine, it is estimated that 2.5 to 3 million deaths per year would occur globally due to measles alone, along with additional deaths and disabilities from mumps and rubella. But the question you pose is like asking how many people have died from drinking water.... I'm sure there are numbers who have..... choked etc... Vaccines have various ingredients, for example the MMR vaccine has: Active Ingredients (Antigens) - Live attenuated measles virus - Live attenuated mumps virus - Live attenuated rubella virus Inactive Ingredients (Excipients) - Sugars (e.g., sucrose, sorbitol, lactose) – to stabilise the vaccine. - Gelatin – a stabiliser derived from porcine sources. - Neomycin – an antibiotic to prevent bacterial contamination. - Human albumin – a protein stabiliser. - Fetal bovine serum – used in virus growth but largely removed in the final product. - Monosodium glutamate (MSG) (in some versions) – as a stabiliser. Many of the inactive ingredients are in many (most) other vaccines too... and of course, some people (Children or adults) will have a vaccine adverse reaction to some of these stabilisers, antibiotics, serums, adjuvants etc... It was the same for the Covid vaccines that Anti-vaxxers jumped all over. BUT... the question asked of you Brit... has to be handled intelligently because its emotive... Its like asking how many seatbelts have killed people in car accidents - and the answer surely is that somewhere, seatbelts have been the actual reason people die, the can catch the neck, or even trap someone in a burning car etc.... is that a reason not to wear seatbelts ? In aggregate the 'saving' outweighs the risk by such an overwhelming degree to make the 'risk' insignificant.... The issue with these discussions is that some concentrate on the risks and bring an irrational greater significance to that risk and the topics go down a rabbit hole of irrational imbalance.

Just because you see 4 or 5 up on a motorcycle, 6 people in the flat-bed of a pickup, labourers sat on the roofs of lorries etc.... ..... does that mean your own health and welfare is an less devalued because others do it ??? I will not get in any taxi (or any vehicle) in Thailand (or anywhere else) without a seat-belt. I will not let my family get in any taxi (or any vehicle) in Thailand (or anywhere else) without a seat-belt. My risk tolerance is higher for motorcycles - but, won't ride without a helmet, gloves, protective jacket etc... (and no family at all on the bike)... But, at least I am in control and ride within risk (yes some nutcase could take me out - which is why I ride when only necessary and trust myself more than moto-taxi riders). I've seen taxi drivers do dangerous things... the worst.... I was 'stuck' in a taxi doing about 50kmh, centre lane of the expressway at about 3am... with cars screaming past at 120 kmh++ it was absolutely lethal... I suspected his poor eye sight and asked him to exit at the next exit and changed taxi's... I've had others who were drunk and / or driving like complete loons.... I'm not interested in being in any vehicle without a seatbelt if there should be a seatbelt... & of course, we can lower our 'standards' and take a tuktuk etc... but those are in congested area's and travel at far lower speeds.... (usually) - but I hardly ever take those either... Hardly worth of a thread - but given that the thread has been started, I'm with Bob on this one... there is no valid reason for the taxi not to have a seatbelt, they've just tucked away or cut off the stalks - in which case, just don't take the taxi... or get in the front.

Has anyone used: Abbey Lifestyle as their broker and purchased any of their WRLife Policies ? @Sheryl - apologies for tagging you directly, but you are always the most knowledgeable with coverage - would you know anything about this company - either the Broker or WRLife coverage. Thanks in advance for any info... and to anyone else who has input.

Correct... thats as I understand the regulations. If in Thailand on a Resident Permit (i.e. a Non-Immigrant Visa (of any type) or extension thereof, or a visa which lasts longer than 90 days (somewhat of a grey area that one), then theoretically, we are supposed to obtain a Thai license. There is always lots of discussion and there is lots of ambiguity regarding this subject with lots of posters disagreeing... But... There is one 'beats all argument'... Its not hard to get a Thai Driving License and its not going to harm you to do so... So, getting a Thai License is the simple answer to all of the debate and discussion. Additionally - this may interest some - The rear of a UK License commonly has a silhouette of a motorcycle on it (usually for the lowest powered Motorcycle groups and trikes), this can be used to get a Thai Motorcycle license too (just in case one wishes to rent a scooter type motorcycle when travelling somewhere else within Thailand).

