richard_smith237

I've done similar... QR payment to a bar etc... only to walk away to another bar thinking the payment has gone through... ... Fortunately I noticed and back-tracked... But it would have been highly embarrassing to 'inadvertently' not pay, then find myself on the pages of 'The Tiger' being accused of being a 'Drink and Dash Brit'.... then have all the posters demand my deportation for such obnoxious behavior !!!!

Wrong... 'the 'going price for a Thai Massage' is whatever it says it is on the menu in the shop !!!... it varies from establishment to establishment, with or without AC, the quality of the place etc...

Why negotiate at all... If the couple (nationality irrelevant) agreed to a certain service at a certain price... why would this be contested and re-negotiated ??? Did the Massage Shop try and pull a fast one and add on 'massage service' to inflate the price ? Was this a genuine misunderstanding: i.e. massage shop thought they'd agreed one service and the couple thought they'd agreed to another ?... i.e. an error of communication. Or.... as others are suggesting, were the couple just slimeballs - yes, possible, but not as certain as the story implies. If the couple could show 'proof of QR' payment (as the story suggests) then surely they paid ? or did they simply show the 'payment page' before they pressed 'authorise' and the staff assumed the rest ? IMO - this could easily be a genuine mistake and under the confusion of the price, service debate due to miscommunication the couple thought they paid the re-agreed price, then left not knowing the payment had not gone through... But... because they are Russian, most posters have 'fined, jailed, then deported them already'... whereas this could just me a misunderstanding and mistake hardly newsworthy at all.... apart from the usual 'media pile on' against certain nationalities.

Exactly, it comes down to how good the doctor is, how well equipes the facility is, and a bit of luck. The liver doctor I was seeing at Bangkok Hospital also worked and taught at Chula. He quit Bangkok Hospital and so I stated seeing him there. The bills went from about 1,500 to 100 to see the same doctor. The Dentist I see at BHBC also teaches and practices at Chula, but I still see her at BHDC. A great deal of a surgery’s success ultimately comes down to us – to our own efforts and how committed we are to proper rehabilitation. After a major incident last year, I took post-surgery rehab extremely seriously. I wasn’t at all satisfied with the hospital’s half-hearted and, frankly, rather underwhelming approach to physiotherapy. I raised my concerns, dismissed their rehab team, and - under the guidance of my orthopaedic surgeon - undertook my own tailored rehab programme. The results were excellent, and I have no regrets. However, with a subsequent injury that also required surgical intervention, I’ve been far more relaxed in my approach. I didn’t prioritise rehab in the same way, and I returned to active sports far too soon. Unsurprisingly, I’m now paying the price and may require further treatment. The point is this: when it comes to recovery, we often underestimate the importance of our own role. Stretching, strengthening, and diligently working the muscles and ligaments are just as critical as the surgery itself. So when I hear people say “the surgeon screwed up,” I can’t help but wonder how seriously they took their own rehab. No accusations here - just a perspective I think deserves some honest reflection.

You get what you pay for. Too many people wanting “cheap” done. Then they end up having to have it fixed again a year or two later because they cheaped out. To be honest, your comment comes across as rather prejudiced. These so-called "cheap" Indian doctors you're disparaging are, in fact, the very professionals who have played a vital role in supporting the UK’s National Health Service. I've worked alongside many highly educated Indian doctors and have no hesitation in trusting their ability to carry out procedures like this one - which, I might add, is considered fairly *routine nowadays. One could just as easily expect to see dismissive remarks from some posters about Thai doctors and surgeons, with the suggestion being to seek treatment in the US or our home countries, where it's often assumed the highest medical expertise resides. Yet we haven't, and for good reason. The truth is, Thai medical professionals, by and large, are highly competent and frequently outstanding, as are Indian Doctors. *Of course, I refer to such surgery the op requires as “routine” because such surgeries are generally straightforward. However, if your condition happens to be atypical or presents complications, then yes, I would absolutely recommend seeking medical advice back home where costs could escalate significantly. I'm in a similar position myself, having undergone surgery last year at a leading hospital in Bangkok. I’m still experiencing issues with the same joint, but I wouldn’t rush to claim the surgeon made a mistake - unless you have proof you are unqualified to make such a claim... Also, we (all patients) need to understand that not every operation leads to a perfect result - surgery isn’t always a guaranteed fix, and recovery doesn’t always follow a neat, predictable path.

