TallGuyJohninBKK

Fauci dismisses ‘preposterous’ allegations that he led covid coverup The infectious-disease expert said Republicans have distorted emails between scientists as they discussed whether a lab leak of the coronavirus was possible. Anthony S. Fauci defended himself Monday against claims that he orchestrated a coverup of the coronavirus pandemic’s origins, with the former government official rejecting some allegations as “simply preposterous.” The prominent infectious-disease expert, who served as a senior leader at the National Institutes of Health for four decades before leaving government at the end of 2022, said Republicans have distorted emails between himself and other scientists as they discussed whether a laboratory leak of the coronavirus was possible. “We spend our whole life trying to determine the causes of infectious diseases, and stop them to protect the American people,” Fauci said, adding that he did not pressure colleagues to reach a conclusion about the origins of the virus and disputing other Republican charges. (more) Washington Post https://archive.ph/u0Kv8 .

I know anti-vaxers who will do and say almost anything in hopes of preventing people from getting the COVID vaccines that substantially reduce their risk of serious illness and death from COVID -- as documented in the source study reported in this thread and elsewhere. And meanwhile, here in Thailand, where the government hasn't had a national COVID vaccination campaign since 2022, we have this: "The current level of new weekly COVID hospitalizations remains more than three times higher than at the start of the recent surge in mid-March. The latest weekly tally of serious condition COVID hospitalized patients is Thailand's highest since late August 2022. The tally of those requiring ventilation to breathe is Thailand's highest since late December 2022."

Thailand MoPH Weekly COVID report for May 26 - June 1, 2024: --1,863 new COVID hospitalizations, averaging 266 per day, up 62 / 3.4% from the prior week --6 new COVID deaths, the same as the prior week --738 current COVID patients hospitalized in serious condition (pneumonia symptoms), up 49 / 7.1% from the prior week (dark purple) --316 current COVID patients hospitalized requiring intubation/ventilation to breathe, up 11 / 3.6% from the prior week (light purple) The current level of new weekly COVID hospitalizations remains more than three times higher than at the start of the recent surge in mid-March. The latest weekly tally of serious condition COVID hospitalized patients is Thailand's highest since late August 2022. The tally of those requiring ventilation to breathe is Thailand's highest since late December 2022. Cumulative figures since the start of the current year are COVID new hospitalizations (20,483) & COVID deaths (132). Of the 6 new official COVID deaths for the past week, the MoPH below is reporting that 3 were male and 3 female. By age, 3 were ages 70 and above, 2 ages 60-69, and 1 age 20-49. https://ddc.moph.go.th/covid19-dashboard/?dashboard=main The latest MoPH report on new weekly COVID hospitalizations showed them resuming a long series of weekly increases after a one week decline last month in May. The weekly new COVID hospitalizations during this recent period have been: March 16 -- 501 March 23 -- 630 March 30 -- 728 April 6 -- 774 April 13 -- 849 April 20 -- 1,004 April 27 -- 1,672 May 4 -- 1,792 May 11 -- 1,880 May 18 - 1,882 May 25 -- 1,801 June 1 -- 1,863 By comparison, Thailand's key weekly COVID indicators to start 2024 were 664 new COVID hospitalizations and 4 COVID deaths for the first week of the year. Last year, Thailand had a similar spring COVID surge that saw new weekly COVID hospitalizations peak at 3,085 in early June, so the current numbers remain below last spring's peak.

UN Watch -- not exactly a neutral / impartial player when it comes to Middle East issues: UN Watch – Bias and Credibility "UN Watch was founded by Morris Berthold Abram, civil rights activist and former U.S. Honorary President of the American Jewish Committee, focusing on “monitoring the continuing discriminatory treatment of Israel in the UN system and attitudes toward Jews in the world body as well as those matters which concern American interests.“ ... According to Sourcewatch, the UN Watch lobby is for the removal of UN personnel who are considered critical of Israel: “US calls for resignation of UN’s Richard Falk Special rapporteur for Palestinian territories said NGO UN Watch should be investigated to ensure it’s not controlled by Israel” https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/ "Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel"[6] and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide". ... Primarily, UN Watch denounces what it views as anti-Israel sentiment at the UN and UN-sponsored events. ... In 2001, Harris announced that UN Watch had become a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Jewish Committee. According to a press release at the time, “UN Watch was established with the generous assistance of Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress. Eighteen months ago, the American Jewish Committee and the World Jewish Congress reached an agreement, approved by the international board of UN Watch, to transfer full control of the organization to AJC, an agreement that went into effect on January 1, 2001.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch "From 1993 to 2000, United Nations Watch was affiliated with the World Jewish Congress, and then in 2001 with the American Jewish Committee. As of 2013, United Nations Watch was no longer affiliated with any organization, and is fully independent." https://unwatch.org/about-us/mission-history/

