matchar

47 minutes ago, Crossy said:

OK here we go, I hope you are sitting comfortably.

 

Firstly your GF will have been charged 16 Baht to exit.

 

It's a quirk of the way that the system is divided.

 

E9 (On-Nut) is the border station between the BTS operated stations and the BMA operated stations.

 

The BTS is a distance based fare with the minimum fare being 16 Baht, the BMA fare is a flat 15 Baht, beyond Samrong is still free hence the seemingly long journey for only 15 Baht.

 

So exiting the other end of E9 should cost 16 Baht, you only had a 15 Baht ticket hence the 1B fee.

 

The BTS fare rules give me a headache and I work for them   

 

This might explain it, the blue line is the border of the BTS / BMA systems.

 

 

 

Aren't the extensions operated by the BTS on the BMAs behalf? I'm currently enjoying occasional free rides on the northern extension while they are in dispute.

I read before Christmas they were considering new fares but no updates since then...do you have any news?

If the maximum fare increases beyond 59 baht then it will definitely be cheaper to drive in most cases.

3 hours ago, LukKrueng said:

 

Can you please explain how the yellow/ blue book has anything to do with paying or not paying taxes?  AFAIK the house registration book is only an official proof of address that any Thai citizen residing in Thailand MUST be registered in whereas non Thais don't have to. It has nothing to do with ownership of the property. Moreover, land without a house on it doesn't have a blue book, yet tax is being collected for it as well. 

And do you really think the Thai government has designed a property tax to be collected only from foreigners? How many foreigners do you think own property here? 

Because only your primary residence is tax exempt. Thais can only be on the blue book for one residence at a time so this serves as proof of residence.

8 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Apparently you don't have to pay if you only have 1 property, but they make it very difficult to prove, i.e. you have to get a yellow book which is an unnecessarily difficult process, why make a process simple when you can make it hard

It's just another foreigner tax. For Thai people it's easy to prove because they can go on the normal house book.

Last year it was about 40 baht for my tiny condo after the discount, so I'm expecting a bill of around 400 for normal years. Easier just to pay than attempt to jump through all of the silly hoops for a yellow book which are at the discretion of the local land department.

The defendants were ordered to be fitted with electronic tags while waiting to be taken Thong Pha Phum prison. They were also tested for Covid-19.

Why weren't they taken immediately? To give him a chance to flee abroad?

So not only is it more expensive than regular diesel, it's also much worse for the environment. Another government success story!

https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/record-levels-palm-oil-diesel-burning-food-fuel-madness-continues/

I drove past the yellow line the other day...I was wondering why it's so much higher up than the other lines?

I believe they are asking for the excise taxes to be lowered (then it wouldn't need a subsidy) but that would leave the government's coffers with a black hole just when they are desperate for more tax revenue.

Also I believe Thailand only imports around 30% of its oil so I guess when global oil prices go up, PTTs profits go up significantly (in which the government holds a majority stake).

How about criminal charges for death due to dangerous driving?

So I guess the outcome depends on who made the biggest offer...the owners or the insurance company...

My school is reopening for students on Monday and teachers and students have all been given the "Lepu" ATK tests that were provided to all schools by the Thai government. These have been banned in the USA as they are supposed to be very unreliable and have a lot of false positives and false negatives.

They have also told us that if we test positive we must pay for our own PCR test and treatment and we will not be allowed to isolate at home so it's looking like an absolute shambles as expected.

My 20 year old Toyota is still going strong and saves me a tonne of money compared to buying a new car. Seems like none of them are built to last these days anyway.

Also what is the point of E85? The government are just trying to prop-up crop prices. A bit better for the environment maybe but it doesn't save you any money. Yes it's 25% cheaper but you also get around 25% less mileage. UK will be changing to E10 as standard soon to match with Thailand but I wouldn't want any more than 10% ethanol.

And what were the figures pre-covid? 17% up from nearly nothing is still practically nothing...

Interesting headline...so adverse effects before the mass rollout don't count?

"He said there have so far been no reports of any concerning events following vaccination with the Pfizer jab among younger people in Thailand, adding that other cases reported occurred before the mass vaccination campaign for young people."

