cdemundo

CanI think you would get a similar response in a lot of countries.  The big bad foreigner brings disease.  

5 hours ago, Puccini said:

You got your types of cheese mixed up but never mind, we would be off topic discussing this here. Go to the forum "Farang food" or whatever it is called for enlightenment.

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/glossary/gruyere-glossary

I think he had his cheeses right after all.

15 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

No, nearly all studies produce 3 measures, and phase 3 trials record the number of serious cases and even deaths. Just read the Astrazeneca Lancet study. 

 

Actually hospitalisations and deaths are absolute, whereas the efficacy can be measured in different ways, eg, the J and J vaccine quotes against moderate symptomatic infection. Some studies also rely on self reporting only.

You are right and as the articles state protection against serious illness and death is actually more important than comparing whether or not a person got symptomatic disease.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/02/12/all-covid-vaccines-stop-death-severe-illness-column/6709455002/

"All seven COVID-19 vaccines that have completed large efficacy trials — Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, AstraZeneca, Sputnik V and Sinovac — appear to be 100% effective for serious complications. Not one vaccinated person has gotten sick enough to require hospitalization. Not a single vaccinated person has died of COVID-19."

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

Most of these vaccines provide  100% efficacy against hospitalization/death in an otherwise healthy person.

I see that you are I right.  I was wrong to doubt you. 

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

Most of these vaccines provide  100% efficacy against hospitalization/death in an otherwise healthy person.

I was too quick to argue, I see you are saying protection against hospitalization/death, I have only read studies that measured the efficacy against symptomatic disease.

Can you refer me to a study of this question, it is a separate question from what the phase 3 studies measured.

26 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

All the studies, every single one of them, so far.

 

Name one, give a reference.  I have not seen anything like that.  

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/peer-reviewed-report-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-publishes

"Peer-reviewed report on Moderna COVID-19 vaccine publishes

Data from Phase 3 clinical trial confirm vaccine is effective...

The investigational vaccine known as mRNA-1273 was 94.1% efficacious in preventing symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), according to preliminary results from a Phase 3 clinical trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. "

There is one, quoted and referenced that shows 94.1% efficacy.

So that is to enough indicate that your information is wrong.

Again, give me one reference that states 100%, should be easy since "every single one of them" says so.

19 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Most of these vaccines provide  100% efficacy against hospitalization/death in an otherwise healthy person.

Where do you get that figure?

55 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

From what I read the vaccine only reduces the severity of the symptoms when you catch covid-19.

A 50% effectiveness of the vaccine, means that if you get covid-19 in virtual covid-free Thailand - let's grossly exaggerate the risk of that occurence and put that at 1 in 50 - that the symptoms would not be as severe > it does not mean that your chance of getting it is reduced from 1 in 50 to 1 in 100.  Also, you would be less infectious if you get it, but it's not that you are free of spreading it.fficacy

Under those circumstances I don't really understand the enthusiasm to 'get the jab'. 

 

The only numbers that I have seen published on the vaccines are the "efficacy" numbers from the phase 3 trials.

A lot of people use those numbers to mean what ever they want them to mean.

If you read the Moderna summary of the phase 3 trials that they performed you will see that the efficacy numbers are exactly referring to coming down with symptomatic Covid 19 versus not.

It means that the number of individuals in the vaccine group that became symptomatic with COVID 19 was 6% of the number that became sick in the vaccine group. Hence 94% efficacy, if zero persons became sick it would have been 100% efficacy.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say " it does not mean that your chance of getting it is reduced from 1 in 50 to 1 in 100".  The numbers don't refer to your absolute chance of getting sick, they refer to the chance of an unvaccinated person getting sick relative to a vaccinated person as observed in the trial.

You obviously have not looked at the method of the phase three trial.  It's easy fo find, Moderna has a summary of the trial on their website.

2 hours ago, rabas said:

Sufficiently exposed to be infected, my chance of getting it is roughly 1 in 2,

That is not what efficacy means.  It is not a measure of probability of infection.

It is a comparison of the number of cases of illness in the vaccination group of phase 3 trials versus the numbers of cases of illness in the placebo group.

That is all it indicates. 

It does not indicate your chance of getting sick if exposed.

A 50% efficacy means for example if 100 individuals in the placebo group became ill in the phase 3 trial, that only 50 individuals in the vaccinated group got sick.

It tells you what your reduction of chance is relative to the unvaccinated.

It does not tell you what your absolute chance of getting sick is.

On 2/8/2021 at 8:42 AM, rabas said:

I should take a vaccine that basically doesn't work, relative to all others, just because China mass produces aspirin and other chemicals?

The worst performance of Chinese vaccines that I have seen is efficacy ~ 50%.

That means the chance of becoming ill from COVID 19 is reduced by half.

What it does not mean is that you have a coin flip chance of getting ill.

As you say, other vaccines are estimated to perform much better but it is not the case that a vaccine with 50% efficacy doesn't work.  I have been lucky enough to get vaccinated with 2 doses of Moderna, but I would take any vaccine available to reduce my chances of getting sick with this disease.

Any considerations other than reducing my risk of getting sick seem insignificant to me.

