Senior Player

14 hours ago, VBF said:

In the UK it was 2 initial doses, then 2 boosters, given by the age of the patient (oldest first). My most recent one (Moderna) was 26 September 2022 - all 4 are shown on my NHS Covid Pass.

If you've had 2 boosters on top of the initial 2 doses then that would be considered 4 doses. As it stands, the information provided, simply states 2 doses for the majority of vaccines, not 4 doses. That's not to say things might change in the next few hours, though.

Also, the requirement is for a certificate, not an NHS Covid Pass. Basically, you can still have an original certificate of your vaccinations without the need of an NHS Covid Pass.

Further update: I've just logged into my NHS app and asked for a new Covid Pass and was given one based solely on my first 2 jabs. It now expires on 7 July 2023. So you can still get an NHS Covid Pass if you've only had 2 jabs.

56 minutes ago, juice777 said:

I think I had my booster about 9 months ago will I be ok?

 

 

From the information that has been provided so far it's not about the date of the vaccine, but the number of doses a person has had. To meet the new guidelines, most vaccines require just 2 doses, although some only require 1 dose. For instance, AstraZeneca is 2 doses, same as the Pfizer-BioNTech vax. The approved list is available on the CAAT of Thailand which I posted above.

3 minutes ago, Maxim999 said:

Oh thank you

I have the first Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) they were stronger and the second Biontech. In Germany these 2 are taken as 3.

The J&J one on the approved vaccination list is "Janssen or Janssen/Ad26.COV2.S" according to the details and it's only 1 dose needed.

I've posted the link below for CAAT Thailand, but you'll need to scroll down and click on the pdf link

https://www.caat.or.th/th/archives/70516

29 minutes ago, Maxim999 said:

I have a question,
I have had 2 vaccinations, but 14 months have passed since the last vaccination. So I wonder if I am still vaccinated and my certificates will be valid?

I have 2, because the first one was stronger, so I actually have 3. That's how it was in Germany.

I have tickets for February 21, but I don't think that will change after January 31.

I've had a look at the pdf from the CAAT for Thailand and there's no mention of date validity, just that you've had 2 doses from certain companies. In my case it's the AstraZeneca ones which are still good to go.

6 hours ago, ukrules said:

I'm sure that will work out just fine for everyone ????

 

I'll reserve judgment on this until early next week. Topic unfollowed.

My friend flies out to Thailand this Monday and he's yet to receive a notification email from his airline informing him what he needs to provide. In his case it's Qatar Airways. Fortunately for him he's been keeping abreast of all the latest news and has his certificates already printed out and in digital form. So it's possible that some people might not be aware of the changes.

24 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Tourists are like ants all over Pattaya right now.

Isn't that mostly down to the previous lifting of restrictions? That could change fast now. Just saying.

My friend told me about this new rule possibly coming into effect a week ago as he's travelling out to Thailand this week. I'm still unclear on the 2 jab rule. I've had 2 vaccinations but haven't updated my NHS wallet on my iPhone in over a year because I haven't needed to. Does a simple previous digital record of the 2 jabs still count? Not sure what they're asking for here.

From my own observations which are based solely on Pattaya vloggers on YouTube, the place looks deader than a doornail. Just taking a gander at all the recently uploaded videos, there really isn't that much to shout home about. The bars appear to be mostly bustling with bar girls with the occasional smattering of farangs nursing their cold bottles of Singha, and the streets look half-deserted. I suppose that can be seen as a positive if you want to be the main focus of attention as a paying customer, but that can't be good if you're trying to run a successful business. Even Central Festival looks pretty devoid of tourists early in the evenings. Plus, a lot of shops are still shuttered-up along many stretches of once thriving thoroughfares and side-streets. Unless all these YouTube vloggers are using digital trickery, it doesn't quite square with what TAT is telling us.

Either way, the government needs to do more to entice Western tourists back to Thailand. A moratorium on tourist visas and the easing of application requirements might help, but that's only one suggestion. Perhaps trying to increase the output of jet fuel and passing it onto their government-owned airlines with an eye at reducing the overall cost of a flight might be another. Before anyone jumps on the logistics of such a feat, it's not up to me as a potential tourist to devise a plan at rescuing their flagging tourist model. Though it is up to me to decide whether I want to pay and fly 5,923 miles to LOS in the current global downturn. Over to you, Thailand...

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Those numbers would logically be higher without masks and vaccines. BA.4 and BA.4 are now the most dominant strains and much more infectious than any previous strain of coronavirus.

I think the point @rattlesnake was making was in reference to my own post that mentioned how Singapore has administered enough booster doses to cover almost 70% of the population—far more than Britain or the United States—but doesn't appear to be stopping another deadly post-vaccination wave. Singapore has one of the most ultra-strict mask mandates in the world, so logically the masks should prevent the spread of the virus regardless of the enhanced transmissibility of the new variants. If your argument is that protective masks work, then you can't have it both ways and claim the new strains are somehow being sneaky and bypassing the protective masks and infecting people. I'm not suggesting you are making this claim, but I've seen it crop up from time to time.