Valid question - that would be good info for many shopping around for insurance.

How's that money tree of yours looking ??? A good surgeon is great advice - but the Op's insurance has refused to pre-authorise his claim, so going to a more expensive hospital is not going to help him at the moment.

It doesn't work like that... The insurance has to pre-approve... Or.. If you have it done pay yourself, then make the claim and they reject, Op is out 350,000 baht... even if he fights.... he could get the surgery for much less in India, so its a good option. That said: The Op should first get another 'more insistent letter' from is Surgeon / Doctor and re-submit the pre-authorisation claim.... unless there is a pre-existing condition the Op has not mentioned.

The mRNA issue is separate from other vaccinations, though the Covid fiasco lead lots of people to question – and ultimately lose faith in – vaccination as a whole (I am one of them). Dr. Palevsky warned in 2021 that this episode would probably deal a fatal blow to the vaccination industry. Indeed... and we have the recent measles outbreak in the USA (discussed in other threads)....

That really depends on how well-informed people were. I was certainly aware from the outset that no vaccine offers 100% protection, and Covid vaccines were no exception - just like the seasonal influenza vaccine, which varies in efficacy year to year and primarily reduces the severity of illness rather than guaranteeing full immunity. If people believed the Covid vaccine would completely prevent infection, that may reflect a misunderstanding - either through assumptions, poor communication, or in some cases, a failure by health professionals or public messaging to explain things clearly. In the midst of a global crisis, with a constant stream of evolving information, it's not surprising that many people made assumptions. The sheer volume of noise - media headlines, political soundbites, social media posts - often overwhelmed the more nuanced messages about what the vaccine could and couldn’t do. It was never a magic shield, but rather a tool to reduce serious illness, hospitalisation, and death, and to help slow transmission - especially in the early stages. I'm sorry to hear that... Meanwhile my folks have taken yearly Covid-19 vaccines and influenza vaccines without issue, and more importantly, without coming down with serious symptoms of Covid or Influenza. Yes, my son received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine (a viral vector platform). However, we’ve not had further Covid vaccinations since, as I believe the severity and risk profile of the virus has shifted significantly since the early waves. As we approach winter, more recently we have instead prioritised the seasonal influenza vaccine. In our case, this presents a more immediate and practical concern. In past years, we have picked up the flu, which has disrupted several precious days of our break. Given the likelihood of exposure to seasonal flu the flu jab feels like the more appropriate safeguard for our circumstances. Possibly... but that circles back to the necessity of a unified stance in the face of what was perceived as an existential threat. In times of crisis, especially when the science is still emerging, it’s not uncommon for governments and institutions to centralise decision-making and messaging in the name of public safety. It's often said that “a committee of one is the only way to make a decision during war” - and while that kind of top-down approach definitely seems authoritarian, it's perhaps considered necessary to prevent chaos or paralysis. Whether it was the right move in hindsight is still up for debate, but at the time, even with hindsight I think its valid argument to suggest that unity and clarity were essential tools in managing uncertainty.

Indeed, many people who received the Covid-19 vaccine experienced what became known as "Covid arm" which is an innate immune response, signalling that the body is recognising the vaccine and mounting a defence. Alongside this, common side effects such as fever, chills, fatigue, and muscle aches are also manifestations of the innate immune system activating. These symptoms are generally signs that the vaccine is doing its job - stimulating the immune system to prepare the body to fight the actual virus if encountered. The reaction / response is typical with many vaccines (of all types) and an indication of immune activation rather than cause for alarm - though for some... they thought it meant there was something wrong with the vaccine...