On the other hand, also from the U.S. NIH: COVID-19 Vaccines Recommendation The Panel recommends COVID-19 vaccination for everyone who is eligible according to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Rationale Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent COVID-19... https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/overview/prevention-of-sars-cov-2/

People can look up all they want on supplement-selling websites and dodgy YT videos. But credible sources find no substantial evidence to support most of what you're citing above in terms of actually preventing or treating COVID: U.S. National Institutes of Health - Dec. 2023: Supplements Vitamin D There is insufficient evidence for the Panel to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Zinc There is insufficient evidence for the Panel to recommend either for or against the use of zinc for the treatment of COVID-19. The Panel recommends against using zinc supplementation above the recommended dietary allowance (i.e., zinc 11 mg daily for men, zinc 8 mg daily for nonpregnant women) for the prevention of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial" https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/summary-recommendations/ And as for ivermectin: Recommendation The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 ... Trials have failed to find a clinical benefit of using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in outpatients. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/miscellaneous-drugs/ivermectin/

The current COVID-19 boosters targeting the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant are still offering solid protection against infection, hospitalizations, and death, but are somewhat limited in efficacy against illnesses caused by the JN.1 subvariant, now the dominant strain in the United States, according to a research letter ... in the New England Journal of Medicine. ... At 4 weeks after vaccination, the XBB.1.5 vaccines were 52.2% effective at preventing infection (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.6% to 58.7%). Efficacy against infection dropped at 10 weeks to 32.6% (95% CI, 28.1% to 36.8%), and at 20 weeks to 20.4% (95% CI, 6.2% to 32.5%). The boosters were 66.8% effective at preventing hospitalization at 4 weeks (95% CI, 51.7% to 77.1%), and decreased to 57.1% (95% CI, 40.4% to 69.2%) after 10 weeks. ... During that [JN.1] period, boosters provided 44.3% protection against infection at 4 weeks (95% CI, 33.5% to 53.4%) and 60.1% protection against hospitalization (95% CI, 30.9% to 77.0), which likewise waned over time. (more) https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/current-covid-boosters-offer-good-protection-against-severe-outcomes-less-so-against-jn1 ... We collected individual-level data on the uptake of the three XBB.1.5 vaccines and the incidence of Covid-19 between September 11, 2023, and February 21, 2024, in a cohort of approximately 1.8 million persons by linking records from the Nebraska Electronic Disease Surveillance System and the Nebraska State Immunization Information System (NESIIS). ... The vaccine effectiveness against infection reached a level of 52.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.6 to 58.7) after 4 weeks. It decreased to 32.6% (95% CI, 28.1 to 36.8) after 10 weeks and to 20.4% (95% CI, 6.2 to 32.5) after 20 weeks. The effectiveness against hospitalization reached a level of 66.8% (95% CI, 51.7 to 77.1) after 4 weeks and decreased to 57.1% (95% CI, 40.4 to 69.2) after 10 weeks. ... Overall, the XBB.1.5 vaccines were effective against omicron subvariants, although less so against JN.1. The effectiveness was greater against hospitalization and death than against infection, and it waned moderately from its peak over time." https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2402779#f1

Because the population characteristics and density in Sweden are considerably different than those in the more urbanized countries of Europe... But when you compare Sweden to its comparable neighboring countries that have more common characteristics and also chose to impose more COVID restrictions, Sweden came out far behind with much higher excess mortality during the pandemic. Source: And similar findings by Johns Hopkins, which looked at per capita COVID death rates across all countries through March 2023: Sweden again, far exceeding its comparable neighbors that had more restrictions. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Global pandemic treaty to be concluded by 2025, WHO says LONDON, June 1 (Reuters) - Talks aimed at reaching a global agreement on how to better fight pandemics will be concluded by 2025 or earlier if possible, the World Health Organization said on Saturday. The WHO's 194 member states have been negotiating for two years on an agreement that could increase collaboration before and during pandemics after the acknowledged failures during COVID-19. The UN-agency had initially aimed for an agreement this week, but talks have been extended amid deep divisions between rich and poorer countries on issues like vaccine-sharing and preparedness. Countries did, however, reach a parallel deal to update existing legally-binding health rules, known as the International Health Regulations (IHR), which includes a new category of "pandemic emergency" for the most significant and globally threatening health crises. (more) https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/global-pandemic-treaty-be-concluded-by-2025-who-says-2024-06-01/