Though I should put a caveat from the Ministry of Health in Singapore who has stated as recently as this Saturday: "There is currently no evidence to indicate that BA.2.75 has substantially different virulence or severity compared to its Omicron predecessors."

I should also have added New Zealand to the list of countries (Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, China) that have strict mask mandates but where Covid infections have risen or are still rising faster than maskless countries. New data shows Covid infections and deaths in New Zealand have overtaken Australia in the latest Omicron wave despite ultra-strict mask mandates that were dropped in Australia. Death rates in New Zealand overtook Australia per capita at the start of March, despite the Kiwis being on the highest code red mask mandate restrictions—and have stayed higher ever since. Additionally, Jacinda Ardern is paying the price for her hermit Zero-Covid economy as New Zealand is crashing into a hard recession. Just thought I should add that as a continuation to my previous post.

2 hours ago, notrub said:

BRAVO!!!!  It is clear that masks help contain the exhaled water vapor and snot that the microscopic virus rides on.  Masks also protect those inhaling air too.  Without an undesirable extra dose of virus-laden snot.  

 

Anybody take note of the rise in numbers of covid infections in those countries where the mask mandate ended some time ago?  The newest version of covid is much much more transmissible and only a fool would go into a crowded indoor space without a mask.    (any nationality, gender, race, age, colour etc. etc.)

What about South Korea where face masks are still compulsory indoors and on public transport? They have been experiencing a recent spike in Covid cases with Kim Jong Un blaming its neighbour for their own huge Covid spike. Note: mask wearing is also compulsory in North Korea. Did Singapore ever relax their mask wearing mandate for indoor and on public transport? Not that I'm aware. The only mandate that Singapore did away with was its strict outdoor mask rule in late March. And yet, all this mask wearing isn't preventing Singapore from experiencing a huge spike in Covid cases either.

Also worth noting, Singapore had administered enough booster doses to cover almost 70% of the population – far more than Britain or the United States, but doesn't appear to be stopping another deadly post-vaccination wave.

A mask doesn’t protect your eyes, no matter if you're wearing an N95 or a piece of surgical cloth. This tends to be overlooked when championing compulsory mask-wearing. Personally, I think it's all part of behavioural science and the first hurdle in getting people to comply and obey the stricter rules that will follow. This was probably one of the major reasons why so many preeminent scientists, including Dr. Fauci, changed their stance on mask efficacy by mid 2020, understanding the research carried out by the UK's “Nudge Unit” on how people would react psychologically and respond behaviourally to the new interventions.
 

Why is it important that a mask doesn't protect your eyes, you might ask? Well, if we make a comparison with the common cold, you can still catch the virus through your eyes. When an infected person coughs or sneezes, they release tiny droplets into the air. The virus can travel to the nose and throat through a duct that links the eyes and nasal cavity, where it then starts the process of causing an infection. Even if you happen to sneeze wearing one of these flimsy surgical masks, tiny droplets could still escape and get released into the air, especially if the mask is worn incorrectly or taken off when eating or drinking. Also, if these droplets get on to your hands, you can pass them into your eyes by touching them. So do masks give the wearer a false sense of protection?

That said, should you really be getting worked into a lather about the new variants? We already know that the new Omicron variants (including BA.4 and BA.5) are more transmissible but do NOT appear to lead to more severe illness. That's what all the recent articles have stated and the data appears to back it up. I've had it myself recently and I can say as a 60-year-old living in England I found it rather mild. So why the scaremongering all of a sudden?

I'll leave that for you to ponder, but I will add there's a new Moderna jab coming out in September which is purported to target the BA.5 variant. Considering the rate that these variants mutate, I would've thought we'd have moved onto BA.6 and BA.7 by then (or even Sigma), ready for the next scare campaign about needing the next jab... and so on and so forth.

Quote

“The 300-baht fee will guarantee insurance coverage during foreigners’ stay in Thailand for up to 30 days,” said Mr Mongkon.

Since the government are considering extending the 30 day exemption to 45 days, shouldn't this insurance guarantee fee cover the proposed 45 days rather than just 30 days, or am I being overly perspicacious?

16 hours ago, jacko45k said:

My thoughts too..... and if not a normal tourist, a fee for a Visa and a bit of extra vetting is not a big deal. Wasn't the tourist Visa offered for free during Covid for a while?.... I don't recall it made a big difference. 

