Why is Thailand not reopening?

[AussieBob18]

2 minutes ago, chessman said:

The response to COVID has been about  the potential of the virus to do damage. A highly contagious virus with a mortality rate high enough to kill millions and millions.

Wrong and Right.  You are right in that word 'potential' numbers is true.  The potential numbers were from the WHO modelling - which was wrong.  The mortality rate is showing itself to be no higher than seasonal flu - unless you are over 80 - and even then that number is less than SARS.  Over 100K were supposed to die in Australia. It will not reach 1000 - now at 61 - flu kills between 1500 and 3000 people every year in Aus.  Will you think social distancing saved more than 99,000 people? 

 

[kingdong]

9 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I think that a little caution is completely understandable.

With the lack of tourists the economy will have to suffer anyway, at least for a few months.

Perhaps tat,s worried that upon entering los the tourists will die of corona before getting a chance to spend their money.

[Monomial]

5 minutes ago, chessman said:

The response to COVID has been about  the potential of the virus to do damage. A highly contagious virus with a mortality rate high enough to kill millions and millions.

 

The response has been because the official narrative has decided this is the correct response. Anyone who questions the official narrative, and says this is all overblown, is quickly shut down. There is no genuine data to support the statement above. Only models. And models can say anything you want them to say to a certain extent.

 

The other side of the medical community, the ones who are not going along with the official narrative, point out that herd immunity is the optimal path, and that substantially less damage would occur by simply building emergency hospitals to help people through the peak. That rather than close the economy, go to a wartime footing building ventilators and constructing isolation wards. Increase our capacity for care, rather than try and flatten the curve to meet our restricted abilities.

 

But since this isn't the position of the WHO or the official narrative, no government official is going to go out on a limb. That doesn't mean the WHO is correct. They have agendas, just like everyone else. You don't need a large conspiracy to recognize that people are still people, with personal values and prejudices, and that a few influential people can direct an entire industry. Others will naturally fall in line because of social pressure to conform.

 

AussieBob makes a lot of sense. You can't dismiss him that easily.

[CharlieH]

Inflammatory Troll post removed.

[AussieBob18]

11 minutes ago, HashBrownHarry said:

You need to calm down.

Hope i don't catch what you have!

Your comparison was wrong, deal with it.

I am very calm - laughing as I type this. The wife thinks you are funny too.

 

The comparison was about causes of death - and why the panic.  Covid causes far less deaths than lung cancer, car accidents, suicides, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, diabetes, etc etc etc.  Lung cancer doesnt even make the WHO top 10.  Why the total panic and worldwide shutdwown for something that will not make WHO's top 10?? TB has - take a look.

 

And you cannot catch skepticism - stupidity and panic is contagious - but not skepticism.

 

[chessman]

3 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

The potential numbers were from the WHO modelling - which was wrong.  The mortality rate is showing itself to be no higher than seasonal flu - unless you are over 80 - and even then that number is less than SARS. 

It was not from WHO modelling. Many different organizations have done modelling. There is variation in the figures but almost all of them show the mortality rate is significantly higher than seasonal flu. To dispute that is to dispute the experts who have spent their whole lives studying this. It is disputing the kind of peer reviewed science and rational thinking that has built our civilization.

You proclaim loudly as often as you can that the numbers are clearly wrong. This is a red flag. Nobody can be sure about this, we are dealing with a very complex situation with things we don't fully understand. Just as some countries seem to be less affected (Australia, Thailand), some countries are worse affected (Spain, Italy). In such a situation it is natural and proper that governments are cautious.

 

I actually hope that you are correct. If this has been an over-reaction then we can get back to normal sooner. But any rational person looking at the figures could not be sure about this.

[AussieBob18]

13 minutes ago, Monomial said:

The response has been because the official narrative has decided this is the correct response. Anyone who questions the official narrative, and says this is all overblown, is quickly shut down. There is no genuine data to support the statement above. Only models. And models can say anything you want them to say to a certain extent.

