James105

Thailand is now a country without a mask mandate so the people who do not want a mask mandate are already in the right country. I think China still has a mask mandate - maybe you would be more comfortable there?

The rules are that wearing of masks is now voluntary. Just because someone does not follow the crowd does not necessarily mean they are in the wrong.

The discounted personal income tax rate could be a big deal for those of us that are not retired which is 17%. So for someone who is earning £66,000 (which is $80k USD) in the UK (which is where I currently pay tax) then they would be paying £19,691 in tax annually. Even if the 17% discounted personal rate is a flat rate on all income (which it probably is) then the equivalent annual tax bill in Thailand would be £11,220. Thats a pretty good privilege in my opinion.

The higher prices are almost exclusively due to the world closing its borders for the best part of 2 years due to covid overreaction, causing the near destruction of the airline industry and airlines reacting accordingly by not increasing supply to match demand, but increasing the cost of the flights instead. Of course they are hesitant to employ and train workers that they had to lay off to meet the current demand as there is no guarantee that the world will not once again overreact and do exactly the same again. Actions have consequences. The consequences in this case is that flying has once again become a middle class pursuit and is no longer accessible to everyone. Get used it as we will be paying for the costs of lockdown for a very, very long time to come.

I see this kind of comment a lot on here. I qualify quite easily if this visa turns out to be exactly what it says it is going to be. I'm not sure what better options are there than Thailand for someone who meets the requirements of this visa when taking everything into account (weather, internet speed, cost of living, beaches, people, etc)? I'm still paying quite high taxes in the UK as I retain tax residency there as it is technically not "legal" to declare I work in Thailand and actually pay taxes here. This visa would solve that problem and the fact this visa also comes with a "discounted tax rate" is also quite appealing. I'm quite comfortable in Thailand but am always open to the possibility of better options. Just wondering what they are and what they offer that is better than this one - if it came to be?

You seem to have taken an example of how they work out what a case fatality rate using simple numbers (the exactly 10% should be a clue) and are using this number to post misleading information as though it is fact. Here is the context from that link: "The CFR is easy to calculate. You take the number of people who have died from the disease, and you divide it by the total number of people diagnosed with the disease. So if 10 people have died, and 100 people have been diagnosed with the disease, the CFR is [10 / 100], or 10%." Notice the use of the words "so if 10 people etc..."

Sounds like you are in agreement with me then. The only 100% safe (from covid) option for that situation would be a zoom call instead of a physical meeting, and attending the restaurant was a selfish act by the original poster who was calling other people selfish. Glad we finally got that cleared up.

If I was going to meet the father of a child who was in such terrible danger they would die if they caught covid then a 100% effective mask would be the bare minimum I would feel comfortable in using before meeting him. Anything less I would consider to be selfish.

Clearly I was stating that corona virus particles are smaller than the pores in the typical face mask so can get through the aforementioned pores, but are not so big that you can consume food/drink through them so going to a restaurant means removing the mask. This is a factual point before I went on to make my overall point. My overall point (since you did not quote this) was that someone was calling others selfish who actually went to a restaurant with the father of a child who thinks that child could die if he catches covid. If I knew someone who was in such terrible danger from Covid I would not assume a face mask would be 100% effective, would not go to a venue where a mask would be required to be removed, and would do the unselfish thing by playing it safe and using zoom instead. Why don't you try addressing the actual point for a change instead of just quoting a small, out of context sentence? Give it a try sometime.

How did you eat dinner with your mask on? Granted, I may not be a medical expert but a typical face mask has holes in it large enough for the virus to get through very easily, but are 100% effective at preventing eating/drinking. Every one I have tried has been extremely effective at preventing even the smallest morsel of food from getting through though so it would have been required for you to remove the mask whilst eating. If his son was really in such danger who is being selfish here? The father for wanting to eat in a restaurant despite the risks to his son or you for joining him? Is your "freedumb" to eat in a restaurant so important to you that you willingly put someones life at risk? Meeting friends over zoom calls is proven to be 100% safe from covid - why would you not choose this option when hearing about how much danger his son could be in? Try thinking of others in future rather than just yourself.

Not only this, but people who wear a face mask are providing an excellent service for the bacteria community. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.732047/full "For optimal growth, bacterial cells need a surface to grow on, warmth, moisture, and nutrients, which is the environment created on the face mask due to exhaled air and water vapor".

It doesn't really matter what they or anyone else campaigned on. The UK was on the path to leaving the EU the moment the ink dried on the accession treaty that resulted in 300,000 inwards migration every year. Just because you are the type of person that is influenced by whats displayed on a poster does not mean the rest of the population is.

