welovesundaysatspace

2 hours ago, Trillian said:

If they had tested more, would that have changed the number of fatalities!

1 hour ago, Buriramfelang said:

Probably not. if you die from the virus without having been checked then you never had the virus. Its the Thai way of statistics, like dying in hospital after a road accident, its not added to the road toll. Keeps the numbers down. 

1 hour ago, The Deerhunter said:

Did you mean real fatalities or reported fatality's?

Because there is possibly a considerable difference between the two. Credibility of governments and Ministers of the Crown is an important consideration in many countries foreign to the Thai culture.

That’s why excess deaths is such a great statistic because it completely ignores whatever cause of death was recorded. It just looks at the number of deaths exceeding the historical average. 
 

Thailand has excess deaths of just 2% for period 1 Mar - 31 May. 
 

Compare that to Covid Hotspots such as U.K. (43%), Brazil (38%), Italy (40%), Peru (87%), Spain (50%). The US with 16% ranks somewhere in the middle with 16% but those numbers include 16 Feb - 2 May only. 
 

It’s also interesting to see that there are countries which seem to be (accidentally or on purpose) underreporting Covid-19 deaths as their excess deaths are high while their Covid-19 reported deaths are not as high. 

1 hour ago, johnpetersen said:

Below are a few photos taken of the crowd. Count the masks. Not hard even if you have a problem counting to 2.

Darwin at work.

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Your filofax must be getting quite full with nonsense quotes.

As far as Brexiteers are concerned, my filofax of nonsense quotes turned into this. And I’m still collecting, so keep going. 

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I hate Fridays. What on earth are you on about now?

You claimed the EU does not care about its citizens welfare but about its big corporations. So how do you explain its position against chlorine chicken? 

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I don't think that the EEC/EC/EU protection of their market had much to do with having the welfare of it's people in mind. The lobbying European corporations' profits and extra EU tax income were the main drivers.

So European corporations lobbied against chlorine chicken because they don’t know how to produce it? 

24 minutes ago, giddyup said:

I'm stating the law, the facts. Take your grievances up with the lawmakers.

You’re refusing to answer whether you find it ok that a 50 something years old man pays 12-16 years old girls for sexual acts. 
 

You’re refusing to answer how all your definitions about children are any relevant. 
 

We can all imagine what kind of person you are and why you are in(to) Thailand. 

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You can get married age 16 in the UK.

Do you find it ok that a 50ish yo. man pays 12-16 yo. girls for sexual acts? 
 

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

I don't regard 16-17 year olds as "children", the age of consent is 16 in many countries. If the experience was so horrific as they claim, why did many of them keep going back for more over many years?

So you find it ok that a 50-something years old man pays 12-16 year old girls  for sexual acts? 

28 minutes ago, vogie said:

"Because they can" well obviously they can't or else the UK would not be leaving your Jolly Boys Club,
 

You’re mixing up cause and effect. It’s two different things. 

28 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

stand by for other departures too.

It’s on the list of things that Brexiteers promised, just below the easiest deal in history and all the other trade deals. Timeframe: “wait for it”

3 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

I have a group on Facebook and you definitely cannot just post whatever you want because they have a policy against hate speech, amongst other things, which is perfectly fine with me, but, Facebook is an American company and the first amendment says you can say whatever you want, but now Facebook determines what can/can’t be said/allow themselves to be pressured into what is acceptable or not by companies, which is cherry picking in my opinion.

No, the first amendment doesn’t apply to Facebook. It applies to the government. I can’t claim first amendment rights when you kick me out of your living room because my buddies and I wanted to sing our football chants there. And you also can’t claim first amendment rights when TVF is removing lese majeste posts. 
 

Thats why I asked who is picking what cherries because it seems you’re clearly mixing up different whos and cherries. 
 

Quote

Either you have the right to say what you want or you don’t, but in my opinion it shouldn’t be determined by Facebook or companies when there’s clearly a law that says otherwise. 

You have the right to say what you want. And Facebook has the right to have their own policies. And there’s no law saying that Facebook need to let you post on their platform whatever you want. Same as TVF and you and me have. 

11 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Biden isn't doing rallies because he knows Trump draws exponentially larger crowds. So of course Biden isn't going to intentionally humiliate himself.

You don’t really believe the nonsense you’re writing.