richard_smith237

And I sincerely hope they stay that way... They’re protected - for now - not because of some miraculous immune system or divine luck, but because everyone else around them is vaccinated. It’s called herd immunity, and it’s the invisible shield that protects those who piggyback off the responsibility of others while sneering at the very science that keeps them safe. Your anecdotal argument does nothing but highlight a fundamental misunderstanding of how - and why - mass vaccination works. It’s not about individual anecdotes; it’s about public health on a scale that spans continents and generations. The recent spike in measles cases in the U.S. is a direct result of declining vaccination rates - driven by misinformation, mistrust, and social media-fuelled ignorance. COVID-19 didn’t help either; it disrupted routine immunisation schedules, widening the cracks in our collective defences. And, unsurprisingly, the majority of those measles cases? Found in the unvaccinated. Herd immunity doesn’t collapse overnight - but chip away at it long enough with baseless fear and conspiratorial thinking, and the consequences are entirely predictable.

Yes it is 'so different'... Very different infact..... Its still not directly into the bloodstream... Things you eat end up in your blood stream - they are not direct - its the same with vaccines, they 'end up' in the blood stream, thats not direct. Vaccines aren’t injected directly into the bloodstream because they need to be absorbed slowly by the body to properly stimulate the immune system. Injecting into muscle or just under the skin allows immune cells to recognise and respond to the vaccine components in a controlled way, mimicking natural infection without overwhelming the body. A direct bloodstream injection would bypass this process, potentially cause harmful reactions, and be far less effective at building long-term immunity. This is precisely the problem with indulging these kinds of debates - engaging with the ill-informed doesn't elevate the conversation; it just drags the rest of us down into the mire of their ignorance. I'm now not debating ideas here, I'm correcting nonsense masquerading as insight. At a certain point, it stops being a discussion and becomes an exercise in futility.

Because you had vaccines !!!! - You have vaccines to thank for still being here. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of someone reaching 60 years old without any vaccinations is extremely low - especially if they were born and raised in a country with established public health systems. Why ??? 1. Childhood Mortality Before vaccines, many childhood diseases like measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, smallpox, and tetanus were deadly or caused severe long-term disability. For example: Smallpox killed approximately 300 million people in the 20th century alone before the vaccine was introduced. Measles killed millions worldwide annually before vaccines were introduced in the 1960s. Without vaccines, the likelihood of surviving childhood would drastically drop due to these preventable diseases. 2. Epidemics and Outbreaks Communicable diseases would spread wildly in the absence of vaccines, causing major pandemics and outbreaks with much higher mortality rates. The Spanish flu of 1918, for example, killed an estimated 50 million people globally. Without modern vaccines, society would be regularly crippled by these kinds of deadly diseases. 3. Survival of the Fittest? In the absence of vaccines, populations would be much smaller because of constant waves of disease, and infant mortality rates would be significantly higher. Without vaccines, herd immunity wouldn’t exist, leaving entire populations vulnerable to outbreaks. A child born without vaccines might not make it past childhood because of diseases like measles or whooping cough. Even if they survived childhood, diseases like tuberculosis, pneumonia, and typhoid fever would still claim lives more regularly. 4. Increased Pressure on Healthcare Systems Healthcare systems would have to rely heavily on treating diseases as they occur, without the preventive tools that vaccines provide. Hospitals and doctors would face constant overload, and many diseases that are now preventable or treatable would lead to high mortality rates, especially in older populations. 5. The Role of Natural Immunity In the absence of vaccines, individuals would rely on natural immunity — meaning they would have to be exposed to the diseases and survive them to gain immunity. However, many people would not survive these diseases, and even if they did, they might suffer lifelong complications. In short, without vaccines: Childhood mortality rates would skyrocket, and many individuals would not survive past infancy or early childhood. Outbreaks of diseases would devastate populations, with many not living to old age. By 60, most people would have had to survive multiple life-threatening illnesses, and many would not have made it that far. In a world without vaccines, reaching 60 years old would be incredibly rare, if not almost impossible, because of the high risk of fatal infectious diseases that modern vaccines have largely wiped out.

