TallGuyJohninBKK

N95 masks, when worn and fit properly, have repeatedly been shown and proven to be very effective in blocking airborne virus particles and significantly reducing exposure to infections, including from COVID. Because the virus particles aren't just floating around in the air by themselves, but instead as part of respiratory exhaling. Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent ----------------------- "After all, N95s were what ER doctors wore to treat COVID patients at the very beginning of the pandemic—before vaccines or boosters were available, and before most people began wearing masks indoors at all. “These masks are literally designed to block out infectious aerosols,” says Abraar Karan, an infectious-disease doctor at Stanford. He thinks that more everyday people should upgrade their masks, and that for health-care workers, N95s should be made mandatory." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/01/does-it-help-wear-mask-if-no-one-else/621177/ ------------------------------------- By Reuters Fact Check "Reuters recently debunked claims about masks and lockdowns, finding they effectively slow the spread of COVID-19 (here). Several studies show mask-wearing helps reduce transmission of the virus (here, here). ... A Sept. 2020 Duke University study found that out of 14 different face covering types, a fitted N95 respiratory mask, commonly used by healthcare workers to prevent transmission of infectious diseases, provided the most effective protection against respiratory droplets (here)." https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-masks-idUSL1N2ST0OO

Americans at the top of both nationality lists... I figured we'd be relatively high on the lists given the size of the U.S. population, but I didn't expect we'd be at the top of both... and by a pretty wide margin... especially considering the Chinese and Japanese business presences here. But perhaps it's a result of that famous and often mis-attributed American slogan -- "there's a sucker born every minute." ????

I've always understood that "possessor" in these discussions here in Thailand pretty much comes down to being translated at "occupant," which you are. But at some point, Thai Immigration may demand from you either a signed lease and/or a copy of the owner's legal ID, signed by the owner. I believe I did the "possessor" deal for TM30 registration at some point in the past. But I had a signed lease and signed copy of my owner's Thai ID.

I answered the part about the wife's loan issue above... As for the getting married (remarried) documentation part, the specifics may vary some from amphur/khet office to office... Some places make it relatively easy, others hard. But in general, as an American, they seem to want: --a US Embassy certified copy of my passport face page (some offices don't) --the completed US Embassy-stamped affidavit of freedom to marry --then translating the marriage affidavit and my US passport copy into Thai, and taking them to the Thai MFA to have the translations/documents certified and stamped there. --And then for the district office, I believe we also need to bring the Thai Khor Ror 2 and 3 documents (original Thai marriage certificate and marriage registration document) and subsequent Thai divorce certificate. I'm not clear yet on whether those also have to go thru the Thai MFA process. When we got divorced here, the district office gave us the TH language version of the Thai divorce certificate, and also an EN language version of the same. So I'm planning to bring along the EN version when I go for my US Embassy appointment. For whatever it's worth, when we originally got married here many years back, I had a single prior marriage and divorce in the U.S. I had documentation of that here with me, and wondered if the U.S. Embassy would ask to see it when I applied here for the affadavit of freedom to marry. But they did not ask to see or use it at that time.

The bank already knew it was her funds, not mine, going to pay for the house purchase. But because it involved a loan, if we were married, they (the bank) insisted I had to sign on the loan. It wasn't about complications at the Thai land office. It was the government bank relating to the loan. All I can add is that, my understanding of Thai marriage law confirms that any loans or other debts that a husband or wife individually takes out while married are considered joint financial obligations under Thai law -- even if the actual debt was only incurred by one person, not both. The issue about the affidavit for the Land Office is for a different purpose and doesn't somehow erase the legal joint obligations of spouses for debts incurred while married.

At that time, we didn't have anyone in our immediate circle here who was sufficiently English fluent for the purpose, not to mention having to drag them down to the khet office for a half a day.

The Thai government bank where my wife was taking out a loan in her name on a house she was buying for her parents' use. If we were married when she took out the loan, the bank was going to require me to be a signer on the loan -- even though I'd have no actual or legal rights to the house/land.

AFAIK, that waiting period does NOT apply if the same man and woman want to get remarried after getting divorced here. Rather, it applies if one or the other, after getting divorced in Thailand, want to marry someone else.

How recently or long ago was that?

My wife and I originally were married at Bangrak quite a few years ago with very little fuss or hassle, all in the same day on a walk-in basis -- unlike what other district offices in Bangkok were demanding at the time about having to bring along two witnesses and a Thai-English translator, and other junk. Recently, the wife and I needed to get temporarily divorced so she could transact some land business here without having a farang husband complicate things. So, we figured we'd go back to Bangrak to check about the divorce, which we did last month... WRONG! The desk clerks there basically told my Thai wife the same rigamarole that JNP recounted above about needing an advance appointment and facing a long wait, etc etc. We passed on that, and instead paid an agent who took us to another district office in BKK where we got divorced in about one hour without having to bring any witnesses, have any translator, wait long for an appointment, etc etc. But now that we're ready to get re-married again, I'm wondering if Bangrak is still an easy-go place to get the deed done... Because they sure weren't when it came to getting the divorce done.