10 hours ago, EvetsKram said:

Not on overstay, it's due in a few months.  I'd love to work but I am constantly told I'm too old at 63. I have a degree in health & years teaching at tertiary level.  Too young for a pension & refuse to die in a prison

If you would consider teaching I think you could find a job teaching English.  With a degree and teaching experience you have a fair chance.  Schools will not be beating a path to your door, you would have to do some searching.  But considering the bleak outlook you describe, it is an option you might consider.

On 2/10/2021 at 6:13 PM, bert bloggs said:

I think the big differance between westerners  in holiday towns like you state,is that we tend to marry Thai women and integrate,wheras they marry only other Bangladesh women and try to change the country they live in ,for instance in my old home town what was once an English factory town with a church etc has now become a different land and has so many Mosques and no church .i could go on ,but i know you will just deny 

I don't think I would blame the Muslim population for there being no Christian churches.  I think that is because the number of practicing Christians in most Western countries has really decreased over past decades.  

On 2/9/2021 at 4:06 PM, 4MyEgo said:

 

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/45-year-old-italian-doctor-in-the-prime-of-life-and-in-perfect-health-drops-dead-after-the-pfizer-mrna-covid-shot-39-year-old-nurse-42-year-old-surgical-technician-also-dead/

I find the "Health Impact News: A Beacon of Light Exposing the Truth in the Darkness of Deceit" to be a tad hysterical.  The three Italian deaths were all cardiac related which would seem to explain them.  Italy has administered 2,893,718 doses of the vaccine.   1 cardiac death per million doses of vaccine would not be cause to attribute those deaths to the vaccine, it's not really a pattern.

Even still, the deaths of these young people are very sad, RIP.

21 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Proof not found of either, did you miss the 60 odd court losses?
 

Not sure I follow you.  The 60 odd court cases that I am aware of were brought by Trump [supporters] alleging election interference on behalf of the Democrats.

What I am referring to is Trump's call to Georgia official trying to solicit election interference to benefit Trump.

Am I missing something?

I think Trump will fade from people's minds without the bully pulpit of the presidency and without his Twitter account.

Although he has really beat the odds with respect to his lifestyle not resulting in poor health, I don't know how long that can last.

53 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

For what, upholing the laws of the land. Sounds like totalitarism that thinking. Lock up the oppostion , just like so many SE Asian countries including LOS?

 

Not for "upholing the laws of the land" for breaking laws with respect to election interference.  Nothing totalitarian about enforcing the rule of law.

13 hours ago, wasabi said:

But I'm sure the hordes of flag waving Chinese tour buses will come back ready to spend 200 THB a day.

Yes, they really added a lot to my enjoyment of Pattaya in the past. And 200 THB, hey big spenders!

1 hour ago, Nanaplaza666 said:

the human body already started to evolve against covid that's why less people are dying nowadays not because of the vaccine because before the vaccine the nr's went down already .

Also, a guy got bit by a radioactive spider and now he can spin sticky webby stuff and climb buildings and swing around real cool and fight crime.

3 hours ago, Henryford said:

I thought the manufacturers had admitted that the vaccines do not stop one from getting Covid or transmitting it, just reduces the severity of the illness. So having the jab means nothing if you visit an unvaccinated country.

Not exactly right.

The vaccines do protect against illness which is what the trials were designed to test.

Whether they prevent transmission is unknown for most of them because the trials did not test for this.

I believe only AstroZeneca/Oxford has tested for preventing transmission and seems to provide some protection.

"oh wan teen"  = Ovaltine

19 minutes ago, pseudorabies said:

It's based on the idea that a chronic infection that gives maximum opportunity to spread (reproduce) is in the virus's best interest and that killing the host is not.  In my mind an excellent example of this is herpes viruses and how they have evolved to not invade the natural host's central nervous system but to reside just outside, usually in a latent state, in the nerve clusters just outside of the spinal cord (sensory ganglia).  If introduced into a non-natural host, for example monkey B virus into humans, the mechanism that the virus evolved to keep out of monkey's brains doesn't work and the infected person goes on to develop a fatal encephalitis. Reproductive dead-end (literally) for the virus.

 

You could argue that COVID/SARS-CoV2 is already there since it infects most people without causing symptoms but is still capable of spreading from those people.

I understand what you have said.  But it does not imply that mutation to harmlessness is inevitable.  Mutations occur randomly and do not occur to serve the best interest of the virus, so that does not seem to be an argument that implies harmlessness is inevitable.  Clearly killing the host before it can facilitate transmission of the virus would lead to the extinction of the virus, but many viruses persist on the long continuum between killing the host too quickly and and being harmless.  

"You could argue that COVID/SARS-CoV2 is already there since it infects most people without causing symptoms but is still capable of spreading from those people."  The statement in question was that it was inevitable that it would mutate to become harmless;  the virus in all its current variants is far from harmless.

2 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Have you caught SARS lately, the 2003 variant?

 

It doesn't need to spread, it can mutate itself out of existence or into something harmless, or something more deadly, it's entirely random, as such any and all outcomes should be expected given enough time.....and we have all the time in the world.

 

Maybe my question was not clear.  I was wondering where you got the information that Covid virus mutation to becoming harmless was "inevitable"?

As you say the process of mutation itself is entirely random so why would it be "inevitable" that it would mutate to become harmless.

I am not interested in a peeing contest about this, just asking a simple question: what is your source for the information that mutating to a harmless variant is inevitable?

9 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

If you want it upper class go to Casa Pascal

Yes, lovely breakfast at Casa Pascal, I am salivating just thinking about it.