The other side of the medical community, the ones who are not going along with the official narrative, point out that herd immunity is the optimal path, and that substantially less damage would occur by simply building emergency hospitals to help people through the peak. That rather than close the economy, go to a wartime footing building ventilators and constructing isolation wards. Increase our capacity for care, rather than try and flatten the curve to meet our restricted abilities.

But since this isn't the position of the WHO or the official narrative, no government official is going to go out on a limb. That doesn't mean the WHO is correct. They have agendas, just like everyone else. You don't need a large conspiracy to recognize that people are still people, with personal values and prejudices, and that a few influential people can direct an entire industry. Others will naturally fall in line because of social pressure to conform.

AussieBob makes a lot of sense. You can't dismiss him that easily.

The Swedish approach is the correct one.  Protect those over 70 and those with medical issues by social isolation and let the others deal with it and build up the herd immunity.  Many people follow the official narrative because they think they are experts and know. But history has proven that the experts are often wrong. when it is something new.  And in this case they are most certainly wrong - social isolation is a bad strategy.

 

There will not be a vaccine, so there is no point in protecting everyone - that will only make it worse next time.  SARS and MERS have not disappeared - they are latent and inactive. Both are coronaviruses and they have still not been able to develop a vaccine for either  (since 2003 and 2009). Same for Hep C Ebola HIV and many other viruses.  Covid is here to stay - and there aint no vaccine coming. 

 

The best way to deal with it - now we know it will not kills millions - is for the herd to build immunity. Then it will die down and become dormant as all viruses do when it cannot infect new hosts (or kills them all).  If all the Teens 20s 30s 40s fit 50s and strong 60s get it and deal with it, then that stops it being spread around - it will burn out.

[chessman]

 

24 minutes ago, Monomial said:

There is no genuine data to support the statement above. Only models. And models can say anything you want them to say to a certain extent.

Models made by experts who have spent their whole lives studying the field. There is plenty of genuine data to support a higher mortality rate and higher R0 number. People who are smarter and more knowledgeable than anyone posting on this forum.

 

But it's easy to dismiss this, to say it's a conspiracy, to twist the events to support a certain political agenda.

[KhaoNiaw]

7 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

The best way to deal with it - now we know it will not kills millions - is for the herd to build immunity. Then it will die down and become dormant as all viruses do when it cannot infect new hosts (or kills them all).  If all the Teens 20s 30s 40s fit 50s and strong 60s get it and deal with it, then that stops it being spread around - it will burn out.

Can you give an example of any virus where herd immunity has been successful without vaccination? Are you also assuming that immunity is permanent? And if so why? Or otherwise how long are you assuming immunity will be for those who have had mild cases?

Edited April 14, 2020 by KhaoNiaw

[chessman]

5 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

But history has proven that the experts are often wrong.

This is true, but they have a better record than random people posting on the internet!

[Monomial]

1 minute ago, chessman said:

It was not from WHO modelling. Many different organizations have done modelling. There is variation in the figures but almost all of them show the mortality rate is significantly higher than seasonal flu. To

Nobody is saying the mortality rate isn't whatever you want it to be. In fact, it is irrelevant to the argument. It is whatever it is. However flattening the curve does not change this. What today's restrictions do is lower the R value so that the infection spreads slower, giving hospitals a better chance to help those who will survive with care and ventilators.

 

The same number of people would be saved if you simply increased the capacity of the hospitals to handle more simultaneous cases.

 

There is only 3 ways the virus ends:  1) herd immunity, 2) a vaccine, 3) a way to test and isolate infected individuals within 24 hours of the infection.  These measures we have today only slow the path to option 1 so that hospitals can cope.

 

The lockdown artifically suppresses the R value. But you can't artificially hold the R value below 1 without a lockdown. As soon as you relax it, the virus starts up again. You need a vaccine, herd immunity, or a way to pull infected individuals out of the population immediately.

 

Only then does life return to normal. Respiratory illnesses can not be stopped that easily.

