Tanomazu

Basically when your closest US ally, the UK, is calling out the US for its failure in retaining air cover in the Afghanistan withdrawal it means heights of US presidential incompetence have been achieved that are unprecedented. I never thought I would see the day when a UK prime minister criticised a US military decision. But it happened.

Yes, Trump did get that right, shame that Biden couldn't execute it properly. But to be serious for a second, that is of course why Biden supported Trump's decision, he was looking at what the voters wanted, and Americans don't want soldiers there. Mere Merkel type wind sniffing, nothing to do with "courage".

I don't think Trump led any withdrawal which had Kurds or Ukrainians hanging from helicopters desperate to be part of a chaotic armed forces pull-out, then falling down and dying. Biden has blood on his hands.

Personally I think his massive incompetence in Afghanistan and non-stop blunders are actually like a gift for Trump, who'll be the main beneficiary of these Biden gaffes if they both run for re-election. Biden is making a Trump re-election more likely if anything.

It's hard to say, I've never seen a man hug so many people, he was like an octopus, all over the place, young women, older women, toddlers, teenagers, nobody was safe.

Okay, so Biden totally screwed up America's withdrawal from Afghanistan with all the planning of an organised Lemming, so he got a few people killed, okay, but look how well he hugs children in disaster areas, so caring and so spontaneous, so warm. How could such an excellent hugger not get re-elected?

Probably experiences related do drunks, brawls, bad traffic, overcrowding before Covid.

You're missing the point. Nobody in their right mind would "update" their processor in 2021 to one built in 2007. Your argument would make sense if you could buy a budget laptop and 15 years into the future update the CPU, RAM, graphics card, hard drive etc for 6 bucks a piece. But you can't. For a start a motherboard from 2007 would not run a modern core i7 plus, would not accept RAM above a certain value, and you need 8 RAM today. To say nothing of graphics performance. Actually I play games on my 10 year old laptop and I edit video on it. You know why? Because I can. Because I bought a core i7 in 2011. And even that is a stretch and does not work with a number of current games. If I'd bought a budget laptop in 2011 I'd be well and truly screwed if I didn't have a more modern Asus and would basically have an expensive calculator. To be fair you can use an old pc as a media streamer, but it's not really a fully useable laptop in 2021 if it's a 2007 budget buy. 2007 is too far in the past. I'd draw the line at ten years. The performance differential is just too big otherwise. Sure you can switch on a 2007 machine and it may run outlook and an old word version. But for a full laptop experience that is comparable to what other people do in 2021 you can't really run a 2007 machine. But you can definitely do so if you have a ten year old core i7. Even then same programs and games won't work though. Of course the AMD Turion 64 X2 compares well with the Intel Core 2 Duo, because the latter is also massively outdated and useless today, those two basically have the same performance. However, the point is not to compare to older versions of 2007, but to what is still giving you a proper user experience in 2021. At a stretch maybe, you could compare a 2008/2009 core i7 laptop, but even then you'd have a problem. Namely RAM. No point having a core i7 if the RAM can't be expanded to 8 RAM. Graphics card performance etc. I guess there is a limit to how far back in time you can go and still have an acceptable user experience.

Excellent news. Shopping venues you can't have enough of really. That mangy old cinema was already dead anyway.

It is indeed. That processor costs 6 Euro for a reason. It's one of the worst you can possibly buy. It predates 2007. Even if it were to run some applications it will do so in a noticeably user impaired way, meaning if you had a core i3 or i7 you would notice a major difference in the speed of the applications. You obviously can't cut a video you made on it, you can't play many games. If you're just going to use a calculator you can buy a used calculator for much less. ????

The novel is dead? You may want to tell John Grisham. Net worth 400 million USD. https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/authors/john-grisham-net-worth/

You're wrong. Budget laptops from 2007 will have a processor, and often RAM, that is too slow when compared to what is out now. Some demanding programs will not work on old budget processors for this reason. Top of the range laptops from ten years ago however is another story. Always buy the top of the range processor and RAM you can afford. That's the way to future proof.

