placeholder

Actually, fluvoxamine, which is the generic version of Prozac, has also had some very good results and is now in a major trial. And because the patents on it have expired, it should be very cheap to administer. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22619137/fluvoxamine-covid-ivermectin-together-study-mcmaster Also aspirin has been identified in a retroactive study as possibly being very effective against covid. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210713/Could-aspirin-intake-reduce-mortality-risk-in-COVID-19-patients.aspx

Thank you Sheryl. I hadn't thought of that. My health insurance is about to expire.

If you mean that they have the legal right to not to get vaccinated, sure. But morality isn't about legality, is it? And we know that the unvaccinated are mostly responsible for the huge overload in ICUs and intensive care. People are dying and suffering unnecessarily because of people who refuse to be vaccinated. As sociologists have pointed out, the opinion anti-vaxxers care about is the opinion of others in the group they identify with. In the USA this is mostly composed of people with right-wing views. There's a phenomenon in the Internet called "concern trolling". Basically it has to do with certain people pretending to be on one side of the issue, in this case by claiming to be pro-vax, but then inserting all sort of qualifications and even contradictions that undermine the persona that they are attempting to project. Like claiming, anti-vaxxers are noble. There's nothing noble neither about ignorance, particularly willful ignorance, nor about selfishness. Or like claiming that I'm wrong on this issue is in the realm of possibilities. And, of course, in this case "I" means "we". "We" being virtually the entire scientific community. So, sure, it's possible... Just as it's possible I'm going to win the next lottery. Actually, that's probably more likely. But just because the prospect of something is possible, that doesn't make that possibility a realistic expectation. And invoking it as a serious consideration, is, at best, misguided.

Actually, as should be clear, I don't have much, if any, of a clue about how this works. But once again your replies (with an assist from Sheryl) have made everything clear. In this case dismally clear. But I guess I can't blame you for that. Thanks so much. I will follow that link.

I think it's just an O. It's a marriage visa. What about my wife? She's a Thai citizen returning with me from abroad.? For how long a term does she have to sign up for?

So since mine expires on Jun 29 of 2022, that means 10 months? Which effectively is 12 months. And once that insurance expires, would I have to renew it again. Or would standard Thai health insurance be enough?

It's a one year extension and it expires on the same day as my re-entry permit. So is 90 day coverage necessary? I'm sorry for being so careful (obtuse?) about this but a fair amount of money is riding on the answer.

So I have a non O visa. Effectively, I live in Thailand. Therefore have to get 90 days of coverage? And 90 days will be enough?

Tell that to the people in Idaho and Washington: Idaho’s COVID crisis becomes Washington hospitals’ problem https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/idahos-covid-crisis-is-straining-hospitals-across-the-border-in-washington/ Maybe if these vaccine refuseniks agreed not to go to a hospital when they became seriously ill, you might have a defensible position about their nobility. But the hospitals are being unnecessarily overloaded because of the selfishness of those who refuse to take the covid vaccine. And, of course, ICU and intensive care overload isn't confined just to Idaho and Washington

Which vaccine injuries take time to develop? And how much time would that be? 1 month? 1 year? 10 years? Got any actual figures which are the results of actual research to back up your claim?

The CDC does list a few reason why someone might legitimately refuse to take a virus. But it's quite uncommon. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/underlying-conditions.html?s_cid=11575:who should not get covid vaccine:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN.Grants:FY21 I don't see why a biochemist would be involved in the decision making. Medical decisions are outside the purview of biochemists. Why would a hospital or medical practice have a Biochemistry Dept?

I should have been a little bit clearer? I'm referring to getting the C.O.E..

My question relates to insurance issues. If I enter on a work permit will a 15 day approved covid insurance plan suffice? Is that the same for entry on a marriage visa? Either way, I'll obviously be in Thailand for a much longer period than that. I'm afraid that if I enter on a marriage visa it's more likely that the govt will demand a much longer period of coverage. That's what I read elsewhere but I'm not sure that's a sound take on the matter.

Presumably those polled aren't basing their judgement on where they're going or not as the case may be, but where they've been.

Whereas your paranoia re MSM conspiracy seem so confident and brave and not at all desperate. You even questioned the validity of the views of the scientist who wrote the paper on Marik's disease that was misleadingly cited by anti-covid vaxxers.

In thvima's post "do some research" = "get info from sources which can't be cited because the information they offer is obviously false and misleading."