The political messaging aimed to be clear, motivational, and unifying, but in doing so it often simplified complex realities. This led to some public confusion and I'd agree political lying when vaccine effectiveness against transmission turned out to be less than hoped and when Covid-19 became endemic rather than eliminated. ... But ulimtately, the message we received in the UK was that vaccination did not offer sterilising immunity but helped build herd immunity and help protect those who couldn't be vaccinated or didn't develop strong immunity themselves. I agree... The sidelining of some doctors and experts who challenged the mainstream view was deeply troubling, especially when professional reputations and livelihoods were affected. However, it felt very much like a time of war, where a unified stance was deemed necessary to face an existential threat. In such moments, governments often prioritise collective action and social cohesion over individual dissent to protect the greater good. This maybe a poor comparison, however, I'll run with it: Conscription during WWI and WWII limited personal freedom for many, but was widely accepted as necessary for national survival. That doesn’t mean such measures are without ethical challenges or consequences, but history shows that during crises, societies often accept - and sometimes expect - strong, centralised decisions to navigate unprecedented dangers - the issues in 2020 and 2021 were that social media also changed the landscape from an information and misinformation perspective. Obviously, the key is ensuring that these decisions remained transparent, proportional, and subject to review once the emergency passes... I haven't taken the Covid-19 vaccine since, my parents do because they are in a high risk group, they take the seasonal influenza vaccine too. Ongoing investigation and independent, peer-reviewed studies are essential - not just during a crisis, but always. Science thrives on transparency, scrutiny, and the willingness to revise conclusions as new evidence emerges. This process builds trust and helps ensure policies are based on the most reliable, unbiased information possible. Without that, public confidence and effective decision-making suffer - that can be deadly if another more serious viral thread evolves (or is leaked).

Do you think it was ethical to have been put in that position? It seems that you would have taken the vaccine in any case, and that's fine, freedom of choice is essential, but don't you find it disturbing to think that you couldn't have refused if you had wanted to? At the time, I understood the situation for what it was. Initially, I was sceptical - I genuinely thought the global response to Covid-19 might be an overreaction. But as I delved deeper, I came to appreciate that authorities were working from a framework shaped by previous outbreaks like SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. The data and modelling from those events made it clear that early, decisive action – including isolation, quarantine, and travel restrictions – was the only responsible route, given what was then unknown. I’ve always believed in vaccination. It’s one of the cornerstones of modern public health, and I’m convinced it's a major reason most of us are even alive today. Epidemiological models consistently estimate that, without vaccines, the global population would be 3 to 4 billion fewer – a staggering difference, but one supported by historical case fatality rates and mortality statistics from vaccine-preventable diseases. So when it came to the pandemic, I placed my trust in the science. Vaccines were never going to be perfect – no vaccine ever is. But the principle is sound. And while early data showed that the Covid-19 vaccines might not have the high efficacy rates we’d hoped for – perhaps not even matching the typical 40-60% efficacy of seasonal flu vaccines – they still represented a significant reduction in risk, both for individuals and for the wider population. Where politics became relevant for me was not in the decision to get vaccinated myself – that was straightforward. It was in the expectation that others would do the same, especially in shared environments like travel or work. I found reassurance in knowing that those around me posed a reduced risk – to me, my family, my friends – because they, too, had been vaccinated. That mattered. Now, do I believe in freedom of choice? Absolutely. But I also believe that social media played a damaging role during the pandemic. Misinformation, often in the form of memes and unverified anecdotes, spread faster than any virus – and disproportionately influenced those without the tools or background to properly assess scientific claims. Sometimes, for the sake of public safety, society does need to make certain decisions for people. That’s why we have seatbelt laws and speed limits. So was it ethical to be put in a position where refusal would have been difficult? That depends on perspective. I didn’t feel coerced – I felt informed. But I do recognise that some felt backed into a corner, and I sympathise with that discomfort. Ultimately, I believe the ethical balance lies in doing what protects the most people, while striving to communicate truth with honesty, humility, and clarity – something that was, unfortunately, often lacking during the heat of it all. The same principle applied to my son's school. We were required to provide a full vaccination record as part of the enrolment process. Had there been gaps, I’ve no doubt the school would have had the right – and, arguably, the responsibility – to request that certain vaccines be administered before accepting him. That’s not about control; it’s about collective responsibility and protecting those who can’t protect themselves. So… do I like mandates like that? Not particularly. Do I think they're necessary? Yes, in many cases I do. As for whether it's ethical – that’s more complex. With the benefit of hindsight, the ethics become somewhat grey. But in the moment, with the information and urgency we were facing, I genuinely believed – and still largely believe – that requiring vaccination for international travel and for working in close-contact environments was an ethical stance. It was a proportionate response to a global crisis, aimed at minimising harm and keeping society functioning.