 

[AussieBob18]

3 minutes ago, chessman said:

It was not from WHO modelling. Many different organizations have done modelling. There is variation in the figures but almost all of them show the mortality rate is significantly higher than seasonal flu. To dispute that is to dispute the experts who have spent their whole lives studying this. It is disputing the kind of peer reviewed science and rational thinking that has built our civilization.

You proclaim loudly as often as you can that the numbers are clearly wrong. This is a red flag. Nobody can be sure about this, we are dealing with a very complex situation with things we don't fully understand. Just as some countries seem to be less affected (Australia, Thailand), some countries are worse affected (Spain, Italy). In such a situation it is natural and proper that governments are cautious.

 

I actually hope that you are correct. If this has been an over-reaction then we can get back to normal sooner. But any rational person looking at the figures could not be sure about this.

I am extremely confident that I am correct - my statements are based on what non-aligned experts are saying, and my own examination of the numbers - which I have been doing daily for months:  https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports

 

Non-aligned experts are those who are 'allowed' to say they disagree - eg.  a CDC or WHO employee cannot.  Search for it using google. Avoid the conspiracy nutters of course - look for the gems - they are there and they are growing.

 

But you are wrong in assuming that if us skeptics are right then things can get back to normal quickly.  That will take the experts to admit they were wrong - unlikely mate - they will say social distancing was what stopped millions dying - despite the numbers in Sweden showing it makes no difference.  To get back to normal is going to take a fight - people will have to demand their Govt lets them go back to work/school.  Mate - they are arresting people who walk along the beaches in USA - in UK a couple were fined for being in their front yard.  

[Monomial]

3 minutes ago, chessman said:

This is true, but they have a better record than random people posting on the internet!

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the expert and the specific situation.

[DrTuner]

Quote

The problem is that it makes little sense.

 

If they were going to tip the scales, in order to impose restrictions on the population, they'd rather manipulate the numbers up, rather than down.

You forgot about the deadly, all overriding cultural flaw: face. Once they started trying to suppress the numbers back in Jan/Feb, in an effort to keep tourists coming, there's now no way to release higher figures without losing face, because "Thailaaaan numbah one". So the charade continues, but the actions speak louder than words: MoPH has the real data and is using it.

[KhaoNiaw]

8 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Non-aligned experts are those who are 'allowed' to say they disagree - eg.  a CDC or WHO employee cannot.  Search for it using google. Avoid the conspiracy nutters of course - look for the gems - they are there and they are growing.

Would it not be easier for people with genuine interest to simply post a few links to the experts whose views you are presenting? 

Edited April 14, 2020 by KhaoNiaw

[Relocated]

8 hours ago, Brunolem said:

While it makes (political) sense to under report road deaths, and to over report tourist arrivals, it make much less sense to under report covid 19 deaths and at the same time act as if the country was facing armageddon... 

It seems the combined effect of media and statistics is more detrimental than COVID 19.

[Monomial]

2 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Would it not be easier for people with genuine interest to simply post a few links to the experts whose views you are presenting? 

This guy for one. He has been posted several times already

 

 

[chessman]

6 minutes ago, Monomial said:

Nobody is saying the mortality rate isn't whatever you want it to be. In fact, it is irrelevant to the argument. It is whatever it is. However flattening the curve does not change this. What today's restrictions do is lower the R value so that the infection spreads slower, giving hospitals a better chance to help those who will survive with care and ventilators.

 

The same number of people would be saved if you simply increased the capacity of the hospitals to handle more simultaneous cases.

 

There is only 3 ways the virus ends:  1) herd immunity, 2) a vaccine, 3) a way to test and isolate infected individuals within 24 hours of the infection.  These measures we have today only slow the path to option 1 so that hospitals can cope.

 

The lockdown artifically suppresses the R value. But you can't artificially hold the R value below 1 without a lockdown. As soon as you relax it, the virus starts up again. You need a vaccine, herd immunity, or a way to pull infected individuals out of the population immediately.

 

Only then does life return to normal. Respiratory illnesses can not be stopped that easily.