No... vaccines do not go 'right into' the bloodstream... with the intramuscular injections they go into the muscles and are then 'dispersed through absorption into the bloodstream' which is different... Many of the things we consume get into our blood stream... there's nothing alarming about that. Carbohydrates >> Glucose (sugar) >> Gets into our bloodstream and fuels energy Proteins >> Amino acids >> Gets into our bloodstream and builds tissues Fats >> Fatty acids + glycerol >> Gets into our bloodstream eventually (via lymph) Vitamins >> Individual vitamins >> Gets into our bloodstream Minerals >> Ions (like iron, calcium) >> Gets into our bloodstrea and Erm.. no... thats Heroin !!!

Food for thought - its clear you have one singular goal to spread misinformation on vaccines without which its highly implausible you'd still be alive (i.e. at 60 years old)....

That’s actually an excellent resource !!!. However, I’ve had the same inoculations and vaccines my son has. In fact, probably more - with boosters like tetanus and seasonal influenza jabs over the years. The infographic you posted is nothing more than manipulative, clickbait rubbish - the kind of hollow fearmongering tailor-made for social media echo chambers. It isn’t informative. It isn’t balanced. It’s engineered to exploit the intellectually idle - those who panic first, think later, and ask no questions at all. It’s not a public service; it’s digital hysteria masquerading as concern. If people stopped reacting like trained lab rats every time someone drops an infographic with ominous colours and bold fonts, we might actually have a conversation rooted in fact - not fear.

So are you anti-vaccination full stop... ALL vaccines ? Or just anti-covid vaccines ? What about antibiotics ?... ... IV antibiotics ??? They're straight into a our bloodstream... If you are Anti-Vax, why not for the same reasons are you not anti-antibiotics ?

If you, I, or anyone else… – Choose to drink heavily and get behind the wheel, then crash - we are to blame. – Tear around well above the speed limit, lose control on a bend, and end up in a ditch - we are to blame. – Ignore weather conditions; rain, ice, snow - and drive recklessly fast, only to slide off the road - we are, once again, to blame. Yes, human error is inevitable. Engineering can help mitigate the consequences of such errors - to a point. But there are times when the error isn’t a fluke of judgement; it’s a deliberate act of carelessness. A conscious decision to put recklessness above responsibility. And, in those moments, let’s be crystal clear: the cause isn’t the road, the rain, or the rules - it’s us. No excuses. No scapegoats. Just blame, right where it belongs when... Thats why laws such as reckless driving, driving without due care and attention exist.

Nope.. because its untrue !

And NO !!!... Vaccines are not injected directly into bloodstream... They are Injected: Intramuscular (IM) – Most common Straight into the muscle, typically your deltoid (upper arm) or thigh. Why? Muscles have a rich blood supply, allowing for slow, controlled absorption of the vaccine into the bloodstream—not an overwhelming flood. Flu shots and MMR (for older children and adults) are often given this way. Subcutaneous (SC) – Under the skin Just into the fatty layer under your skin, like a gentle whisper. MMR is often given subcutaneously in young children. Absorbed more slowly than intramuscular shots. Intradermal (ID) – Just below the skin’s surface A very shallow injection, used for things like TB tests or some special flu vaccines. As usual - your Anti-vax posts are misinforming, alarmist and lack any truth.

