Thailand says Bangkok COVID-19 outbreak may take months to contain

[dbrenn]

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Sad statement.  Shows you don't really understand what's going on.  Don't fall for the fake news on social media.

You too. Just you keep on following 'the science' if it comforts you, even though scientists disagree with each other and don't understand what effect their deductions have on society as a whole. In delegating decisions to scientists, politicians are guilty of dereliction of duty, lazy and useless as they are.

Edited April 9, 2021 by dbrenn

[Credo]

57 minutes ago, GeniusFarang said:

Ohhh yess, this was surely due to the small businesses and small business entertainment venues. Because we all know packed corporate controlled malls, grocery stores and corporate run retailers with big pockets are just little angels!

People aren't this asleep anymore, maybe the farangs that retired in Thailand during a drunken stupor will believe this, but the ones that actually know how to perform proper research will be the ones calling it for what it is - corporate controlled takeover, killing of small business and padding the pockets of those that help them. Sad world.

I think you are making a bit of a stretch, but that said, I think most countries with a capitalistic bend have gone to great extents to preserve the economy.   As a result, there is a wealth of data to help drive an effective lockdown.   From what I have read, it seems that bars/pubs are a HUGE driver of infection.   The nightlife venues in Thailand would fall into that category.   They are also very largely serving foreigners and many of them are at high risk.   

Shopping malls should be relatively safe if people are masked and not particularly overcrowded.  Thailand might want to consider limiting the numbers allowed inside.   The endless hours of non-shopping social activity is probably unnecessary and dangerous.

[Stargeezr]

My wife just told me that there is a place where you have to be a hi so to go to and it is part of the latest

  bunch of covid cases.  Be happy that you are not part of the Thai hi so scene, as they are getting sick

and they will discovery that the virus does not care what kind of person you are, or how rich and Hi So you are.

  I hope you all get your shots before Summer is over.  Stay healthy

Geezer

[sdweller]

Amazing so many on this forum are so much smarter than everyone else on the planet. Too bad you aren't in charge, I'm sure the world would be covid-less if you were.  You are too much lol

[Jeffr2]

10 hours ago, dbrenn said:

You too. Just you keep on following 'the science' if it comforts you, even though scientists disagree with each other and don't understand what effect their deductions have on society as a whole. In delegating decisions to scientists, politicians are guilty of dereliction of duty, lazy and useless as they are.

Sad times when people don't believe in scientists.  Shows one of the big reasons we're in the mess we're in.  And sad you'd trust an elected official instead of a scientist.  I guess you also believe what that used car salesman told you?

[ozimoron]

15 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Sad times when people don't believe in scientists.  Shows one of the big reasons we're in the mess we're in.  And sad you'd trust an elected official instead of a scientist.  I guess you also believe what that used car salesman told you?

 

It's related to evangelical Christianity.

[dbrenn]

25 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Sad times when people don't believe in scientists.  Shows one of the big reasons we're in the mess we're in.  And sad you'd trust an elected official instead of a scientist.  I guess you also believe what that used car salesman told you?

Which set of scientists should we believe in then? In case you haven't been listening, there are two groups of them.

[Jeffr2]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

It's related to evangelical Christianity.

Or a lean towards conspiracy theories.  Or a belief in what they read on social media.  All sad.

[Jeffr2]

Just now, dbrenn said:

Which set of scientists should we believe in then? In case you haven't been listening, there are two groups of them.

2 groups?  Really?  Please enlighten us.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

Or a lean towards conspiracy theories.  Or a belief in what they read on social media.  All sad.

 

They aren't mutually exclusive.

[dbrenn]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

2 groups?  Really?  Please enlighten us.

Well there you go. Thanks to the failures and bias of modern journalism, you're only aware of one group. There is another group, equally as distinguished that recognises the reality of Covid but refutes government reactions to it as a gross overreaction that is more lethal than the virus itself. 

[Jeffr2]

Just now, dbrenn said:

Well there you go. Thanks to the failures and bias of modern journalism, you're only aware of one group. There is another group, equally as distinguished that recognises the reality of Covid but refutes government reactions to it as a gross overreaction that is more lethal than the virus itself. 