There are plenty of people who are disputing the figures, saying that the mortality rate is the same as seasonal flu, I was responding to one.

 

There's a lot of common sense in your post, but again you cannot be sure. Nobody is. Herd immunity (although this is a strange phrases because it usually refers to people that have been vaccinated) is incredibly risky.

[AussieBob18]

3 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Can you give an example of any virus where herd immunity has been successful without vaccination? Are you also assuming that immunity is permanent? And if so why? Or otherwise how long are you assuming immunity will be for those who have had mild cases?

Every year.  Influenza viruses (all of them) die down when enough of the herd has been infected and develops immunities.

Immunity is permanent until you get older or a sickness that weakens your immunity system itself (like HIV).

The swine flu in 2009 killed a lot more under 60s (percentage wise) than any other virus had ever done. They believe that this was because that virus was very similar to a pandemic virus from the 1950s and people that were infected back then had immunities that helped them attack and defeat the swine flu (they cant 'measure' immunities).

Once a virus has become latent/dormant it takes certain things for it to reappear - one of those is enough people who do not have the immunities so that it 'cvatches fire' so to speak - otherwise it burns out.  Sometimes they mutate and then they can resurface and start up again - and then again the herd develops immunities and stops it.

Think of it like this. Virus A is released into a room full of people who have previously been infected by it - it does out quickly. 

Virus B is released into a room full of people who have not previously been infected by it - it spreads very quickly. But if you keep everyone in the room, then 3 things will happen. 1. Some people get so sick they die (0.1%) 2. The rest deal with the infection and build up antibodies to it.  3. The virus dies out - becomes latent in some people (but unable to infect others).

 

TB is such a nasty thing because it remains latent for decades and it can then reappear and spread itself again.  Hep C seems to be the same too.  Herpes is the same but it doesn't make people sick enough to die (usually - about 0.000001%). And many others too.  One day hundreds of years from now they will have solved all this and cured cancer - maybe.

.

[mauGR1]

22 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

The best way to deal with it - now we know it will not kills millions - is for the herd to build immunity. Then it will die down and become dormant as all viruses do when it cannot infect new hosts (or kills them all).  If all the Teens 20s 30s 40s fit 50s and strong 60s get it and deal with it, then that stops it being spread around - it will burn out.

I'm no scientist, but that was my opinion since about 1 month, so it seems that by now, the world is ruled by the WHO.

Who put them in charge, i would really like to know.

Btw, just read an Italian article, where doctors working on the front line say that covid patients treated with ventilators have 80% mortality. Almost like a firing squad, just saying.

[chessman]

Here for example is Dr William Hanage, a professor of the evolution and epidemiology of infectious disease at Harvard. He cannot believe that herd immunity is even being considered. Explains that herd immunity is usually used to talk about groups of people who have been vaccinated.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidemiologist-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19#maincontent

 

By the way - Sweden are denying that they are trying herd immunity. They are calling it a lockdown-lite.

and India (who you were posting about yesterday, Aussie Bob) actually have a really tough lockdown.

 

 

 

 

[KhaoNiaw]

14 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Every year.  Influenza viruses (all of them) die down when enough of the herd has been infected and develops immunities.

Immunity is permanent until you get older or a sickness that weakens your immunity system itself (like HIV).

 

Thanks. A lot of what you say makes good sense. But surely there's also quite a high level of flu vaccination? 

[AussieBob18]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I'm no scientist, but that was my opinion since about 1 month, so it seems that by now, the world is ruled by the WHO.

Who put them in charge, i would really like to know.

Btw, just read an Italian article, where doctors working on the front line say that covid patients treated with ventilators have 80% mortality. Almost like a firing squad, just saying.

I agree. And I do not think that WHO will ever be allowed to take over ever again.

 

Italy has some very high numbers, but they have the same type of numbers as the rest of the world. The vast majority of deaths are people over 60 - with the median by far being those over 80.  Speculation of course but several reasons likely.  High rate of smokers and drinkers in that age group (it was the way of life back then), and high population density with a lot of older people sharing housing with many younger family members. Studies show Italy has a high rate of deaths from flu each year (24K in 2017) and that their mortality rate from the flu is much higher than in other European countries.  Same for Spain is speculated.

