rattlesnake

Which begs the question: what's the point of getting 'vaccinated'?

This is not about public health guidance per se. He co-wrote an article which offers very interesting insights from a political viewpoint. If you look at my post again, you will see I added this article to illustrate a point I was making on the dubious modern-day relationship between science and politics. As always, rather than focusing on the author and finding reasons to discard his work, I would have preferred some dialectically valid counter-arguments on the actual content, which would have involved reading the article and explaing why (if applicable) some points raised are questionable. Something closer to a real-life discussion, in person, where one has to rely on their knowledge and debating abilities without Google as an aid to add credibility to their claims. In other words, a little less link-posting and a little more argumentation would be welcome ????

Interesting point. "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, basic principle of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Lisa Fazio of Vanderbilt University studied the subject a few years ago and came to the conclusion that repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. My rule of thumb is that if something is repeated too often, by too many people for too long, then it's suspicious.

Plenty of studies both ways indeed. I was responding to a comment claiming there were no credible links to evidence that masks don't work. Just reestablishing the truth. You guys like truth and facts right? So there you go.

Of course they are. Why would they not be? I would appreciate a dialectically sound argument. And by the way if you had bothered to click on the links I posted you would have seen that three of them were published between May and November 2020.

They are studies run by qualified parties (including the CDC) which conclude that masks have limited effectiveness in reducing the spread of viruses. Whether one chooses to give them credit or not is a personal choice but these studies were indeed carried out. To me, claming that they are not relevant to Covid just proves the politicization of science, which is a real issue. I recently read a great article on the subject by Paul E Alexander, MSc PhD, and other contributors, published on the AIER's website. I am sharing it here. I will also post the conclusion which I found particularly relevant: https://www.aier.org/article/the-cdcs-mask-mandate-study-debunked/ Trusting the science means relying on the scientific process and method and not merely ‘following the leader.’ It is not the same as trusting, without verification, the conclusory statements of human beings simply because they have scientific training or credentials. This is especially so if their views and inquiry have become politicized. Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard’s Medical School has recently commented on the present Covid-19 scientific and research environment by stating, “After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.” Sadly, we must agree, that it’s not just that the age of enlightenment has come to an end, but indeed, that the science itself has been politicized and severely corrupted.

Here are a few among many. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article “Evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza…none of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group…the overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies.” https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full “There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants)…the pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32675098/#affiliation-1 “This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436516300858?via=ihub “Facemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.16–1.71; I2 = 48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection.” https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part1 “Surgical personnel are trained to never touch any part of a mask, except the loops and the nose bridge. Otherwise, the mask is considered useless and is to be replaced. Surgical personnel are strictly trained not to touch their masks otherwise. However, the general public may be seen touching various parts of their masks. Even the masks just removed from manufacturer packaging have been shown in the above photos to contain particulate and fiber that would not be optimal to inhale… Further concerns of macrophage response and other immune and inflammatory and fibroblast response to such inhaled particles specifically from facemasks should be the subject of more research. If widespread masking continues, then the potential for inhaling mask fibers and environmental and biological debris continues on a daily basis for hundreds of millions of people. This should be alarming for physicians and epidemiologists knowledgeable in occupational hazards.”

Good point, there clearly is a pro-pharmaceutical bias on this forum. The same can be said for so-called 'anecdotal' observations. If you say you've had zero shots and have never caught Covid (which is the case for me as well as all the people I know who refused the shot), it's anecdotal and proves nothing. But those who say they're triple-vaxed, caught Covid but "thankful for the vaccine because otherwise it would have been worse" do not receive such replies.

2-3 weeks in I am noticing that more and more Thais are taking them off, or under their noses which is the intermediate step. My wife has stopped wearing hers, she is Thai and if it was a problem in society she would never do it. Masks are coming off, whether one likes it or not.

It's just denial at that point. Like people who got conned and just can't admit it.

