yuyiinthesky

1 hour ago, candide said:

Due to the high level of internationalisation of the Chinese economy, its economic situation is dependent on the economic situation of other countries. It is absolutely not in the interest of China to trigger an economic crisis among its customers and suppliers.

You obviously have never read the book "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. 

Thanks for alerting me to this. There should be no Flouride in the water, not at all. It’s not healthy, not what makes water to mineral water.

On 5/29/2020 at 9:32 AM, webfact said:

Put safety before money

I think he wanted to say

”Put my safety before money for the now jobless Thais which once worked in Tourism.”

On 6/9/2020 at 9:19 AM, Jingthing said:

Businesses are reopening.

And they should, while they still can. 
Too many will stay closed forever already.

8 hours ago, peterpop said:

 

They are not ''Far Left''  they are a new breed of self styled superior people who sit in judgement on the world from the high view of their insecure ignorant lives.

Exactly! It has nothing to do with right or left. Riding on the Covid-19 censorship train they try to force their distorted and hypocrite view on the world.
 

Journalist are pushed to not report the truth anymore, but only what doesn’t get this loudmouth self-righteous  hypocrite minority to start a twitter storm.

And they are all ducking and obeying. Cowards indeed. Disgusting.

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You again!!!

 

Of course if the wearer is infected and asymptomatic it is pointless to wear a mask. Five separate studies have shown that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus in significant numbers.

 

One study found 2.2% transmission by asymptomatics, one found 0.3% and two studies found 0% transmission.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.10.20097543v2.full.pdf

 

So the transmission of asymptomatic people is somewhere in the range of 0 - 2.2%. Remember only 0.8% of people are infected, of those only 43% are asymptomatic. Thus the risk of catching the virus from an asymptomatic carrier is incredibly small.

 

If a person is infected and symptomatic obviously they should wear a mask. That is not the point. The point is that healthy people are, wholly nonsensically, made to wear masks when they have no symptoms at all, when wearing a mask is utterly and completely pointless to the point it is ludicrous.

 

 

Thanks for that link!
It's good to see such an extensive study, bringing together and analyzing so many studies.

22 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Having a study to test his theories is essential, without it its just that theories. 

You don’t need studies to verify models, but data, more data, fresh data, and hopefully accurate data.

Especially with SARS-CoV-2 positive cases the data is nowhere accurate, but a function of how much testing is done. And that changed a lot over time in these and other countries.
 

I don’t think anyone, even not Professor Levitt, has a crystal ball showing him such changes in advance. 
 

However what I see without needing such a crystal ball is that Professor Levitt seems to be continuously updating his models as new data becomes available.
 

Also, more interesting than predictions of positive cases are predictions of (real) death rates, and so far there Professor Levit is astonishingly spot on.

24 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Droosten reworked the paper and they are happy now but it still says children could possibly spread the virus. That paper has not been peer-reviewed.

Yes, a lot of research and the result is still “we don’t know yet” and “possibly”.

Nevertheless there is data available from Professor Streeck’s Heinsberg study showing that in a household where one person is infected the likelihood of infecting the other family members is quite small.

Yeah, obviously she got a big scolding for saying something she was not supposed to say. 

She had taken the studies seriously, and what I see in the later statements are not facts or studies but a simple “we don’t know yet”, packaged as if that would be facts against the studies on which her original statement was based.

Poor woman, she must have gotten a lot of heat for doing her job and breaking a taboo in that process.

18 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Indeed, it seems viral loads are highest just before symptoms appear.

Is there any source for that statement, especially the “highest just before”?

Nevertheless this is in line with some recent articles that 20% of the infected are causing 80% of the infections.

Wow, that fundamentally changes the WHO’s understanding and message of how this virus is spread and what should be done as a response. This is not a minor clarification.

It means that governments should focus on controlling the spread among people with symptoms, instead of locking down the healthy and asymptotic ones.

Why am I thinking that the lockdown prophets will try to ignore this fundamental change?

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Regardless of how many deaths they’ve averted, lockdowns have largely done what they we’re meant I to do, avert overload on health services.

Certainly a valid point in countries with a lousy health service.

2 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

Agreed, the decision is done, an island villa booked and paid for a month, I am not living under some kind of house arrest, I find the expectation that you are not free to move around and live your life beyond reasonable, and will live with whatever outcome. 

Invite them to visit you there. The island villa is doing the TM30, so they see it in their system anyway.

11 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

However still no indication of when tourist visas will start to be issued again. 

Alternatively, how about the regular visas, business visas, retirement visas. Are they still available “on arrival”?

2 hours ago, JCauto said:

Or, alternatively, the lockdown actually worked as designed, thereby avoiding millions of deaths. Which was explained clearly as the rationale for the lockdown. And it was noted at the time that there was an inevitability that afterwards, people would say "why did we lockdown, look how few died!" and how this would be the indicator that the lockdown was successful. 

I typed this slowly so that you have a better chance of understanding it.

and totally ignoring the excess death the lockdowns are causing. Professor Karol Sikora, the Founding Dean and Professor of Medicine at the University of Buckingham Medical School and an ex-director of the WHO Cancer Programme, expects 50000 additional deaths alone in the UK because of skipped cancer checks and treatments (Source: Professor Karol Sikora in an interview by Unherd.com, available on the unherd.com website and on youtube). And that’s just for cancer!

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

In a modelling study of lockdown impact in 11 nations, Imperial College London scientists said the draconian steps, imposed mostly in March, had “a substantial effect” and helped bring the infection’s reproductive rate below one by early May.

LOL, the same Imperial college, which is responsible for the first flawed models predicting millions of death and causing the worldwide draconian lockdowns, while receiving a 70 million grant from vaccine promoter Bill Gates, now tries to justify its earlier wrong prognosis and deeply flawed code.
 

Sorry, Imperial College, please send your staff to some Exel and programming college before playing with models again.

4 hours ago, webfact said:

“Alcoholic beverages are a factor that worsens the Covid-19 situation,” he said. “Drinkers will have lowered immunity against the virus while drinking itself promotes public gathering, which increases the risk of the virus spreading,

It it really that "drinking itself promotes public gathering", or could it not be that "in a gathering such as in a bar, people also drink"?

I think they mess up cause and effect. Would be not the first time.