dbrenn

Pubs are screwed, as is the rest of British culture. The government would rather people drank cheap supermarket booze at home.

17 hours ago, garygooner said:

Actually, tourists from countries who have the virus under control could be allowed back sooner ie China, South Korea, Japan. 

You could add Australia to that list, except that the government here won't let citizens and PR holders leave. The world's largest open prison. 

Wank, wank, money in the bank. I never took that advice though.

18 hours ago, TaaSaparot said:

And ..

 

<deleted> - flying Air Asia was bad enough already, but at least some of the trolley dollies were nice to look at.

On 4/15/2020 at 3:26 PM, Captain Monday said:

No that is unrealistic. People who are coughing and sneezing should probably not be let on planes but everyone who coughs or sneezes does not necessitate a cover-19 diagnosis.

Could this be the near and mid term future? Ticket prices would have to go up though to fund all those empty middle seats .... not a bad thing as the lager louts would have to get used to short haul again.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/easyjet-coronavirus-flights-resume/

I feel for you mate - Thailand without pubs, and eating out, would be boring, to say the least. I'm in Oz, but at least the bottle shops are open and I'm living next to the beach.

Hang in there buddy - it will pass and before long you'll be enjoying a cold pint in you local.

22 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Perhaps not for those with serious underlying health conditions or of advanced age.  The rest of us will be fine - very little additional-risk, as compared to other, existing, risks we already "factor in" to our lives (cars, etc).

Perhaps so - I agree that there's not much to worry about, so long as you don't then go near elderly friends and relatives. I still think that a holiday will be viewed as not worth the risk for many, most people being risk averse as they are, so I'd be very surprised to see a rush to pack out flights, at least until a vaccine is available. That might not be such a bad thing - cheap air travel and mass tourism has blighted Thailand in recent years.

Holidays will also be seen as an expensive luxury for people whose jobs have been affected by the lockdown hysteria.

38 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

No that is unrealistic. People who are coughing and sneezing should probably not be let on planes but everyone who coughs or sneezes does not necessitate a cover-19 diagnosis.

Of course. But neither do spot temperature checks rule out people who are infected and can pass it on. You can be shedding virus before and after you show a fever.

Economy class is so very cramped. I don't see how HEPA recirculated air would protect you from the people sitting around you - as is evidenced by the government here in Australia calling in for testing people in adjacent seat rows to the infected. 

Most people won't want to take that kind of risk, just for a holiday. 

18 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

Unless the restrictions are 100 percent, they are not effective.

 

After Trump locked down flights from China, at least 40,000 people came from China to the US.

 

Pilots from the US have never stopped flying back and forth from China to the US either. There is Cargo. Essential workers.  At least 200 members of my union caught cover-19 and 3 died, as of last week. There is evidence most of the US outbreak in NYC came from EU. We probably need to totally re think the organization of society and also the response to virus incidents but the idea that passengers can't go on a 777-200 with 50 people temperature checked before boarding  (with superheated and recirculated air through HEPA filters), but we  can go to a supermarket with anybody should be reconsidered, just sayin.

 

I don't think that HEPA filters and super-heated intake air would offer much protection from people coughing and sneezing within inches of you in the average aircraft cabin.... as you say, not sure where this will end as far as airline travel goes, until a vaccine is discovered. Social distancing in economy class would mean flying around 30% capacity, even for those who do want to fly. I'm thinking that the days of cheap air travel are gone.

Wank, wank, money in the bank.

On 4/6/2020 at 8:39 AM, Vigilante said:

You are right.

..but this nicety will be very superficial

You will never have any friends here

I surely don't and I tried.

 

Making friends is a matter of chance anywhere. 

In any country in the world, people who appear to be rich are targetted by thieves. Try walking around <insert US/European city name here> at night, wearing flashy clothes and a nice watch.

On 4/2/2020 at 5:46 PM, RichardColeman said:

Just seems to echo the rest of the Thai people - general lack of financial planning for the future. And these girls generally have 2-3 more income than most thais

This is not a Thai thing - hookers the world over are generally uneducated, are supporting poverty stricken families, and many have substance or gambling addictions.

If you look at other social groups in Thailand, you'll fine that most of them are very thrifty. To say that most Thais can't manage money is nonsense.

Another "Thais hate us" post.

Thais reflect the temperament of the observer. Treat them with contempt and they'll do likewise. Show friendship and courtesy, and you'll find how nice most Thais are.

6 hours ago, RotBenz8888 said:

He'd stopped all foreigners from entering, so the virus will soon disappear. Clown.

So has pretty much everywhere else - I'm in Australia: only residents admitted and citizens can't leave!

7 minutes ago, White Christmas13 said:

The numbers are not confusing but meaningless for people who

don't live in Thailand.

Very true. But this is Thaivisa.com - a forum aimed at people who live in Thailand, or who spend prolonged periods in Thailand.

Look at it another way - in the US, the death rate is 1,000 people per 100,000 for 60 years olds. In one year, that means there is a 1% chance you'll die, even without coronavirus around. I don't see every 60 year old running around in a panic though - there is more chance that they'll die of anything else, then coronavirus .....

1 minute ago, faraday said:

But it wasn't a fair election.

Tell me one that was.

12 hours ago, White Christmas13 said:

Why compare it with road trauma not every country has lunatics driving.

Do you struggle with numbers? Let me explain again.