10 minutes ago, thaichina said:

No, the business does not force you to take the vaccine, you have the choice to take the vaccine or find yourself another job where it is not required. 

I would hope that if an employee agrees to take only a vaccine that is not currently available but maybe soon, he can find an agreement with his employer, but that s up to the employer, when the school opens, teachers need to be there.

 

I m not sure where you find informations that tell you the Astrazeneca has similar risks than covid for young people, I suggest you check more on that beacuse that may not be true...

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been linked to distinctive, but rare, blood clots that also appear with low levels of platelets (which help clots form) in the blood.

The risk of a clot is roughly one in 100,000 for people in their 40s, but rises to one in 60,000 for people in their 30s. Two in a million people in their 40s died rising to four per million people in their 30s.

At the same time, the risks of developing severe Covid, if you catch the virus, fall in younger age groups.

Dr June Raine, the chief executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), said the benefits continued to outweigh the risks for the "vast majority of people".

She added: "The balance of benefits and risks is very favourable for older people, but is more finely balanced for younger people."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57021738

1 hour ago, robblok said:

To be honest from a business point of view nobody wants to have antivaxxers in their business (unless they themselves are antivax)

 

Why would a business take the extra risk of infections (unvaccinated spread more then vaccinated) and why would a business take the risk of unvaccinated stay longer in hospitals. It all boils down to the fact that the choices of the antivaxxer negatively influence the business of people. 

 

Antivaxxers just make no sense. 

 

On the other hand would a business take responsibility if an employee suffers serious side effects or death linked to a vaccine they were forced to take?

I'm not anti-vax and I'm quite happy to take Pfizer if I'm eventually offered it but I'm not willing to take AstraZeneca since that one has a higher risk of very dangerous side effects, which in younger healthy people is similar to the risk from covid.

If I was old I would be more willing to take AstraZeneca because the risk from covid would be higher than the risk from the vaccine.

One thing to consider with regards to current oil prices is the OPEC+ cartel production cuts, we are still below pre-pandemic oil demand. Also if a vaccine resistant covid variant emerges we could be back to square one.

"Meanwhile, OPEC+ has maintained limits on supply since the outset of the pandemic. At one point, it cut more than 10 million barrels of daily supply from the market due to weak demand. As of July, it agreed to boost output by 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) to phase out the continued 5.8 million bpd in cuts."

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/white-house-stands-by-calls-opec-do-more-oil-prices-official-2021-10-11/

The Thai baht has strengthened significantly since Prayut announced the November reopening but I expect that to be short-lived unless somehow tourists start arriving in droves next month.

23 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You're getting your adverse effects mixed up. The blood clots associated with the AZ vaccine are not linked to myocarditis and pericarditis. It's the mRNA vaccines that are implicated in those - and particularly in young men.

 

Heart inflammation in young men higher than expected after Pfizer, Moderna vaccines

You are the one who's mixed up. I didn't mention myocarditis and pericarditis. The fact is 18-40 year olds in Thailand are only offered some cocktail of AZ and AZ is the most dangerous one because of the risk of blood clots (especially in this age group) and this age group are also fairly low risk from covid-19. The risk from mRNA vaccines is a lot lower which is why most countries vaccinate under 40s with mRNA only and avoid AZ completely.

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Although there are some reports around worrying people.

The risk of developing inflammation of the heart muscle after receiving the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is very low, according to two large studies from Israel. The studies indicate that teenage boys and young men are most at risk of developing the condition, known as myocarditis.. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y

Yes that's why I said it should be Pfizer only. The AstraZeneca vaccine is the one with the risk of dangerous blood clots, estimated to be around 1 in 50,000 for younger people. There is a reason most developed countries do not give AZ to under 40s.

How about just Pfizer without the dangerous AstraZeneca for younger people?

33 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...we have established..."

"We" have?   You mean that you and a team of Thaivisa sleuths are actually involved in the investigation and that conclusion is as a result of your enquiries?

Well it was reported in the media that the dead man's family aren't disputing the gun belonged to him and also a friend of the dead man also said it belonged to him so is that strong enough evidence for you?

I will leave the investigation to the police and I hope all parties are treated fairly but it seems most likely it was self-defense if the Thai man turned up at the Swiss man's house with a loaded gun.