I hope you don't beat up on yourself too much about losing. It wasn't really a fair fight. After all a very powerful ally on my side: reality. As for this "I hope I didn't forget anything you taught me today?", at first I felt terribly guilty. As your teacher, I would have to give you an "F" based on what you've written here and elsewhere since it has nothing to do with what I was teaching. And I thought, given my failure to educate you, maybe I deserved an "F" too. But I thought about it some more, and after lots of pondering, I suspect that you weren't in any of my classes at all. After all, one of the most important ideas I propound is that there are rarely public health episodes where 100% is attainable. Or where the word "never" should be used. Certainly I never claimed that any of the covid vaccines is 100% safe. What you don't seem to understand, despite my best efforts, is the issue of probability. The CDC just released a report that the unvaccinated are 5 times as likely to contract covid as are the vaccinated. CDC: Unvaccinated 5 times more likely to get COVID-19 Today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published new data from Los Angeles County collected from May to July, which show unvaccinated people were 5 times more likely to get COVID-19 than vaccinated peers and 29 times more likely to be hospitalized for their infections... "The data reminds us that if you are not vaccinated you are the highest at risk," said Walensky. The study included analysis of the 43,127 SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of Los Angeles County, California, of which 10,895 (25.3%) were in fully vaccinated persons, 1,431 (3.3%) were in partially vaccinated persons, and 30,801 (71.4%) were in unvaccinated persons. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/cdc-unvaccinated-5-times-more-likely-get-covid-19 This doesn't mean that no one who is vaccinated will be infected with covid. They're just a lot less likely to be infected. And you still seem not to understand the relationship of governmental authority in relation to vaccination of children if the following is any indication. "Let's let the government make the health decisions for our children." Governments have been mandating vaccinations for children for decades. And apparently you've learned nothing about citing reliable sources. You claim that there is a massive number of knowledgeable people who question the value of the covid vaccine. Yet you chose to cite a source who was clearly either incompetent or dishonest in his presentation of his case. Also, in my courses, we don't accept videos as evidence. Fact-checking is a lot more difficult and time consuming. Anyway, in closing, I have to reiterate my doubts about you having received my tutelage. I suspect that you were really attending an agricultural school where you learned how to cherry-pick.

All that CO2 wasn't originally in the atmosphere at the same time. If that were the case then CO2 would have to be consistently decling since the days when life was created. Geological evidence clearly shows that this is not the case at all. Deforestation sounds like a great idea, and in areas of the world where there is sufficient rainfall and soil to support new forests it's a great idea. But in some areas, once a forest is destroyed, particularly rainforests, those forests aren't coming back. Renewable energy is already sounding the death knell of coal powered plants and it's closing in on gas powered ones. https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf . There has been huge progress in battery storage, both for vehicles and power plants.

The IMF did a study that showed that fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of 6.4% of global gross domestic product. Most of that subsidy comes from the fact that the waste generated by fossil fuels causes various harms. On top of that there is the fact that lots of military expenditure is required to secure global fossil fuel supplies. Would there even have been grounds for war in the mideast if not for the dependence of the world economy on fossil fuels? https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf It seems extremely unlikely that the cost of mining, manufacturing, and disposing of solar panels could ever approach 6.4% of global gdp. Also, a new, far less energy and environmentally intense form of solar cell has now begun making its way to the market. They're based on perovskites, which can be sprayed onto surfaces to generate electricity. And there is a metric called EPBT (Energy Payback Time) which does include the cost of manufacturing solar cells. https://idw-online.de/de/news773460

The difference is that CO2 exhalations from animals is part of a natural cycle by which that exhaled CO2, ultimately derived from plant sources, gets recycled back into plants. But the CO generated by burning fossil fuels that had been locked up for millions of years, is a net contributor to climate change.

You should note that I wrote "anti covid vaxxers", not "anti vaxxers. So you got your children vaccinated with other vaccines but not this one? So you have no problem with the government having the power to enforce the vaccination of children for some diseases? Just not in this case? Because in this case you know better? And if there are so many qualified experts out there, who support your stance, why is it that you chose not to cite them but instead relied on some dubious MD who presents obviously misleading information? Information that was repudiated by the lead scientist of the study this MD cited. As for who I'm relying on, it's virtually the entire community of scientists who are actually qualified to pronounce on the subject. And all you can do about it is claim that what the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees on is " MMA paid for propaganda." The same ridiculous kind of claim that science denialists of all stripes consistently resort to.

If you don't want to get vaccinated then you just get excluded from a lot of what society has to offer. Ya think this is new? Around the world for kids to attend school vaccinations are required. So the <deleted> around with your kids is a long established practice. And it's the last refuge of those who live in denial of facts that they accuse those who counter their misleading arguments of hawking "MMA paid for propaganda". Ya think that anyone who has an MD is actually an authority on epidemiology and virology? I get my information from experts. You get yours from those who are clearly unqualified. People who won't put their arguments into written words where they can be easily checked but resort to tendentious videos instead. I sometimes wonder if there's a pandemic of dyslexia raging among the anti-covid vaxxers.

I think the protesters know that they're violating laws. And I forgot that, at least ostensibly,because of covid, demonstrations are now illegal

Very much so if you broach certain topics which are legally taboo.

Which is why foreigners shouldn't give the regime any evidence to support claims that might arise that foreigners are fomenting the unrest. The Thai people don't need us attending public demonstrations.