Those who choose to live in Thailand (there's the clue - not elsewhere) live with the threat of road trauma day in, day out. But we panic when a threat presents itself that carries no greater risk of death. For instance, I've lived in Thailand for 30 years - if each 5 years carries a 0.16% risk of death, then 30 years = 4.8%. Much higher than coronavirus, but I don't see people panicking or banning cars. Have you ever wondered why this is?

Do you get it now? The numbers might be confusing you, I understand.

9 hours ago, White Christmas13 said:

time to take your medicine

Posters whose only contribution to a debate is ad hominem insults, rather than engaging in the subject under discussion, would be happier talking to little small children.

29 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Your quote was "Unlike the Spanish Flu, which had a mortality rate of up to 20%". I see nothing even remotely close to that number in the wiki you say you used as a reference...

Various sources ... the up to 20% mortality rate was perhaps localised to certain territories, I'll concede. And, again, measuring these things was much more difficult back then.

http://www.influenzavirusnet.com/1918-flu-pandemic/mortality.html

https://interestingengineering.com/the-1918-spanish-flu-and-what-it-cost-humanity-a-timeline

Now, perhaps, you'll concede that the flu virus was just as nasty, or more so, than this coronavirus? Earlier, you were refuting the advice of a qualified virologist with barstool-medic claims that the flu was somehow benign.

Will this be worse than Spanish Flu? Only time will tell, but I doubt it because of advances in healthcare, and the peculiarity of Spanish Flu in that it targeted the young and fit.

18 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Where do you get the nonsense you spout?

"The World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio).^[51] It is estimated that approximately 30 million were killed by the flu, or about 1.7% of the world population died.^[52] Other estimates range from 17 to 55 million fatalities"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

 

2-3% for Spanish flu, 2% for Covid-19.  Hmmm.

If you think that I'm talking nonsense, then why are you quoting my sources?

It's common knowledge that Spanish flu was a pandemic back in 1918 - we'll both have to concede that statistics were much harder to measure back then, as most countries didn't share information to any great extent, the computer database hadn't been invented, etc -- hence, the large range of estimates depending on where you read. But let's not split hairs here, and just accept that it was a truly awful pandemic that devastated the general population, killing vast (30,50,100, who knows) millions of otherwise healthy people, targeting the young and fit as it seemed to do. Unlike COVID-19, which seems to behave more like traditional flu and is more dangerous to the elderly than the young - so far.

Spanish flu was a humble H1N1 flu virus though, and something similar could pop up any time. You were saying that the coronaviruses are nastier than the flu? How wrong you were, if you don't mind my saying so.

2 hours ago, rabas said:

Flu can't spread to 4 billion people. No one has immunity against nCoV2019.

Spanish Flu (1918) spread around the world, infecting nearly a third of the entire world population, with estimates of up to 100 million dead - a higher death toll than WWI and WWII combined - at a time when the global population was 1.8 billion. Average life expectancy in the US dropped by a whopping 12 years because of it. It was a regular 'H1N1 influenza A' flu virus, but a very nasty one that targeted the young and fit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2018/03-04/history-spanish-flu-pandemic/

We should never underestimate the power of nature, and how easily it can kill us. But nearly all of us will survive this coronavirus, unless it mutates into something nastier of course. Then again, we might all get killed before that happens - an asteroid could come crashing through the ceiling as I type this.

Anyway, enjoy the rest of your weekend, and try not to worry too much.

20 minutes ago, christophe75 said:

 

What is happening in Europe, in Iran, again show the same patterns : the virus is everywhere.

 

It's true that there are a lot of people - perhaps walking among us - that are infected and haven't yet developed symptoms.

My doctor (a virologist, of whom I spoke earlier) also told me that:

1) There is probably no stopping it now - it's in the general population and quarantine is unlikely to have any further effect

2) The lucky ones will be the people who catch it first - if you are in the small minority of cases who develop complications, then there are only a limited number of ICU beds

3) If you catch it later on, when everyone else has it, the ICU is likely to be full and your standard of care will be lower, with corresponding increase in mortality risk

He went on to cheerfully tell me that this is nature's way of bringing down house prices to levels where people can afford them, and restoring wage growth (I'm in Australia at the moment).

A lot of people will die - especially the old and the weak - but then again 62 people die every day on Thailand's roads, and around 1,500 per day die from other causes, and we don't really notice that. Unlike the Spanish Flu, which had a mortality rate of up to 20%, and targeted the young and fit, people in reasonably good health are unlikely to cop it this time around.

58 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

People do not necessarily become immune to the virus after getting it.  Reinfection can occur.

 

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2020/02/21/COVID-19-reinfection-cases-on-the-rise-in-China/4291582219521/

 

 

The article states "according to China state media", and we all know how reliable they are..

48 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Your doctor is probably correct about regular viruses like influenza, cold, etc. But this one is a coronavirus. All coronaviruses(SARS, MERS, Ebola) originate in animals and have not been in humans before, and cannot be categorized the same. We just don't know how they will act. For those that believe this is just a different flu, sorry, wrong.

I think you missed the part about him being a doctor, PhD in virology ..... he knows a lot more about these things than barstool medics like us. 

It's not the flu, but it's a variant of a coronavirus, i.e., something that is understood and has been studied before.

Don't panic. Whilst getting sick with this thing sounds very unpleasant, there's a much higher chance that something else will kill you.