HP Laptops have a bit of a reputation to be sub-par build quality wise. Samsung, Acer, Asus, Msi, Alienware, LG Gram, Aero all fine. The secret is to buy the highest spec Laptop you can afford. I bought a Core i7 Samsung laptop in 2011 and it's working like on the 1st day 10 years later. Though I did once have to apply thermal paste, which degrades after 4 or 5 years. If your laptop switches off due to overheating it's not a dirty fan, it's degraded thermal paste that has to be re-applied. I also have a newer Asus which is great. If I have to eventually replace the Samsung I'll go with the Asus Rog Zephyros Duo with the top spec. That should last another 10 years at least. If I could buy refurbished I would, nothing wrong with it.

Unless you have a doctor's note that says you have a reason not to have the vaccine, as your own link makes clear: "A vaccination waiver can be issued by your medical practitioner if the Yellow Fever vaccine is contraindicated for medical reasons." https://www.iamat.org/country/thailand/risk/yellow-fever Always exceptions.

Real segregation, state sanctioned different treatment based on vaccination in all areas, supermarkets, rail travel etc, is very unlikely. At most some entertainment venues will see it, and even then only during a very limited period of time. Because the government knows it can only put those measures in place while there is a specific and clear reason that justifies it, and the fourth wave won't last forever. As soon as it is no longer justified, by law, they have to remove it. And they have already removed Covid requirements to a large degree in the UK and other countries in Europe. I'm very relaxed about it.

It certainly is. The first country to be vaccinated 78% plus, with the all singing all dancing Pfizer vaccination and now they have record number of cases. It's starting to look like with the flu vaccinations, where a simple vaccination did not protect you from the many, many other flu strains. That looks to be the issue in Israel, the tricky Delta variant, which indeed studies have shown only 49% of vaccinated are protected against. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=39c7ff0f281c However, as new strains start to circulate, presumably real effectiveness is much lower still, like with the flu shot. No doubt they will keep working on new vaccines to catch all the new strains, but as with the flu we have seen that is a game of catchup where the experts are always a step behind. Better than nothing I guess, but overall, the pandemic will do whatever it likes and will disappear after the fourth wave, like it did in 1918. The varioius strains will probably be around for decades, like with the flu. Vaccination or no vaccination. See Israel.

Oh you mean the place that just had record number of Covid cases. Despite vaccination. Okay. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/israel-registers-record-daily-coronavirus-cases Looks like this will be another winner by on-the-ball government experts. Thank God the experts are in charge, all their plans are so effective.

From your own link: "The World Health Organization announced that as of 11 July 2016, countries can no longer require travellers to show proof of re-vaccination or a booster dose as a condition of entry." "A vaccination waiver can be issued by your medical practitioner if the Yellow Fever vaccine is contraindicated for medical reasons." https://www.iamat.org/country/thailand/risk/yellow-fever Sure, Thailand could in theory go vaccination-only-travel regarding Covid, but since its own people can hardly get the vaccine we both know that's unlikely to happen. As their recent readiness to open Phuket etc to the unvaccinated clearly shows.

"If Keir Starmer’s party declined to support the vaccine passports plan, the government could face defeat in the House of Commons, with some Conservative rebels suggesting up to 40 colleagues would be willing to vote against it." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/08/employment-rights-offer-uk-immunity-to-mandatory-workplace-covid-jabs Let's wait and see. When they put it in place for supermarkets and rail travel we'll have segregation. It won't happen however. For selected entertainment venues at most.

There is no individual "right not to be put at risk" in any constitution in the world. None. Life has risks. You will get sick and die. However, in many constitutions it is made clear that health is a private matter. Why do you think no country in the world is forcing everyone to get vaccinated? Many politicians and "experts" would like to do just that. But they can't. What you're talking about is not segregation. Segregation is state-sanctioned Apartheid, put in place by the state, like when the US made it illegal to marry someone of another race. However those days are gone. What you are talking about is just private people or companies doing what they want on their premises. However, even that has limits in law, thus for instance those who provide essential services, like supermarkets, can not close their doors to unvaccinated people, nor would they want to do that. Most business in fact wants no part of these over-restrictive Vaccination Apartheid schemes, they just want to do business. Airlines are not concerned about their staff, they are concerned that if they do not put in place some kind of scheme that pleases the governments then they will not be able to do business at all. That is why they support certain rules, however, they too, in case you hadn't noticed, allow you to fly if you were tested, a vaccine is not a requirement. As for employers generally: "...the vast majority of the UK’s large employers have been happy to sit out the vaccine requirement debate, often reassured by the country’s low levels of vaccine hesitancy. British employment lawyers had expected a flood of queries from clients over whether they could mandate the vaccine among their workforce – queries which have not arrived. It appears that many firms have ducked the argument and decided not to get involved in what many consider their employees’ personal choice." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/08/employment-rights-offer-uk-immunity-to-mandatory-workplace-covid-jabs So again, sorry to disappoint you, but in civilized countries where employees have protections the Vaccine Apartheid land is not coming. In the US it's different, as employees don't have much protection, and in Thailand too where employees have minimal protection, employers could bully their employees as they do in the US. The question is whether they should, clearly they should not. Your Yellow Fever example is of course completely disingenous, it merely requires anyone who HAS Yellow Fever not to come into the country. Obviously nobody in their right freakin' mind would want someone with Covid to enter a country. The point, rather is that those WITHOUT Covid but not vaccinated have the same rights as those who are vaccinated. So for instance you can show a PCR test to airlines and government officials and get about quite fine. There are millions of unvaccinated, and if they are prevented from entering certain venues, and indeed some extremists want to scrap the reasonable test requirement and only accept cured and vaccinated people, then the unvaccinated will simply avoid those venues. No venue that does that will survive long term due to the economic loss of millions of people. And no venue with intelligent management would not accept a negative test anyway.