The legal claims against Merck that Zostavax caused some vaccine recipients to later develop shingles apparently were never successfully proven. (See the Fierce Pharma article I linked to above). But the main reason to prefer Shingrix over Zostavax appears to be the issue of their relative effectiveness in preventing shingles and PHN: "Studies presented to the committee show that Zostavax is 51% effective against shingles and 67% effective against postherpetic neuralgia. In contrast, Shingrix is 97% effective against shingles for people between the ages of 50 and 69 and 91% effective for people 70 or older. It is 91% effective against postherpetic neuralgia for people 50 and older. These rates are based on evidence presented to the committee from clinical trials with over 38,000 total participants. Both vaccines wane in effectiveness over time. Zostavax diminishes in effectiveness by 15% to 25% after the first year and shows no significant protection by the ninth year, according to research presented to the committee. Shingrix remained at or above 85% effectiveness up to four years after vaccination; longer-term effectiveness is unknown." https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/health/cdc-new-shingles-vaccine/index.html

"A shingles vaccine called zoster vaccine live (Zostavax) is no longer available for use in the United States, as of November 18, 2020. If you had Zostavax in the past, you should still get Shingrix. "Shingles vaccination is the only way to protect against shingles and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), the most common complication from shingles." "In adults 50 to 69 years old with healthy immune systems, Shingrix was 97% effective in preventing shingles; in adults 70 years and older, Shingrix was 91% effective. In adults 50 years and older, Shingrix was 91% effective in preventing PHN; in adults 70 years and older, Shingrix was 89% effective." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/index.html

Merck escapes nearly 1,200 Zostavax shingles vaccine lawsuits as plaintiffs' testimony falls short Dec 8, 2022 Following a court judgment in its favor last year, Merck & Co. is formally bidding adieu to more than 1,000 lawsuits alleging its shingles vaccine Zostavax caused patients to develop the disease. Tuesday, a Pennsylvania federal judge threw out exactly 1,189 cases against Merck in the four-year-long group of cases. ... The plaintiffs in the now-dismissed clutch of lawsuits argued Zostavax caused their shingles. But the medical expert attempting to back up that claim failed to consider whether the plaintiffs’ disease occurred naturally because they’d had chickenpox as kids, according to court filings published this week. (more) https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/merck-dodges-nearly-1200-zostavax-shingles-vaccine-lawsuits-after-plaintiffs-expert

fyi... "United States Zostavax was developed by Merck & Co. and approved and licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in May 2006,[19] In 2011, the FDA approved the live vaccine for use in individuals 50 to 59 years of age.[3][42] ... Shingrix, which provides strong protection against shingles and PHN, was preferred over Zostavax before Zostavax was discontinued.[44] In June 2020, Merck discontinued the sale of Zostavax in the U.S. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that healthy adults 50 years and older get two doses of Shingrix, at least two months apart." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoster_vaccine#United_States

Indeed... Re the OP's comment above... In general, a Thai will is only going to cover/govern assets here in TH... If the OP has property assets in S.A., I believe he's going to need a S.A. will to cover those, separate from any assets and related will done in TH.

I believe the A2 bus is still running, as my wife often takes it from DM back to Mochit BTS... However, one concern about the article linked above is it doesn't appear to have any date on it, indicating the currency of its info. IIRC, during the COVID peak here, most or all of the tourist oriented airport bus lines were halted. Now that some tourists are finally returning, I know the A2 line is back, but not sure about the various others listed in the article.

Re China and the impact of its incoming tourism to Thailand.... The headline below seems a bit misleading, since the 90% figure appears to be a cumulative rate of COVID infection since the start of the pandemic, and NOT meaning 90% of the province's population are infected NOW.... But the article nonetheless lays out the implications. Mon 9 Jan 2023 01.13 EST 90% of people in China province infected with Covid, says local health official Data from the health commission for central Henan suggests 88 million people in the province may have had the virus Almost 90% of people in China’s third most populous province have now been infected with Covid-19, a top local official has said, as the country battles an unprecedented surge in cases. ... Covid cases are expected to soar further as the country celebrates lunar new year later this month, with millions set to travel from big cities to visit vulnerable older relatives in the countryside. ... But the World Health Organization has said China is under-reporting the scale of the outbreak and international health experts estimate more than 1 million people in the country could die from the disease this year. (more) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/09/life-is-moving-forward-china-enters-new-phase-in-covid-fight-as-borders-open

Skatewash, I wonder, is doing the IRS mailed transcript route you mention any different/better than just providing the bank/brokerage a copy of your most recent IRS tax return filing, which hopefully is using the person's U.S. mailing/residence address? But when banks and FIs get hinky about these kinds of things, they usually seem to ask for things that are specifically residency based -- such as home utility bills, home insurance policy, home phone bill, etc etc. Perhaps voter registration as well.

Was it your Schwab brokerage or bank account that was frozen and/or where the U.S. physical address request arose?

If you don't mind me asking, what FI made that very helpful offer of assistance to your Thai wife to handle POD issues in the event of your passing? Even though my Thai wife is fluent in English, she's not fluent, at least not yet, in dealing with or even understanding U.S. financial institutions and all the processes that arise in a POD scenario.

Ahh, I went back and re-read the original Schwab letter you posted in your OP... It appears to have come from Schwab Bank, and not the main Schwab brokerage arm, and thus pertained only to your BANK account(s) with them, correct? And not your Schwab brokerage accounts. Although, if I got a letter like that from Schwab Bank, I'd be a bit nervous that they might eventually end up taking the same action on the brokerage side. Obviously, hope they don't for your sake.

What were the options they gave you in the letter you cited in your OP for confirming your U.S. address? Possible to satisfy their request?

After the original post above, I looked online and couldn't find any current reference to a "Duke's" restaurant at a mall in Hua Hin. Is the new "Living Room" place you mention run by the same people behind the prior Duke's? And, is/was the former Duke's in Hua Hin related to the original Duke's from Chiang Mai?

That's correct... as far as BKK CW's policy re accepting bank income letters.

The link you posted above seems to no longer be available, fyi.