Do whatever you want, but I'd suggest not looking at it under a microscope after wearing as it will probably give you nightmares if you are wearing it for "health" reasons. Cotton and Surgical Face Masks in Community Settings: Bacterial Contamination and Face Mask Hygiene: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34540873/

No-one (or not many) was complaining about the original freedom of movement as the 12 countries involved were similar economically and the inward immigration remained in the tens of thousands per year. People would freely move both ways and this was good for everyone. What I quite clearly stated was that Blair not only signed the treaty for the accession countries in the EU expansion, but ensured that the UK would be permanently changed by allowing freedom of movement from the poorer accession countries into the UK. Every other EU country imposed a delay on freedom of movement for these countries. Because the UK was the only rich country that did not restrict freedom of movement from those from the poorer accession countries the freedom of movement that was previously working so well became a one way migration for hundreds of thousands of people into the UK. If Blair had simply applied the same delay as every other country instead of his cynical ploy to "rub the rights nose in diversity" as he was reported to have said, the UK would still be in the EU today. So yes, I blame Blair for this.

He gambled and promised a referendum based on the fact the polls did not predict a conservative majority. If the polls were correct, it would have been a coalition government and there would never have been the required numbers to hold the referendum. He boxed himself into a corner and begrudgingly had to give the people a say on whether or not they actually wanted to be part of the EU and (in a probable/possible future) the United States of Europe with an army, an anthem and a flag. I personally blame Blair for Brexit rather than Cameron as Cameron picked up a bad hand of EU cards and people were hacked off. Blair couldn't wait to sign every single new EU treaty before the ink was even dry and changed the face of the UK overnight upon EU expansion which saw immigration go from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands per year without asking the people of the UK how they felt about it, or building the necessary infrastructure to accommodate and integrate all these extra people. Even though he could have delayed freedom of movement from expansion countries (just like every other sensible country in the EU) he didn't, and that led to where we are today.

The UK is about average inflation compared to the EU and not too different to the USA. As far as I know the USA did not "Brexit" and nor did the countries in the EU with higher inflation than the UK, but almost every country over reacted to Covid. Why would you blame Brexit for inflation when there is a far more obvious culprit? https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=europe

So what is Labours (or anyone's) vision to deal with the cost of lockdown crisis? Give people more free money that will cause even higher inflation? You can say borrowed time all you like but Starmer is actually less electable than Johnson, even now with all the scandal that surrounds Johnson. I don't even know how that is possible but Starmer has achieved it.

The cost of lockdown crisis was expected. You can't let people sit on their backsides for 2 years giving them free money and not expect there to be consequences. Labour were asking for harder, longer lockdowns and it would be even worse had they been in charge. Most people understand this. If the Tories want to win the next election all they need to do is remove/reduce the green levies and VAT from energy, deal with the illegal immigration issue and they will win the next election at a canter. Starmer still polls lower than Johnson. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/11/poll-says-keir-starmer-worse-choice-for-pm-than-boris-johnson Labour need a leader that appeals to more than just the left if they want to prevent the inevitable. Starmer is not that man.

Seems to me that abortion is a controversial issue and 50 years ago a group of unelected (as in they cannot be democratically removed) judges made a decision that pro-choice group were happy with. The pro-life group were not happy and there was no democratic option they could turn to that would get this overturned as no matter who they voted for the politicians hands were tied by a group of unelected judges they could not remove. Today, we have a group of unelected judges that have made a decision that the pro-life people are happy with and the pro-choice are not, but this time there is a democratic option as people can actually vote for politicians that support abortions in the state they live. Struggling to understand the uproar on this to be honest. When election time comes around pro-choice people simply need to campaign to elect politicians who support their cause. Seems to me they have it better then the pro-life folks had it 50 years ago.

Deaf folks can normally use sign language with each other and a very small number of others, but I don't know many (any) folks who are not deaf who made the effort over the last 2 years to learn so they would not exclude deaf folks who can no longer see their lips move. You were the one who brought up the fact that blind people didn't need to see peoples faces to communicate, I am just pointing out the very obvious condition you "forgot" or just don't care about.

For one American husband at least, this ruling has worked out quite nicely

What if you were deaf... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/20/deaf-people-mask-wearing-lipreading "When the pandemic is controlled, and the masks come off, I hope hearing people remember how much of the world revolves around community and communicating. I hope they still consider us, who deserve to be heard."

Indeed, just about everyone in the world who is religious has had that belief forced upon them when they were a child. If I was in charge of the planet I would not allow any religious teachings until at least 16 years old so everyone could make an informed decision about not only whether or not they wish to believe in a sky wizard, but crucially which sky wizard they wish to believe in. I wonder how many (when given an informed choice) would pick the one that required them to pray 5 times a day, not eat bacon or drink alcohol and fast for 1 month every single year.

That's nothing. I was walking down the street this morning and a big group of masked people let out a collective giant "tut" just as I walked past as I wasn't wearing a mask. Someone across the street (wearing a cape of course as he was a hero) shouted over to them there was no need to tut as the mask mandate has ended. Then everyone who had previously tutted suddenly took off their masks, threw them into the air and cheered loudly. Everybody in the vicinity who witnessed this clapped loudly and engaged in a collective sing-a-long. #metoostorytime

I had a feeling you would be shy about this. I chose to ignore that offer due to the sheer ridiculousness of it, yet you persist as though it gives your story some credence. I don't think his custom ever existed, so on this point I agree his custom will not be missed.