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, AussieBob18 said:

I agree. And I do not think that WHO will ever be allowed to take over ever again.

 

Italy has some very high numbers, but they have the same type of numbers as the rest of the world. The vast majority of deaths are people over 60 - with the median by far being those over 80.  Speculation of course but several reasons likely.  High rate of smokers and drinkers in that age group (it was the way of life back then), and high population density with a lot of older people sharing housing with many younger family members. Studies show Italy has a high rate of deaths from flu each year (24K in 2017) and that their mortality rate from the flu is much higher than in other European countries.  Same for Spain is speculated.

 

I'll add that between 80% to 90% of the deaths are located in the most industrialized and polluted area in Italy, and probably in the all of EU.

[AussieBob18]

5 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Thanks. A lot of what you say makes good sense. But surely there's also quite a high level of flu vaccination? 

Vaccines develop a person's immunities against the viral load in the vaccine - they aint a cure - they are infection by a dead virus which allows the body's immune system to identify and build anti-bodies and easily kill it - but makes some people sick too.

In effect vaccines are a safer way of developing herd immunities. But there has not been a vaccine developed of any coronavirus for decades - and not from want of trying.  Keeping people isolated against a bad flu is bad policy - it wont work in the long run - there is no vaccine coming. 

 

What some people are beginning to realise is that there is no isolation against Covid. It is as contagious as a seasonal influenza virus - but it aint as deadly as SARS, MERS or Ebola. But they have taken actions as if it was a highly contagious form of Ebola and if that was true then it was definitely the right thing to do.  But the numbers are showing that it is not.  WHO estimates that up to 750K die every year from seasonal flu's - does it really look like this is Ebola (200 million would die) or a bad flu and maybe 1 million could die.  More than that die every year from TB and other diseases (see previous post). 

[AussieBob18]

51 minutes ago, chessman said:

This is true, but they have a better record than random people posting on the internet!

You dont seem to realise that in this case you are the random.

 

Take a look - plenty of experts out there posting claims the covid shutdown is unwarranted.

 

[chessman]

34 minutes ago, Monomial said:

This guy for one. He has been posted several times already

Thanks for posting this. I've got sick of people posting sensationalist stuff so it's nice to listen to someone who is understated and calm.

 

He estimates that the mortality rate is 2% but then when he works out how many people would die, he uses the figures of current cases in the US. This makes no sense to me. For herd immunity to work it needs a large % of the population to have it, right? Usually well over 50%. That would be millions of people dying!

Am I misunderstanding?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

But there has not been a vaccine developed of any coronavirus for decades - and not from want of trying.  Keeping people isolated against a bad flu is bad policy - it wont work in the long run - there is no vaccine coming. 

 

Agree, all the talk about the miraculous vaccine is an elusive carrot dangling in the face of the donkey.

A pretty useful argument to keep moving the goal posts, so to speak.

[chessman]

2 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

plenty of experts out there posting claims the covid shutdown is unwarranted.

 

and plenty of them are not. The majority I would say.

 

But even if it was 50/50, Herd immunity is the riskiest solution in the sense that it will have the most deaths in the short term. In such a scenario it is completely understandable that governments choose the option that seems less risky.

[AussieBob18]

42 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Would it not be easier for people with genuine interest to simply post a few links to the experts whose views you are presenting? 

So you want to play my expert versus your expert eh?

I dont play that game - skeptics like me form their own views from many inputs.

 

What is Skepticism?
Skepticism is a dynamic attitude to the world around us. It is not a dogmatic approach restricted by “accepted wisdom”, but a serious and sincere appraisal of claims of how the world works.

 

The mantra of skepticism is - show me the evidence.

And there is no evidence that Covid is going to kill up to 200 million people as predicted by WHO and was the main basis upon which the shutdowns were implemented worldwide.