That depends on your definition of a "normal tourist". The standard definition for a tourist is a person who is travelling or visiting a place for pleasure. There is no set time limit for this other than the current 30-day exemption rule, which could be extended to 45 days. And what about public sector workers who get much longer holidays than private sector workers? For instance, in the UK there are 5.5 million public sector workers who can stay longer than just 2 weeks if they so wish. Also, are gap year students who are backpacking for a couple of months (or longer) not tourists as well? That said, families on a limited 2-week budget will not be tempted to spend big bucks on a short holiday right now, not with the way things currently stand. They'll choose somewhere much closer to home and easier on their wallet.

As for the extra vetting, a nefarious person with a criminal record can still get around the vetting process by simply becoming one of the many overstayers on a 30-day exemption. They don't tend to worry about rules, regulations and getting a proper tourist visa where they'll be scrutinized.

22 hours ago, Canuckluck said:

Does this mean i don't need to apply for an extension beyond 30 days?

Depending when your extension expires, you will still have to apply for an extension as this is just another proposal that hasn't been implemented yet. When it comes into effect, then you won't need to apply for an extension beyond 30 days.

Just found out it pays to click on the link and read the article in full. 

The proposal is for the 1,000 baht visa fee and the 2,000 baht fee for Visa on Arrival to be waived until Dec 31. Not long then.

TAT will also request the period of stay for tourist visas be extended from 30 days to 45 days, and from 15 days to 45 days for Visa on Arrival.

I still think 30-days to 60-days would be better, and it also needs to go well into 2023, not just end on New Year's Day. After all, this is still a proposal and has to be implemented first. By that time, it could well be September or October before this is up and running.

Wasn't there talk of extending the Visa exemption from 30-days to 60-days, or am I just imagining that? Seems to be the best solution to entice long-staying tourists back to the country. Waiving visa fees on arrival won't do much to boost their numbers.

17 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Hotel / GH owners aren't that stupid to follow the govt BS.  They'll do what they want, like they always have.

 

TBH .. I'm hoping there is a mandatory new 'farang tax' added to accommodations.  Something they can't avoid not charging for, and with big letter 'FOREIGNER SURCHARGE / FEE / TAX' ... ????

 

Unfortunately, don't see that happening.

I actually agree with you on the first part, as many hoteliers in Thailand have already slammed the government's plan to create dual-pricing for foreign tourists and locals.

The "foreigner surcharge" will still get the same reaction from wannabe tourists to Thailand as the dual-pricing proposal—which, in effect, is the same thing. If Thailand really wants more tourism, then advertising that they'll pay higher prices compared to the locals for the exact same service is not the smart way to go.

The only reason I can see for making such a proposal is TAT don't believe their own foreign arrival estimates for this year and want to ensure hotels are filled with locals rather than laying half-empty. Either way, it doesn't incentive your average tourist to book an already expensive flight to Thailand knowing full well that they're paying a hotel price that even the government admits to be inflated just because you're a foreigner.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

 

Yes, I get your "book 1-night if necessary" suggestion, but how will that change the dual-pricing you'll find at the next hotel or the one after that? And unless you're a Thai national who is getting the 50% discount, how will you even know if your hotel is operating such a dual-tariff scheme if it's at their own discretion? It's not as if the Thais will be flaunting their 50% discounts to every farang staying in the same hotel. They'll pay discreetly and most new arrivals will not be even aware of the difference in room rates.

Bottom line, the dual-tariff scheme is a bad proposal by the tourist minister and reflects poorly on the country.

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Simple solution, don't use booking site, or any that charge in advance, or only book 1 night if necessary.

 

Y'all got feet, simply use them.  We've only had to do it a couple times, once arrived the rate changed on seeing whitey.  Bye bye.

So after a 12-hour flight or more, feeling hot, sweaty and jetlagged, you're going to take all your luggage and go in search of another hotel that doesn't impose dual-pricing when it's most likely to be established across the entire town or city where you're staying at?

I get your point, but I just don't see how this proposal is perceived as an incentive to boost tourism when they're being so open and blasé about its inequality.

7 hours ago, petermik said:

Room for two persons booked in lead guests name....immaterial who the other guest is........????

Looking at the small print on one of the major booking sites there is an "Additional Charges by Accommodations" clause that allows the hotel to charge mandatory service fees, surcharges, and local taxes. It states: "If we are aware of these service fees and local taxes, we will display them with your reservation price. These service fees and local taxes may be collected directly from you by the Accommodation, in addition to the price you pay for your reservation." 

Depending on the mindset of the hotel or its staff, they could in theory charge you more upon your arrival or checkout claiming you violated their booking policy and put it down as a city tourist tax (farang tax) or surcharge. Of course, I'm talking purely hypothetical here, but should the government decide to push through with this dual pricing, it could tempt some hoteliers to double down and ask for more if they see farangs trying to circumvent their new policy by deceit or evasion. Until it happens, we just don't know.