You were asked for studies with no financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry and you quote the CDC and The Lancet? ???? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/world/europe/vaccine-secret-contracts-prices.html https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/pharma/can-cdc-in-the-us-takings-millions-from-pharma-industry-be-unbiased/47357501 https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt

Unbelievable… Your blind faith in the pharmaceutical religion is truly astounding. A friendly reminder: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/merck-manipulated-science-about-drug-vioxx

Ignorance and arrogance, the plague of today's world. Good luck.

As I said, a broken record…

Like a broken record… The only way to prove that would be to go back in time, not take the vaccine and see what happens, which is conveniently impossible.

Do you really think that letting their gard down is the only reason they all got sick all of a sudden? What if the repeated shots were weakening their immune system? The EMA has been expressing concern over this issue for months: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says

Same here, funny isn't it? I would use stronger adjectives than useless but I promised the moderators I would be a good boy.

Especially when those of us who have not been inoculated say we have been doing just fine, we get told to shut up and that it doesn't prove anything.

I see your point regarding coverage of Westerners vs Thais. For foreigners involved in these accidents, the main issue is often lack of knowledge and experience on Thai roads (aside from intoxication which doesn't help). Which is why I mentioned training specifically aimed at foreigners. A day course where you learn that when people flash their lights it does not mean they are giving way but that they are coming fast and will not stop, that the larger vehicle always has right of way, that people drive on the wrong side of the road all the time, that they cross the road without looking etc. You'd be surprised at how many newbies just don't know these things. And I do think a lot of Thais are weary of these big bikes as I hear them say it on a regular basis. When my dad, who is a very experienced Harley driver, was considering a road trip here, most of my Thai acquaintances advised against it for safety reasons. The bottom line is its just too dangerous and your average Thai knows it. About safety of scooters vs mororcycles, yeah it's debatable. To me the core issue is speed: you can ride safely on a real bike 90% of the time, however if you're doing 80 km/h or more and someone cuts you off (which statistically is very possible in the long run) it's over. On my scooter my average speed is 40 and I can anticipate a lot more things.

Never seen that, I'm sure it exists but definitely not the norm. My initial post was about the average Thai, of course there are exceptions but at the end of the day what I'm saying is Thailand is not motorcycle-friendly and the average tourist jumping on a machine he is not trained to drive usually learns it the hard way. Have a great day!

I get out plenty, thanks. I know a couple of Thais with larger bikes too, that does not change the relevance of what I am saying. Each time I see a large 2-wheeler on the horizon, I know it's a farang and I am rarely wrong. Admittedly this applies to coastal regions (where I have always lived) which these types tend to favour. You seem to be referring to the 'dek waen', lots of them in Bkk which is a street-racing hotspot or in remote villages where often their bikes are just pumped-up mopeds.

Technically you're right, but I don't think that changes the relevance of my post. A GPX Demon will still allow you to achieve hich speeds which requires solid skills and experience, most foreigners I see on those motorcycles (non-scooter/moped ranging from 150-900 CC) clearly have neither, I saw one yesterday, in his early 20's, no helmet, t-shirt and shorts, on what must have been at least a 600 CC, zig-zagging around, a recipe for disaster. Regarding Thais, if they can buy 1 million-baht cars, they could get these bikes if they wanted them but they are not interested, to them a moped is enough, I have hardly ever heard a Thai express interest for a "real" bike.

Anywhere near big bikes.

My previous comments on social interactions pertained essentially to children's development which is a different issue. A dirty look is (obviously) mostly in the eyes which are not covered by masks, there is also body language to some extent. I respect Thais and their country and if I perceived any resistance/hostility I would readily put it back on. My Thai wife would also tell me if it was a problem but she confirmed it was "up to me". Thank you for respecting my choice as I respect yours.

<deleted> I stopped wearing my mask two weeks ago and the only dirty/uncomfortable looks I got so far were from farangs such as yourself. Maybe you should reflect on that. Yesterday in a shopping center I saw about 10 maskless Thais in the space of 2 hours. As expected they are gradually getting used to taking them off.