The trend toward increasing and emerging disease outbreaks is real, so the medicos hopefully will need to be on their toes with corresponding vaccines and medications to protect the global population: Will climate change amplify epidemics and give rise to pandemics? 25 Aug 2023 "While the world recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic, another crisis continues to spiral at a much faster speed than was expected. Climate change is dominating our lives and causing a high level of distress. Countries all over the world are struggling to survive the damage caused by extreme events. They are trying to control wildfires, rebuild roads and houses damaged by floods, and learn to survive in a hotter and more dangerous world. However, there is also a new threat that is being overlooked—the interaction between climate change and infectious diseases. A comprehensive meta-analysis revealed that climate change could aggravate more than 50% of known human pathogens. Unfortunately, this is happening now. Since the last big wave of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)—the omicron variant—less than 2 years ago, a range of pathogens have suddenly emerged. Some are not well-known, such as mpox and chikungunya virus; others have been known about for centuries, such as Vibrio cholerae (which causes cholera) and Plasmodia parasites (which cause malaria). There is even the prospect that pathogens frozen in the permafrost, for which no immunity currently exists, may be released as the climate continues to warm. Such a notion may be considered alarmist. And some people may think neither climate change nor epidemics are real or that both will pass. However, there is overwhelming evidence that climate change is fueling disease outbreaks and epidemics and that it is not a matter of if, but when, such events will precipitate another pandemic." https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk4500

There's a place in the pandemics world for both vaccine and therapeutic medications. But I agree with the sentiment expressed above: In general, as the cited doctor recounts, it's better to prevent people from getting sick in the first place vs. trying to treat them after they've become sick. That said, vaccines are not 100% effective in preventing illness, and therapeutics likewise (at least the two main ones for COVID, paxlovid and molnupiravir) also have been shown to have only partial effectiveness when used as recommended, and need to be taken very soon after an infection (timeliness of starting treatment has been an issue) to be effective. As the OP report above recounts: "The development of Covid-19 therapeutics was slow, and the drugs that eventually emerged were not highly effective. A study published in Nature Communications found that nine days after starting a course of Molnupiravir, 48% of patients had cleared the virus, compared to 56% who did not take antivirals." So clearly, it's not an either-or proposition, but one of the medical world needing to deploy everything in its arsenal to first try to prevent people from getting sick in the first place, and then being able to effectively treat people who nonetheless end up getting sick despite vaccination or because of failing to get vaccinated or keep up-to-date with them.

COVID-19 lab leak theory "The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim is highly controversial; most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis (transfer directly from an infected non-human animal), similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history.[1] Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals, functioning as an intermediate host, at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, Hubei, China, in December 2019.[5][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory If anyone reads thru the long entry linked above, they'll find repeated references to the phrase "conspiracy theory/ies" and "conspiratorial thinking."

IMHO, this is what happens, as is the case here, where the Thai cabinet approves policies "in principle." Meaning the actual nuts and bolts details are left to others to sort out... and uncertainty reigns in the meantime. Per the headline of their announcement: The Cabinet meeting resolved to approve in principle the implementation of measures and guidelines for visa facilitation to stimulate the economy and tourism of Thailand in all 3 phases.

The feds funded a grant. There's no proof thus far that the grant or the work done under the grant had anything to do with the outbreak of COVID. Per the New York Times, May 1: A heated hearing produced no new evidence that Peter Daszak or his nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance, were implicated in the Covid outbreak. ... "But in a report and in extensive questioning on Wednesday, the Republicans offered no new information suggesting that EcoHealth Alliance or Dr. Daszak were involved in the coronavirus outbreak. And they did not produce any evidence pointing directly to a coronavirus leak from a lab in China, with or without EcoHealth’s involvement, a hitch in their yearslong effort to implicate Chinese and American scientists in the beginnings of the pandemic. ... The subcommittee, which is led by Republicans, has reviewed nearly a half-million pages of documents and conducted over 100 hours of private interviews in the course of investigating the origin of Covid, Representative Raul Ruiz of California, the panel’s top Democrat, said on Wednesday. But, Mr. Ruiz said, the subcommittee has found “no evidence” linking the pandemic to EcoHealth’s research. And he added that the investigation had not “meaningfully advanced our understanding of the pandemic’s origins.” https://archive.ph/Ho5gO#selection-7113.0-7117.219