Hell no... Being a passenger is enough....!!! Seriously though - I'm just ribbing MG's for fun as some posters have been waxing a little too lyrical about them for too long now and really, they're just an average A to B machine.... (by waxing lyrical - I mean those posters who'd over egg the pudding and suggest they drive 'exceptionally well'.... when really, they get from A to B in relative comfort without hassle).

Don't do it... or at least wear a face-mask and sunglasses if you do !!!.... Seriously though, its safer and has better storage than a motorcycle... so there are some positives...

Correct - this is so the Vehicle can be registered in your name (and to your address). Your UK Driving License will (should) be sufficient.... (and if you have an IDP 1969, then any ambiguity in a police stop is also removed) - You can drive in Thailand on your Standard UK license - But, as mentioned above, if staying here long enough to be buying your own car, then its worth while getting your own Thai Driving license (simple process). Careful of Agents advertising on Facebook - lots of scammers. Personally, if you have the time, just head down to the DLT and go through the licensing process yourself..... you will need. 1) Colour Copy of your Passport (ID and Visa Page) 2) Copy of Medical Certificate (from any small clinic (about 200 baht)- ask for driving License Medical Cert and they'll do rudimentary checks (such as check for elephantitis). 3) Go to Immigration and Get a Letter of Residence 3b) OR... Go to Embassy (and get an Affirmation of address - far more expensive - but some Embassies will not issue this). 4) Have Colour Copies *(front and back) of your UK license. 5) Go to Department of Land Transport (early in the morning) i.e. about 8am and go for the Walk-In Queue (as its difficult for foreigners to make appointments online)... show documentation and state you want to get a Thai Driving Licence - communication will be hit and miss, but they'll nudge you through the process (you don't need to be a Thai speaker).

No one needs a permit to buy a car here. A person (any person, any nationality) can buy a car here. What you do need is a form of proof of address so that it can be registered in your name. That proof of address comes as a) Certificate of Address - (usually obtained from Immigration) b) Affirmation of Residence - (obtained from your Embassy, if they will do it). IF you have a UK driving License... you can drive here legally. A 1969 International Driving Permit may smooth things over, but tecnically its not required (this is often a subject disputed on this forum). To avoid ambiguity - you can get your Thai License very easily with just your UK Driving License (and a couple of other documents such as Proof of Address and Medical Certificate). Yes, there are agents - they will charge you for something you can very easily do yourself.

Why yawn? Your kidding. Who cares? Get out of the cab, take a snap with the phone you don't have and get on with getting another cab. Why post about such mundaneness. The vast majority of Thais if not all of them don't wear seatbelts in the back and up front many only wear them when the BIB is around. OK... in that case... YAWN... read the thread, don't have any real opinion on it other than YAWN... so just move along and don't bother posting on it... Exactly the same criticism applies to your post as that you are throwing at the Op.... And whether Thai's wear seatbelts or not has no relevance - the Post is that the Op wanted a seatbelt, so do I, so do many when they're in a car because we're not idiots brainlessly happy to travel at speed in vehicles without an restraint. The Op made a thread about it - yup, some people are just that sad... but its just as sad as your pointless and completely irrelevant comment when we get down to the nuts and bolts of it.

I read the link... They tried to move the body to business class but 'couldn't fit it through somehow'.... so they place the deceased into the seat next to a person.... ... Sure, the person could have moved.... OR, someone with a smart service mind would have just upgraded the nearby passengers to business class..... (never miss an opportunity to turn a negative into a positive).... Now we have a story where Qatar Airways places dead bodies next to passengers, rather than something more positive. At least they didn't just shove the deceased in the loo and lock the door !!!

Why yawn ??? are you one of those fools who doesn't bother putting on a seatbelt or wearing a helmet ??? - you're not worthy of protecting yourself ?