I was in exactly the same situation... though I researched everything I could and was far less cynical of the vaccines.

That would be a fair critique if public health messaging had claimed perfection from the start - Did it ??? (I don' think it did)... The initial guidance reflected the best available evidence at the time, under immense pressure I might add. Early data showed vaccines reduced transmission and severe illness, not that they eliminated risk entirely. As for side effects, no medical intervention is risk-free, but serious adverse events were and remain statistically rare. Science evolves - its strength lies in self-correction, not omniscience. Expecting flawless foresight in a crisis isn't reasonable; what matters is whether decisions were made responsibly with what was known at the time - again, back to the burden of decision making power. We need to ensure we distinguish his [Dr. Redfield's] take on mRNA vaccines vs the other Covid-19 vaccines and vaccines in general here. ... continuing on... Dr. Redfield’s acknowledgment reflects an important aspect of science: its willingness to evolve and adapt as more data emerges. That’s not a flaw in the process - it’s a feature. Early conclusions weren’t lies; they were provisional judgments based on limited information during a rapidly unfolding crisis. I agree with you in praising Dr. Redfield’s humility - but it should cut both ways. Intellectual integrity also means recognising that early missteps don’t invalidate the overwhelming benefits of vaccination, nor do they justify rewriting history through a lens of absolute certainty after the fact. Unless it's an outright ridiculous conspiracy theory, the most persistent ones tend to cling to a shred of plausibility or truth - that’s what gives them traction. It’s true that some individuals have adverse reactions to vaccines; that’s always been understood. But those cases, while real, don’t outweigh the broader imperative of protecting public health. The risk-benefit balance overwhelmingly favours vaccination, especially during a global crisis. Also, scepticism toward Big Pharma is not only understandable - I think it’s healthy. The pharmaceutical industry has a long and well-documented history of lobbying, profit-driven motives, and, at times, ethically questionable behaviour. And yes, the entanglement between corporate interests, media narratives, and political agendas does erode public trust. But it’s important to separate distrust in the system from distrust in science itself.... The COVID-19 vaccines were developed by scientists across the globe - not just by profit-driven executives - and their efficacy was tested, scrutinised, and independently reviewed by a wide array of regulatory bodies. Public health should never be blindly entrusted to corporations, but neither should it be derailed by cynicism that disregards evidence simply because of its origin. Holding Big Pharma accountable and valuing life-saving science are not mutually exclusive. We got here because, in the chaos of a global crisis, people looked to institutions for stability - not out of blind obedience, but out of necessity. That doesn’t mean scepticism isn’t warranted, especially when power and profit are involved. But not every act of trust is ignorance, and not every alternative view is truth. The challenge is to question critically without throwing out evidence in favour of contrarianism for its own sake.

You know what? I’m actually leaning more towards your view on the ‘coercion’ angle. While it may not have been coercion in a strictly legal sense, I’ll concede that, given the psychological and social climate at the time, describing it as coercion is a fair and accurate characterisation.

You have way too much of a hard-on for me... If you’re capable of posting anything resembling an intelligent argument, I’ll gladly match it with an equally intellectual response. Notice how my responses to Rattlesnake remain free of venom? That’s because he contributes well-researched, thought-provoking discourse - something you evidently can’t manage. I have no patience for fools, apologies if that forces you to resort to imagining me as some caricature in a Hollywood flick as the only way your fragile ego can cope with being outclassed.

