HansumFarang

I can confirm that baclofen is very effective at stopping alcohol cravings. I've taken it for a long time. As Don Chance points out, if you have been taking it for a while, it's not advisable to stop taking it cold turkey.,

And frankly, you would be crazy to take it at all without the supervision of a medical professional. I'm not recommending that you take it, just relating my experience.

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Just a few possible explanations:

 

--the current outbreak in Thailand began and mostly spread from Bangkok entertainment venues, where most of the patrons tended to be younger. And, of the younger ones who have died, most have had some kind of potentially contributing preexisting medical condition.

 

--in the U.S. by comparison, a lot of the early spread of COVID occurred among the elderly in nursing home populations. That really hasn't occurred yet in Thailand, which probably has less of a per capita nursing home population and a younger population demographic overall.

 

Among the elderly who have died of COVID in Thailand thus far, at least according to the government accounts, most seem to have been living at home.

 

Yes, all 3 of your reasons could help to explain the difference, well thought out. I edited my post while you were replying, in hindsight I thought that 66 deaths this month was far too small an amount for me to draw any real conclusions from. I'm hoping that we won't get much more data in the way of death statistics.

On 4/26/2021 at 12:51 AM, travelerjim said:

And while you are at risk of infection... Hope you have other insurance coverages to pay for COVID hospital expenses if you test positive for COVID with or without symptoms during your stay in Thailand. 

Absolutely, travelerjim. There is a good alternative policy discussed in the "Covid 19" forum that only costs 850 baht a year, but you have to already be in Thailand in order to take the policy out. It's available to both Thais and foreigners.

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

As reported above, 9 of the 15 were from Bangkok, most with some type of preexisting health condition. The final column in the charts below indicates what if any preexisting conditions they had. Thus far this month, the government said about 55% of all COVID deaths in Thailand have been age 60 or older.

Only 55%? That's an surprising statistic. In Western countries, people 60 and over are far more likely to die than those 59 and under.

This study reports that 86.2% of covid deaths were people over 65:

Quote

Of the 178,568 COVID-19 deaths reported in our six-week sample from a total population of approximately 2.4 billion people, 153,923 deaths (86.2%) were in persons age 65 years or older.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09826-8

Having said that, the relative number of Thai deaths is very, very low (66 this month vs 153,923 in the study), so the low number of deaths of elderly Thais may just be a statistical anomaly. Not really enough data to draw conclusions from.

Thank you ubonjoe, that's what I'd hoped.

I'm planning to travel to Phuket in July on a Tourist Visa.

I was considering using the "official" Thai covid insurance website, which quotes me around 5000 baht for 2 months of covid-only cover (which would cover the 60 day tourist visa). I plan to extend the tourist visa for another 30 days - will I be required to buy any more covid insurance when I extend?

5 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The latest new states more than 14 days before entry if vaccinated.

 

Thanks, Ubonjoe. The rules and proposed rules seem to keep shifting.

I'm planning a trip to Phuket in July. The news that vaccinated travelers may not have to quarantine is obviously very welcome.

However, in the news story "Thailand to cut quarantine for vaccinated foreigners to 7 days from April", it says:

Quote

Vaccinations must be administered within three months of the travel period and visitors will still be required to show negative COVID-19 test results within three days of their departure, Anutin Charnvirankul told a news conference.

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1208715-thailand-to-cut-quarantine-for-vaccinated-foreigners-to-7-days-from-april/

Does anyone know if the "3 month" rule will apply to the reopening of Phuket? I had my second shot in February, so I would be unhappy about missing out because I was vaccinated too soon.

With no tourists, I would expect the sea to have less "human pollution" from hotels etc. For those of you still there, is there a noticeable difference?

I was a frequent visitor to Phuket's west coast beaches, although Kamala was my "home beach". I like swimming, but I'm not a fan of sewage ☺️

I'm interested to know if the rules are the same as when you make the initial STV application in your home country.

Will I have to:

Show that I've paid for an additional 3 months accommodation up front?

Show any further medical certificates or covid tests?

Show another 3 months of $100,000 medical insurance specifically mentioning covid?

Show another 3 months of 40,000 baht outpatient / 400,000 baht inpatient health insurance?

Show proof of funds to stay for another 3 months?

I wondering whether it's best to apply for an STV, or just get an SETV and apply for another visa when that runs out.

Thank you Sheryl, that's much appreciated!

I was wondering if anybody posting here knows if Baclofen is available for purchase in Thailand, and perhaps even how expensive it is?

Thanks ????

A woman I know works in the care industry, and she's tested positive 3 times over the course of 2 months. She has been asymptomatic on each occasion.

The cheap (most common tests) are liable to give false positives.

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Mentioned or not, it is correct. 

Are you claiming that you, personally, knew that before the vote?

5 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

You haven't said where he's going to challenge it. There is no process to challenge a supreme court decision.

 

 

I didn't suggest that there would be a legal challenge. The legitimacy of the decision will be debated by the media and the general public, however. The role of the Supreme Court in politics will certainly be challenged going forward.

37 minutes ago, stuandjulie said:

Both Brexiteers and remainers seem to forget facts, a referendum is NOT lawful, it is advisory and as we are a Parliamentary Democracy  no Government is legally bound to abide by a referendums decision, sorry if you don't like that (either side) but that is the way it is.

I don't remember anyone mentioning that before the referendum.

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, I'm just saying that your conclusion 'factcheck admits major was up to no good' is not correct.

Yes, I should have said "Factcheck all but admits Major was up to no good". Obviously they can't actually say it, but that is what most people would conclude for themselves after reading the article. In my opinion.

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Whether in writing or precedent that does not make the Supreme Courts deliberations any less valid and until the judgement is published we must wait the reasons given. One thing is for sure that from first principles they decided Boris was lying his head off. Nothing to with the constitution or precedent other than thou must not lie. Hard Brexiteer spin that the decision was political a load of old tosh.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You keep quoting me, but leaving the text blank? I'm sure it's unintentional, but it's a bit annoying.

My personal opinion is that the PM was acting in bad faith, but that is irrelevant in legal terms.

The point that I've been trying to make is that the Supreme Court has made itself vulnerable with this ruling. The legal grounding of their ruling will appear shaky to many observers. When the PM, Parliament and the Supreme Court are all stretching the limits of their powers like this, it damages people's faith in the system.

Just now, stevenl said:

But you obviously don't understand that 'whether or not that was his intention' means they did not conclude that that was his intention.

They could not conclude either way for certain - "he may or may not have". They leave it to the reader's judgement. Perhaps I am a cynic, but you must admit that John Major stood to substantially gain politically for his unusually long 3 week prorogation. Fullfact did not offer any alternate explanation other than the one that paints Major in a bad light.

If you believe that the long prorogation was a coincidence, I applaud your trusting nature.

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

If you are referring to the UK constitution, they are written down but not in a single document.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Some of it is written down, but not the parts pertaining to political conventions:

Quote

Another characteristic of the unwritten constitution is the special significance of political customs known as ‘conventions’, which oil the wheels of the relationship between the ancient institutions of state. These are unwritten rules of constitutional practice, vital to our politics, the workings of government, but not committed into law or any written form at all. The very existence of the office of Prime Minister, our head of government, is purely conventional. So is the rule upon which he or she is appointed, being whoever commands the confidence of the House of Commons (the majority party leader, or head of a coalition of parties).

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

It is when it upholds democratically enacted laws.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

That aren't written down anywhere .....

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Did you read the conclusion? Really different from what you're saying.

I put the summary in my post stevenl ????