Yawn.. the same tired nonsense... Here’s what typically goes into the makeup of a vaccine, with the flu and MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccines as examples: 1. The Active Ingredient This is what triggers the immune response. Flu Vaccine: Usually contains inactivated (killed) or attenuated (weakened) influenza viruses, or just tiny bits of them (like the haemagglutinin protein). MMR Vaccine: Contains live attenuated viruses of measles, mumps, and rubella. These are weakened just enough that they don’t cause the disease in healthy people but still kick your immune system into action. 2. Stabilisers These keep the vaccine potent during storage and transport. Often things like gelatin (yes, from pigs), sorbitol, or sucrose. MMR, for example, contains gelatin and sorbitol as stabilisers. 3. Preservatives Used to prevent contamination, especially in multi-dose vials. Older flu vaccines might contain thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative), though most single-dose flu shots today are thimerosal-free. MMR doesn’t need preservatives because it’s supplied in single-dose vials and mixed fresh. 4. Adjuvants (mainly in flu, not in MMR) Help boost the immune response. Some flu vaccines (like the Fluad brand for older adults) use MF59, an oil-in-water emulsion of squalene. MMR doesn’t contain adjuvants. 5. Residuals from Manufacturing Tiny traces of things used during production, but cleaned out as much as possible. Egg proteins (especially in flu vaccines made in eggs), Neomycin (an antibiotic used in MMR to prevent bacterial contamination), Cell culture material like chick embryo cells or human diploid cells (especially for MMR). As for Chemicals, Metals, Proteins: Vaccines can definitely contain chemicals, metals, and proteins… Oh, sounds terrible !!! But what are they really ??? Chemicals These aren't your average household cleaners - but carefully chosen bits to keep the vaccine safe and stable. Formaldehyde – Used to inactivate viruses or detoxify toxins. It’s in tiny trace amounts, and your body naturally has more formaldehyde in your blood than a vaccine ever would. Sodium chloride (salt) – To balance pH and match the body’s natural fluids. Sodium phosphate / Potassium phosphate – Buffers to keep the vaccine stable. Polysorbate 80 – Emulsifier to keep ingredients blended (found in some flu vaccines). Sucrose or lactose – Sugar, baby. Used to stabilise. Proteins Your immune system’s sexy little nemesis. Viral proteins – Flu vaccines often include purified surface proteins like haemagglutinin (HA). Egg proteins – Residuals if the vaccine is grown in eggs. Gelatin (a protein) – Used as a stabiliser, especially in MMR. Metals Aluminium salts (adjuvants) – Found in some flu vaccines, not MMR. They stimulate a stronger immune response. You actually get more aluminium from food and water than from a vaccine. Thimerosal (ethylmercury) – Only in some multi-dose flu vials (not in MMR). It's a preservative and has been mostly phased out due to public concern, even though studies show it's safe in those tiny amounts.

Its in the 'World News' section of the Forum, under the USA tag...

there you go! Why is it a that racists always argue that thinks they say aren't racist? You've cherry-picked Gottfrid's words, distorting his point to fit your tired, self-righteous narrative. He explicitly wrote “Both” - a clear reference to poor driving habits among both Swedes and Thais. That’s not racism; it’s a simple, unvarnished observation. But of course, nuance is lost on someone so eager to parade their moral outrage. Let’s be honest - a great many 'people' here drive like utter lunatics and carryout stupid manoeuvres. That’s a fact, not a racial slur. Yet you seem incapable of engaging in any discussion on road safety without hurling accusations of racism like confetti. It’s your go-to move - a cheap, hollow attempt at point-scoring through virtue-signalling theatrics. And then, inevitably, you start lecturing everyone else - insisting they don’t understand road safety, or critical thinking, as if you’re some omniscient authority. Tiresome doesn’t begin to cover it. You sound like a broken record - so buried in your own sanctimony, you can’t see the forest for the trees.

I also like to see people so drunk out of their minds that they don't know what they are doing... Nevertheless, I just don't see that its an offence at all, let alone something worthy of police intervention... We / 'society' goes down a dangerous road when we start compromising peoples freedoms in such a manner (IF they are not disorderly).

The Op is finding out from the comments of People. Flying Nok Air / Thai VietJet / Thai Airways etc - a driving licence or Pink ID has commonly been accepted (as per this thread and others). Flying Air-Asia is more hit and miss. Asking them to add a note in the PNR is colouring outside the lines and likely to be met with 'cannot'... Though there is no harm in giving it a try. Its better to just ask the airline directly what their policy on ID is. The Op already seems to know that the Consulate will hold his passport - This has happened to me numerous times (consulates holding a passport when processing a Visa), which is the reason I have a second UK passport. Asking 'strangers' on this forum throws a wide net for 'first hand experience' which is hardly useless by any means - this forum is a good source of such information. The Op may now be able to 'ask the airline' the right question - i.e. can he fly using is Thai Driving Licence as ID (if an Embassy is holding his passport)... I've had poor experienced with trying to get e-mail responses in Thailand) - that said, if a reply is forthcoming - Air-Aisa will likely reply with information that a Passport is required, other Airlines are likely to reply that its OK (if they reply at all). Of course - the other issue is the Op not having his passport at hand, if its needed, i.e. by the Police etc... a separate issue, that overlaps.