"That push has so far yielded no evidence that American scientists or health officials had anything to do with the coronavirus outbreak." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/health/nih-officials-foia-hidden-emails-covid.html

This appears to be the Thai language original version of the announcement on all these various changes: https://www.thaigov.go.th/news/contents/details/83599 And the Google Translate English version of it... https://www-thaigov-go-th.translate.goog/news/contents/details/83599?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en I don't see any clarifications on the 180 days issue in the Google Translate rendering of this.

Siam Legal appears to have an interpretation of the DTV visa that says is it NOT a cumulative 180-days permission over the life of the visa... but rather, 180 days per year... which would be more consistent with the traditional notion of multiple entry visas.... The all-new Destination Thailand Visa for remote workers in Thailand "The recent announcement introduced the “Destination Thailand Visa” (DTV), which will be valid for 5 years and allow holders to stay in Thailand for a total of 180 days each year [emphasis added]. These days need not be consecutive, and the 180-day limit means that holders will not have their foreign income taxed by Thailand. Further details on the new visa are sparse, as it was recently announced, but more information should be announced by June 1. At the time of this writing, what is known about the visa includes: The visa is valid for 5 years, but holders can only stay in Thailand for 180 days per year. Applicants must be at least 20 years old, and prove they have at least 500,000 THB in the bank to support their stay. Holders cannot apply for a work permit but can earn untaxed foreign income while in Thailand. The visa fee is planned to be 10,000 THB. https://siam-legal.com/travel-to-thailand/new-thai-visas-and-sweeping-changes-to-immigration-rules-announced/ FWIW, I'm reading the BKK Post report on all the various recent visa change announcements, and it only refers to the DTV giving a 180-day stay permission, but no reference to whether that's cumulative under the visa or a per year reference.

The image does appear to have originated with the MFA... I'm finding one version of it on the Thai Embassy New Delhi website, but with no further explanation/clarification there: https://newdelhi.thaiembassy.org/en/content/new-thailand-s-visa-measures?cate=614489badd57933bb40edbf2 Thailand's New Visa Measures วันที่นำเข้าข้อมูล 29 May 2024 วันที่ปรับปรุงข้อมูล 29 May 2024 | 291 view On 28 May 2024, the Cabinet approved the new visa measures for promoting tourism sector and boosting the economy, namely: 1. Visa Exemption (60 days) for 93 countries/territories 2. Visa on arrival (VoA) for 31 countries/territories 3. The Destination Thailand Visa (DTV) Note: the effective date will be announced upon the completion of final procedures.

Every day here continues to be an unrelenting adventure.... 😞

If true, that would be a very strange and impractical type of 5-year visa.... All I know is, the graphic posted at the top of this thread refers to the 5-year visa as being "multiple entry," which normally means repeat entries are allowed, with each receiving the specified number of days allowed (180 in this case)... The scenario you're describing from the other Thai media reports would be more like a single-entry visa with one in-country extension allowed. But yikes! who knows.....

The Thai tax provision isn't keyed to how long one's permission to stay or visa term is, but rather, how long you physically stay in Thailand during a given year... And, you're not taking into account the ability under this new visa of doing a 180-day additional in-country extension at Immigration.

I agree the descriptions above are somewhat confusing / vague... Here's the non-authoritative way I understood what was posted.... --It's a multiple entry visa valid for 5 years. --Each entry/stay in Thailand allowed up to 180 days. --For each entry into Thailand, a one-time in-country extension of up to 180 days is allowed... (I understood the one-time in-country extension reference to be per entry, not cumulative for the life of the visa....) Meaning, if I'm translating the above correctly, that a person holding the visa would still have to physically leave Thailand at least once per year during the term of the visa, and then re-enter to start the new 180+180 days process over again....

In "taxy" terms, this topic is like the gift that keeps giving and giving and giving....

So you are referring to this post of yours in that thread? AND And I'm assuming the language and document cites you're referring to there is to one of the "guide" documents you've been keeping on the Thai taxation topic?

If I'm reading this topic correctly, it's about VISA categories... not about extension of stay categories.