partington

There is no unwillingness to report these numbers, and it is simple common sense that when a vaccine is reported in the press to have efficacies of say, 85%, 70%, or 95% , it means that this is the percentage of people who are prevented from getting Covid after vaccination, compared to those who are unvaccinated. Clearly this also directly informs you that 15%, 30% or 5% of people who are vaccinated will get Covid despite their vaccination status. There is nothing hidden or obscure about these statements! Contrary to your implication that this is somehow hidden or deliberately obscured information, the mainstream UK newspaper The Guardian published a helpful article detailing exactly this only a month or so ago: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-people-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated "Why most people who now die with Covid in England have had a vaccination David Spiegelhalter and Anthony Masters It could sound worrying that the majority of people dying in England with the now-dominant Delta (B.1.617.2) variant have been vaccinated. Does this mean the vaccines are ineffective? Far from it, it’s what we would expect from an effective but imperfect vaccine, a risk profile that varies hugely by age and the way the vaccines have been rolled out. Consider the hypothetical world where absolutely everyone had received a less than perfect vaccine. Although the death rate would be low, everyone who died would have been fully vaccinated. The vaccines are not perfect. PHE estimates two-dose effectiveness against hospital admission with the Delta infections at around 94%. We can perhaps assume there is at least 95% protection against Covid-19 death, which means the lethal risk is reduced to less than a twentieth of its usual value."

This paper does not talk about "full immunity" - this is a term you seem to have pulled out of thin air. It talks about vaccines which do not prevent transmission of the pathogen - termed 'leaky' vaccines - , and it specifically talks about the effect of leaky vaccines after hyperpathogenic (fatal) strains of a virus have emerged. It does NOT say that leaky vaccines created the hyperpathogenic strains that kill the host nor that vaccination was responsible. Here is a direct quote: "Our data do not demonstrate that vaccination was responsible for the evolution of hyperpathogenic strains of MDV, and we may never know for sure why they evolved in the first place." What the paper ACTUALLY says is that IF a hyperpathogenic (fatal) strain develops then a leaky vaccine can promote the survival of that strain because it will prevent the death of those infected long enough for the fatal strain to be passed on. Normally a fatal strain dies out because it kills the host before transmission can occur. Vaccines prevent death, in other words. But this is one of the major reasons we vaccinate people-to save their lives. You have evidently missed the point that this presents a danger only to unvaccinated people and is therefore an additional argument for prompt population-wide mass vaccination, exactly as is done for smallpox say.

More nonsense from you. This "study" includes results which are not statistically significant, that is they do not prove what they claim to and are therefore meaningless. ALL reputable meta-analyses automatically exclude not statistically significant studies, because the definition of a study that is not significant statistically is that it has proved nothing. This is not science. This is emotionally motivated lobbying, and is interesting only for the light it sheds on human psychology rather than disease treatment.

For god's sake! The Astra Zeneca vaccine is NOT an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and has no similarities at all with the Sinovac vaccine. The Astra vaccine is an adenovirus causing cells to express the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2, which then acts as the antigen that the immune system detects and raises antibodies to. The Sinovac vaccine is a preparation of the whole SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is inactivated and injected as the antigen. They are completely different in every respect. Be accurate!

This is simply wrong. The PCR test absolutely DOES distinguish between Covid and the flu.[ It is true that the routine test does not distinguish between Covid variants] The reagents used in PCR tests are uniquely specific to the SARS CoV-2 coronavirus that causes Covid, because they contain nucleotide sequences that are absolutely unique to that virus. They are even able to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and other very closely related coronaviruses. Flu is not even caused by a coronavirus, so is not detected by specific Covid-19 PCR tests at all. Here is the US CDC explanation, which is, needless to say more reliable than non-factual random posts. Notice the paragraph at the end where the cdc describe a multiplex test that has been developed to test and differentiate between flu and Covid infection from a single sample. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm "Influenza (flu) and COVID-19 are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. COVID-19 is caused by infection with a coronavirus first identified in 2019, and flu is caused by infection with influenza viruses. [...] Because some of the symptoms of flu, COVID-19, and other respiratory illnesses are similar, the difference between them cannot be made based on symptoms alone. Testing is needed to tell what the illness is and to confirm a diagnosis. People can be infected with both flu and the virus that causes COVID-19 at the same time and have symptoms of both influenza and COVID-19." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/multiplex.html "The CDC Influenza SARS-CoV-2 (Flu SC2) Multiplex Assay is a real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test that detects and differentiates RNA from SARS-CoV-2, influenza A virus, and influenza B virus in upper or lower respiratory specimens. The assay provides a sensitive, nucleic-acid-based diagnostic tool for evaluation of specimens from patients in the acute phase of infection."

20 minutes to Asoke means the terminal end of the BTS, either Mo Chit or Bearing, or an equivalent distance. I consider that to exactly fit my description "way out" as you can't travel any further from the centre than that on BTS ! EDIT: Well I'm wrong here, as they have extended the BTS further than when I used to live in Bangkok, so you CAN live further out and still be on the BTS. Nevertheless I still consider my assessment of these former terminal stations as being "way out" to be a fair description...(I lived at Asoke)

Bangkok is expensive, and if you want to live a reasonable life the UK state pension (which I presume you mean, though don't say directly) is probably not enough alone, especially as there are no cost of living increases, so in 10 years it will have lost enormous value. Decent accommodation , ie not a 35m2 room could cost 15-25,000B unless you live way out. You need health insurance, as a serious illness if uninsured can wipe out half your savings or more. If you eat western food it will triple food expenses. As has been pointed out, it is getting more and more difficult to keep a UK bank account with a foreign address, so you need to take steps to open an offshore account which will not be in danger of sudden closure with little notice. With the amount you have it is certainly possible, without too much problem, if you are willing to diminish capital savings.