Whether you're happy with anyone's decision is really irrelevant. You are creating red-herring arguments devoid of any substance. I never implied you were trying to get everyone vaccinated. If you had the ability to read posts in a nuanced manner you would realise that in fact I was illustrating that there are limits to what states can do, not you obviously since I'm well aware you can do nothing. The point was, and I will try to clearly illustrate it since you have spectacularly missed it: 1) Health is a private matter in law. The state can not force everyone to be vaccinated. So whether you like it or not there will be millions of people who will not get vaccinated. 2) Your ostracisation fantasies notwithstanding if you live in a civilized state with the rule of law, those who are not vaccinated can not and will not be treated differently, except in extremely limited circumstances for extremely limited periods of time. Because they pay taxes like everyone else. So they and their children will have access to schools, cultural institutions, hospitals, all the places they help finance. The state could only treat those who are not vaccinated differently for a very limited period of time, the time that a discriminatory measure would be justified. However, such a measure would have to have benefits that would justify the discrimination, it would have to be proportionate to the risk and furthermore there has to be a concrete and specific reason for the discriminatory measure. I would not get my hopes up for your Vaccination Apartheid land if I were you. As was pointed out 51% of the vaccinated got infected with the Delta variant in one study. So the scientific basis for any discriminatory measures against unvaccinated is not really established. You're trying to "right the sinking ship and get it back on course"? I think you suffer from some Napoleon complex or such, but if you were doing that, which you aren't obviously, you're certainly doing a terrible a job. We all know that the hysteric doomsday scenarios painted by some "experts" have not come to pass. What's more those experts never saw this crisis coming and did not prepare us for it. Besides, you put 10 of those experts in one room and you get 11 opinions. Your belief in lockdowns being the cause of why the many overblown doomsday scenarios did not come to pass is an example in point, there are completely differing opinions by the "experts" as to the effectiveness of lockdowns. What is clear is that in the real world we have Sweden, which has had no hard lockdown yet now has close to 0 deaths from Covid per day. You're the one who had brought up the histrionic argument that the benefit of the many automatically takes precedence over the rights of the few. That argument was put forth by the Nazis to justify Eugenics, killing the disabled etc, however, this is not the case in democratic nations with the rule of law. Just because it is your belief that the unvaccinated are a "detriment" to society does not mean that their legal rights are automatically overruled. Maybe in your ostracisation fantasy you would like that to happen, but I am afraid in the real world you'll just have to live with unvaccinated people.