I'm with you all the way on this - right up until the moment a virus emerges with a 30% case fatality rate and the transmissibility of influenza.... ... At that point, one could reasonably argue that those refusing to vaccinate and continuing to transmit the virus might bear some degree of criminal or civil responsibility -or, at the very least, should be required to self-isolate. It's a deeply complex debate, because it forces us to confront the uncomfortable tension between individual autonomy and collective survival. In such a scenario, the usual moral frameworks erode, and the discussion shifts from what is ethically ideal to what is existentially necessary... Those who bear the burden of decision-making power often face choices that many of us could scarcely imagine making ourselves. While it may be somewhat hyperbolic to invoke Churchill’s decision to allow Coventry to be bombed - sacrificing thousands to protect the secret that Allied forces had cracked German codes - the weight of such impossible decisions is always subject to intense scrutiny from critics and the lens of history. In the context of COVID-19, it is now being asked: would it have been better to simply do nothing and isolate only the vulnerable, creating a two-tier society? With the clarity of hindsight, perhaps. But at the time, no one truly knew. The uncertainty was profound, and the decisions had to be made with incomplete information, balancing public health, ethics, and survival in real time. 20/20 hindsight gives us the luxury to critique decisions fully equipped with all the facts and outcomes, something those making choices in the moment simply didn’t have

Given the speed with which the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, I completely understand the initial scepticism - I felt some of it myself, to be honest. But things quickly veered into the absurd when anti-vaxxers began claiming that DNA was being altered, revealing just how much misinformation and misunderstanding was out there - especially from people who couldn’t even tell you what the acronyms stand for. It’s certainly worth emphasising that mRNA vaccine technology wasn’t cobbled together in a matter of months. In reality, mRNA vaccine research has been underway for over 30 years. As you point out, though, the first mRNA vaccines to receive widespread approval and public rollout were the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020. For context: In the 2010s, companies like Moderna and BioNTech began testing mRNA-based vaccines for illnesses such as flu, Zika, and rabies in clinical trials. By 2020, the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic massively accelerated funding and development, resulting in the first-ever mRNA vaccines authorised for human use - rolled out at scale, and with remarkable speed and efficacy. That efficacy was crucial, as it came during a period of global uncertainty, when data on case fatality rates, underlying risk factors, and comorbidities remained limited, and the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 had triggered widespread concern and urgency. So while the technology had been simmering in labs for decades, it wasn’t until the pandemic that it saw full clinical validation and global deployment. That doesn’t mean the vaccines were "experimental" in the sense that they were untested or hastily improvised. On the contrary, mRNA vaccine platforms had undergone years of preclinical development and early-phase human trials for other diseases, such as influenza and Zika (as mentioned earlier). What the pandemic did was compress timelines - not by skipping safety steps, but by overlapping trial phases, pouring in unprecedented funding, and streamlining regulatory processes. In that sense, the speed was extraordinary, but the core science was not improvised. The line between “new” and “experimental” became understandably blurred under the pressures of a global health crisis, but I think it’s misleading to suggest these vaccines were rolled out without a solid scientific and clinical foundation. Regarding 'coercion' - thats highly emotive language and requires clafication - this is part of the issue when debating such topics - emotive language is chosen over factually based prose. The question of whether society was "coerced" into taking mRNA vaccines depends on how one defines coercion, and perspectives vary widely based on cultural, political, and personal viewpoints. Most people were not forcibly vaccinated - no one was physically compelled. In many countries, vaccination remained a choice, and informed consent was required before administration. mRNA vaccines underwent regulatory review and were recommended, not universally mandated. But, there were coercive pressures (in a broader, social or institutional sense): - Employment mandates: Many workers, especially in healthcare, education, and public services, were required to get vaccinated to keep their jobs - Access restrictions: Some countries implemented vaccine passports, restricting entry to venues, travel, or public spaces without proof of vaccination. - Social pressure and messaging: Government campaigns, media narratives, and peer influence painted vaccination as not just a health choice but a civic duty, which, while well-intentioned, often bordered on moral pressure. - Limited options: In some places, mRNA vaccines were the only available option during early rollout phases, leaving no choice for those hesitant about the platform - this is the part I can see as being wrong - people lacked a choice between vaccine types. So, was it coercion? Legally? No, not in most democratic countries. Practically or socially? For many people, yes - it felt coercive, especially when livelihood, freedom of movement, or social participation were tied to vaccine status (I could not work without proof of vaccination). Ultimately, the context matters. During a global emergency, governments weighed public health priorities over individual autonomy. Whether that balance was struck fairly is still being debated - and will likely be studied for decades to come.... ultimately, its the crux of the 'Covid-Vaccine' debates we have on this forum.... (but certainly not part of the larger Anti-Vax debate which simply find ridiculous).