I think you're over egging it with a lot of whatifery.... Your example of people walking into the road without looking happens to non-drunks too - it just happened to two german tourists. As long as drunks don't actively cause trouble - then they are harmless or nothing more than a passing nuisance - hardly worthy of arrest. The other issue is the discretion of the 'arresting officer' - who decides who is 'excessively' drunk or 'incapable' due to being drunk ??

Don't 'most' Thai Police now wear Body Cams ? or is that just in Bangkok and Tourist areas ? Apparently - the Thai police procured 48,500 body cameras following the enactment of the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act in February 2023. That accounts for approximately 30-40% of Thai Police.

Any variations in Airline - i.e. AirAsia (as per the above comments) ?

I have experienced the same with Air-Aisa - I tried my Pink ID (easier to access in my wallet), they wanted a passport... Other airlines have all accepted a Pink ID when flying domestically. Some Consular offices keep the passport - either for Passport renewal or Visa Processing. Taking a PhotoCopy is a good idea - but best is calling up the Airline and double checking. Or, even taking an old passport as proof of ID (though I'm not sure if that is accepted).

Flawed criticism - the Op has not made a booking, he's simply asking the question. And... if there is no issue flying domestically without a passport, then there is no issue and your commentary is flawed for another reason. What if ... what if people thought for just a second before posting....

IMO - For 'public service vehicles' the inspections should be biannual... The issue with such inspections here is that it only takes a little back-hander for them to be passed... But, one of the issues here is the extent of the bus fire... Should it not be made of non-flammable materials ? - there's no mention of LPG.... The video shows the 'frame of the bus' on fire - was this one of those 'wooden frame' busses, that look modern but are far from it. Perhaps busses made like that should not be on the road in the first place.

Its usually 'drunk and disorderly' that face legal difficulties, or here in Thailand, a retaliation of sorts from local thugs.... ... But, If someone drinks so much they become unable to walk etc and thus 'incapable' as you mentioned, they haven't really done anything wrong, other than making themselves a burden because they can't look after themselves - I don't think that in itself is worth of arrest.

How often do we see comments like “Deport them,” “You’re only a guest here,” or “Foreigners have no right to an opinion” - all delivered with full-throated support for removing those who fail to keep a low profile in Thailand ? It’s unclear if it’s always the same individuals making these remarks, but such sentiments frequently reflect the prevailing mood. Yet, when similar actions occur in the United States, the outrage suddenly shifts - not because the measures differ, but because they’re associated with Trump. The same behaviour, once cheered elsewhere, is swiftly condemned when it wears a different political face.

Is that of any relevance to his commentary ? Some might contend that his homosexuality creates an inherent bias against nations and regimes where legal systems impose anything from inhumane treatment to outright persecution of homosexuals. But doesn’t that simply reinforce the point - that these regimes exhibit profoundly poor human rights records? Even if Murray were heterosexual, his arguments would remain just as compelling. His sexual orientation is entirely irrelevant to the validity of his critiques; the focus should remain on the substance of the issues, not the identity of the one raising them. Those who factor in Murray’s sexuality when assessing his commentary may well be revealing more about themselves - either a streak of homophobia, or a lack of the intellectual clarity and critical thought required to separate identity from argument. In either case, it’s a failure to engage with ideas on their own merit.

So, if the brake linings are worn out or there are broken components rendering the system ineffective - surely, that constitutes brake failure, does it not? And, if a driver relies too heavily on the brakes during a long downhill descent instead of shifting into a lower gear, resulting in brake overheating or complete loss of function - again, that’s brake failure, isn’t it? Whether caused by poor maintenance or driver error, the outcome remains the same: the brakes fail. What’s particularly telling in Thailand, of course, is the cultural tendency to assign blame to inanimate objects - a convenient way to preserve face, often on behalf of others as well.