edwardandtubs

You're wasting your time even looking. 70% of Thais had been infected with covid back in September: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/virologist-claims-70-percent-of-thais-may-have-been-infected-with-covid-19/ The official figures are now totally meaningless but you can rest assured there will be no more rules or lockdowns or anthing because covid is endemic and there's widespread recognition that we all just have to learn to live with it. This sentiment is likely to increase when their majesties make a swift recovery from their mild symptoms.

Definitely not. With Shopee, you have 3 days to start the return process and even then it's for a very limited number of reasons. With Lazada, the window is much longer and you can return it for a wider range of reasons. I've returned many things to Lazada over the years with no issues.

There was a terrorist attack a few weeks ago that closed the line. My question related to whether it was open again after that and thaiasia has helpfully confirmed that it isn't.

Is the train up to Hat Yai running normally again?

From the abstract: So yes they looked at both but they also separated them and found 94% to have been infected at least once and 97% to have immunity from either infection or vaccination (or both). As for it not being peer reviewed, this process takes many months so of course such recent research hasn't been peer reviewed yet. The CDC has reported: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e3.htm This is for infection-induced antibodies, so does not include vaccine-induced antibodies. So if two months of the first wave of omicron increased the percentage of Americans who had been infected from 33.5% to 57.7%, what do you think you think several other waves over another 10-month period would have done? 90+% seems reasonable doesn't it?

I posted the preprint but you rightly said it has yet to be peer reviewed, so let's use our own critical faculties to assess whether the 90%+ claim is true. Here is a peer reviewed study that shows infection-induced seroprevalence was 58% in February 2022: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00220-4/fulltext Notice, we're talking here about infection-induced seroprevalence, not vaccine-induced. So we know it increased from 8% to 58% from November 2020 to February 2022. Using our own critical faculties, can we not say that the preprint showing it subsequently increased to over 90 after several more waves of omicron is likely to be accurate? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.22282525v3 In any case, the claim that only 99 million Americans have had covid is obviously false as more than that had been infected even in February 2022.

It is very clear even from your summary of what I said that I was talking about something that would be ineffective FOR ME, not every single person on the planet. So your claim that I made a claim "without qualification" is the falsehood. Please clarify your subsequent question. What do you mean "how can that be accounted for?"

Try again, son. For a start you're looking at data from February and you've also completely misinterpreted what you're looking at. "Reported COVID-19 cases" is completely different from infection-induced seroprevalence.

Look at the dropdown menus, old boy. Infection-induced seroprevalence is an option.

Feel free to post seroprevalence data that shows only 99 million people have had covid in the US. It's not a credible claim. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#nationwide-blood-donor-seroprevalence-2022

I'm not sure I used that exact language but can you really not debate this issue without throwing around language like "falsehood"? It all turns on how your interpret "ineffective" and has nothing to do with falsehoods. Let's take as an example a healthy 25 year old who has had two doses of an mrna vaccine and subsequently got an asymptomatic omicron infection. They now have very high protection from infection for at least 6 months and their chances of developing serious disease are now extremly low. So in what sense would a booster be "effective" for that individual?

Not speculation, I just thought you had the ability to research the numbers for yourself but clearly not so here they are: 'By November 9, 2022, 94% (95% CrI, 79%-99%) of the US population were estimated to have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 at least once.' https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.22282525v3

Seroprevalence data shows a lot more than 99 million infections in the US and the recorded deaths are mostly among people with comorbidities. But it's not just deaths that need to be investigated. I'd rather not be hospitalized with myocarditis as a result of a booster that has not been shown to have any benefits for people in my age group or health status.

He said that there are 70 days of protection from infection, he's not sure we needed to administer boosters, and that allowing the virus to spread among younger people so that they can gain natural immunity is a potential way forward.

I don't know what 'people who promote misinformation' you're talking about. I got the information from Sir John Bell, who is an eminent Oxford University immunologist and Britain's covid tsar. His user-friendly explanation is in this video: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11485347/Britain-didnt-need-boosters-says-Covid-tsar-Sir-John-Bell.html#v-6924036316642691317 Or if you want to research the science, here is the article he co-wrote: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.29.22282916v1 It's true that the immunocompromised benefit from the third jab (it's not really a booster for them) because they are at risk of severe disease if they catch covid. But the immunocompetent are not at such risk so these are the people who may want to think carefully before taking the risk of another mrna jab.

Well, the truth is: "mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated". https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283 Serious adverse events were defined as "an adverse event that results in any of the following conditions: death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event, based on medical judgment." So it seems to be worth investigating, don't you think?

This is an important point that hasn't really been discussed much on this thread so far. There isn't a lot of evidence that mask mandates or recommendations in itself is an effective public health intervention. I was in the UK for most of this year and the mask mandate was lifted in England but not Scotland. So if mass masking is so effective that would have led to more cases per 1000 in England than Scotland wouldn't it? In fact, the opposite happened. I think the reason for this is that covid spreads through close personal contact and just sitting near someone for a few minutes on public transport or in a bank isn't a high risk activity. So some guy might wear a mask all day but then go to a sex bar in Thong Lo (remember that story?), catch covid, go home and pass it on to his family then the next day go and have lunch with his colleagues and pass it on to them. This is the way covid actually spreads so wearing a mask in Lumpini park isn't going to have any impact.

One county in the US is considering something - hardly a global sea change is it? And the rise in RSV is a result of the measures taken over the past few years, including mask wearing: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/26/health/rsv-immunity-gap/index.html So the last thing we need is more mask wearing. We need to co-exist with viruses as we have always done and the only way to do that is to build up our immunity through exposure. We can't spend the rest of our lives hiding from viruses.

Most people in the world have stopped wearing masks now. It's only China, Thailand and a handful of other countries where it's still common. So you're calling most people in the world narcissists. As for how the immunocompromised protect themselves, if they wear a close-fitting N95 mask this provides extremely strong protection. What you haven't explained though is at what stage it becomes acceptable to stop wearing masks. Clearly covid is with us for the rest of our lives so if not now then when?

I'm more than happy to debate mask wearing with anyone in an adult, open-minded manner. By putting me on your ignore list, you have proven yourself to be the one with the mind blocker.

Back in September 70% of Thais had already been infected by covid: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/virologist-claims-70-percent-of-thais-may-have-been-infected-with-covid-19/ Now it's likely to be over 90%, just as it is in other countries. And kids are the most likely to catch it so almost all Thai kids have already had covid. This is the way out of the pandemic - building up population immunity - not by mass hysteria and anxiety and pointless mask wearing.

I went through all the channels and couldn't find the Holland v Argentina game last night. Had to watch an illegal online stream instead.

Waste is picked up by employees of the local government in other parts of Thailand.

Plot twist. Today there was a fair bit of traffic so I decided to wear an N95 mask. The conductor? Maskless. Your profound cultural analysis of this situation?

Thailand is the Land of Smiles not the Land of Masks.