No. I really don't get it. I don't get why people get so worked up about some digital fake photos showing things that never happened. It's almost as if the world has gone crazy. ... as I said... << if it has to be explained to you then you'll never get it anyway >>

Going back to my earlier comment: << if it has to be explained to you then you'll never get it anyway >> You just don't get it... Perhaps try the same thing yourself... This time using the PM and post the image publicly on social media and see how your "things that never happened" argument holds up...

What you dismiss as harmless “fun” worthy of a mere slap on the wrist has rightly been recognised in the examples I provided - by both a school and the police - as serious, damaging, and deserving of a firm, proportionate response. (expulsion from school). You seem to believe you’re the lone voice of reason in some warped fairytale. In truth, you’re the one lost in fantasy - because only someone utterly detached from reality could look at the sexualised targeting of underage girls and call it a prank that they'll get over. ... And as for your claim that this is being “conflated with a real act”: this was a real act. A deliberate attempt to humiliate, sexualise, and publicly defame a child. Fake or not, the intent and the damage are real. If they'd pasted her face onto a pornographic cartoon, the harm wouldn’t be theoretical - the bullying, the mockery, the trauma would still be painfully present and it was so repeatedly for over 20 girls while nothing was done about it... hence it the issue snowballed and reached social media. You’re not splitting hairs, you are not the voice of reason... You are are excusing abuse....

So 7 years jail for a fake digital pic showing things that never happened, school expulsion and a police record are a "measured" response? Maybe in Crazyland. I'm not "underreacting". I'm reacting proportionately. You're overreacting. Wow.. thats a special level of Gaslighting - 7 years jail and a police record... Your reading comprehension has failed you as much as your common sense...

Not at Birmingham, I usually find we're the only ones in the queue as we were this trip, even on a flight from Doha - most passengers use the UK Channel e-Gate The last few times I’ve passed through Birmingham airport (three times in the past two years), I’ve found myself stuck queuing in the Non-UK line - while all the E-Gates remain completely empty. Meanwhile, UK families with children, who can’t use the E-Gates, have already cleared the Non-UK counters. I find myself caught deep in the queue with Non-EU citizens, yet that queue moves faster once other immigration officers are freed from a single boarding control counter to help out. Its not a complaint - just an observation that 'going through the UK line with my Wife' would be faster than going though the Non-EU line. BUT - Europe takes the biscuit - Arriving at airports there from the UK the Brexit fallout is in full swing as EU passengers pass speedly through well occupied boarder control counters and UK citizens are queuing up for the Non-UK line which is full of 100's of British Passengers and few officers !!! (almost as if it was deliberately planned this way !!!)... Paranoid - maybe, but evident nonetheless.

WE don't know that at all Richard. Just cherry-picking from some anti-science garbage as usual. As for the balance of evidence you speak of. That's just utter nonsense. Covid-19 didn't pose a threat to anyone. All a big fraud. Please don’t make the mistaken assumption that I would ever include you in any ‘we’ I refer to. When I say ‘we,’ I do not mean those who spout the kind of outlandish and baseless claims you have put forward. Even your fellow anti-vaxxers draw the line at denying the existence of viruses, disputing their isolation, or dismissing pathogenic viruses altogether - and suggesting antibiotics are unnecessary because ‘nature has the answers’ is simply beyond reason. You inhabit a world of your own making. So no, you are emphatically not part of the ‘we’ - quite the opposite, in fact and its the reason I barely give your comments much attention.... just not worthy.