Well, no, you are wrong, Johnnybangkok. The good of the many does not automatically take precedence over the few. That's the kind of logic that saw the Nazis kill all disabled people. That is why in civilized societies and democracies we have fundamental rights. One of those principles is that health is a private matter and nobody can be forced to be vaccinated. You will notice that no single nation in the world is forcing everyone to be vaccinated. Even though, according to you, such forced vaccination for everyone would be for the common good. It is not done, because there are fundamental rights and legal principles that prohibit even the most fanatic pro-vac person to force everyone to be vaccinated. They can't do it, even though they want to do it. In order for countries to pass laws that treat its own citizens unequally it would have to show there is a concrete and specific reason for this, and any measure has to be urgently necessary and proportionate. In the case of seatbelts we have seen clear studies which all concur that wearing seatbelts increases safety. However, the science on Covid is still evolving. Recent studies show only 49% of vaccinated are protected from the Delta strain, 51% are liable to be infected. Firstly it is very unclear if 49% would be a sufficient number to warrant urgent and specific measures to treat the unvaccinated unequally. Secondly those studies are not peer reviewed and the science is still evolving. Israel for instance, one of the first countries to achieve large scale vaccination has recently seen record numbers of infections. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=3e551c18281c https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/israel-doubles-down-on-covid-booster-shots-as-breakthrough-cases-rise.html The argument that health services will be overwhelmed has proved to be false one on the whole. Whilst short term emergencies were seen in several countries like the UK, Spain, on the whole in countries that are not part of the third world those short term shortages were soon overcome and in fact now there is a surplus of intensive care beds. Yes, in countries like India and Thailand there have been severe shortages of beds, but that is more an indication of poor planning, underfunding of health services and general issues with the local health service. One can see by comparison to developed countries that this need not be the case, even with Covid. Rather than the selfishness of the unvaccinated, the poor planning in some countries is to blame. Finally the unvaccinated are not a detriment to society, they pay taxes to society like anybody else, many no doubt pay a lot more than you do. Even if some were a detriment to society, however, on the whole they have a right to be a part of society, or are you suggesting that the disabled, the infertile should not be part of society?

I don't think anti-vaxxers want lockdowns or hospitals to concentrate on Covid patients. It is the people who want vaccinations, governments, who want hospitals to concentrate on Covid, lockdowns etc. Most anti-vaxxers would probably say they are against lockdowns and hospitals focusing on Covid. Whilst initial studies show that vaccinated are 49% protected from being infected with the Delta variant the science is still changing, these studies are not peer reviewed. If you look at Israel, the first country to be vaccinated to a meaningful degree, they have recently seen new record high number of cases, despite one of the highest number of vaccinations in the world. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/israel-doubles-down-on-covid-booster-shots-as-breakthrough-cases-rise.html Treating people unequally is a serious matter. Governments can not do it just "for the common good". There are clear legal hurdless for such regulations that would treat people unequally. In Thailand in particular where many can not afford vaccination even if it were available I think it would be a mistake. Whilst in the very short term hospital beds could be scarce, we saw this in the UK, in the longer term those issues are resolved.

This is wrong for many reasons. 1. Health is private matter in law. It is your body and your right alone to deal with health matters that affect your body. The right to abortion for women is an example. Many countries have it written into law that health is a private matter. If you start to move away from that and declare health of an individual is now a public matter then things like smoking, eating too many calories, BDSM where people agree to be injured, high risk sports, all these things could and should become illegal, because according to your logic, they can increase the cost on the health system. The net result would be greatly reduced freedom for all. 2. The state is only allowed to treat unvaccinated differently if there is a concrete and specific reason for this. Moreover essential services, like education, that are funded by the taxes of all, have to be available to all, the same with cultural institutions provided by tax funding. In other words any state measures that would treat the unvaccinated differently would have to be urgently necessary and proportionate. Is the benefit of those measures so large that it justifies the limitation of freedom. The science at this point is still unclear and changing. If you look at recent studies these show that double vaccination has led those vaccinated to be 49% less likely to be infected with the Delta variant. So 51% of the vaccinated still got infected with the Delta variant. "One in 26. That’s the chance of being infected with the delta variant of Covid-19 if you’re in contact with an infected individual and fully vaccinated, the researchers found. This is compared to a one in 13 chance for the unvaccinated." https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=3e551c18281c It is hard to construe an urgent, pressing and necessary measure based on such numbers. Whilst it is true that the vaccinated present less of a burden to the health system, in many countries the burden of Covid patients is surprisingly small, the numbers of severe cases being treated so small that a large number of intensive care beds remain available. Nevertheless, based on the existing figures it would be ludicrous to ask the unvaccinated to be asked to pay for their treatment, just as we don't ask smokers, Sado-maso practitioners, Judo, Karate, Muay Thai, Footballers, or other practitioners of sport where injuries are more likely, or those who consume large amounts of calories, to pay for their treatment. If anyone were to go down that route, it would dramatically decrease freedom for all. Everyone would have to pay who does anything risky.

Girls just wanna have fun Cyndi Lauper