Afraid to post links to prove this?

[dbrenn]

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

Afraid to post links to prove this?

Of course not. There are various dissenting voices in the medical profession. Notable is this: the second group of scientists released a declaration while on a summit in Great Barrington. 

 

https://gbdeclaration.org/

 

Needless to say, despite the highly distinguished credentials of some of its authors and supporters, it was ignored and ridiculed by the media, the WHO and the like. 

 

I respect your view, but there are other views that are also worth listening to. 

 

[dbrenn]

27 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

It's related to evangelical Christianity.

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

[Jeffr2]

5 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Of course not. There are various dissenting voices in the medical profession. Notable is this: the second group of scientists released a declaration while on a summit in Great Barrington. 

 

https://gbdeclaration.org/

 

Needless to say, despite the highly distinguished credentials of some of its authors and supporters, it was ignored and ridiculed by the media, the WHO and the like. 

 

I respect your view, but there are other views that are also worth listening to. 

 

Perhaps you should read this.  It contradicts these dissenting voices. Please, read these articles.  I'll stick with the mainstream scientists.

 

https://theconversation.com/5-failings-of-the-great-barrington-declarations-dangerous-plan-for-covid-19-natural-herd-immunity-148975

 

Quote

5 failings of the Great Barrington Declaration’s dangerous plan for COVID-19 natural herd immunity

 

https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30555-5/fulltext

Within weeks, an opposing group of experts, also numbering in the thousands, had put their names to the John Snow Memorandum. The document, named after one of epidemiology's greatest historical figures, defended the restrictions to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 as “essential to reduce mortality, prevent health-care services from being overwhelmed, and buy time to set up pandemic response systems to suppress transmission”. It described focused protection as “a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence” and warned that “uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population”.

 

[dbrenn]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Perhaps you should read this.  It contradicts these dissenting voices. Please, read these articles.  I'll stick with the mainstream scientists.

 

https://theconversation.com/5-failings-of-the-great-barrington-declarations-dangerous-plan-for-covid-19-natural-herd-immunity-148975

 

 

https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30555-5/fulltext

Within weeks, an opposing group of experts, also numbering in the thousands, had put their names to the John Snow Memorandum. The document, named after one of epidemiology's greatest historical figures, defended the restrictions to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 as “essential to reduce mortality, prevent health-care services from being overwhelmed, and buy time to set up pandemic response systems to suppress transmission”. It described focused protection as “a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence” and warned that “uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population”.

 

There are indeed two groups, as you can see. The truth may lie somewhere between the two, as it usually does. In the middle, nearer one side, or nearer other. Who knows,?

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

There are indeed two groups, as you can see. The truth may lie somewhere between the two, as it usually does. In the middle, nearer one side, or nearer other. Who knows,?

I'll stick with the main stream scientists.  I'm not interested in dissenting opinions that contradict what they say.  Seems you're interested in finding info that contradicts lockdowns, mask wearing and social distancing?

 

From my link above. 

 

Quote

 

2. The Barrington declaration gives oxygen to fringe groups. The signatories did not intend to support such fringe groups, but their rhetoric invalidates public health policy and feeds the 19 per cent of North Americans who don’t trust public health officials.

When physicians and scientists sign on to the declaration they support the fears of an increasingly anxious public and fuel conspiracy theories. This is even more dangerous in America with a president that many people view as divisive, and fringe groups such as the paramilitary Oath Keepers and QAnon.

 

 

[dbrenn]

15 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I'll stick with the main stream scientists.  I'm not interested in dissenting opinions that contradict what they say.  Seems you're interested in finding info that contradicts lockdowns, mask wearing and social distancing?

 

From my link above. 

 

 

Mainstream scientists are mainstream by virtue of amplification by the mainstream media. Your choice. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by dbrenn

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, dbrenn said:

Mainstream scientists as reported and amplified by the mainstream media. Your choice. 

They're mainstream for a reason.  They're right.  Sad some fall for the fringe who are not right.  And it does have an impact on society, as shown by my article.

[BritManToo]

54 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I'll stick with the main stream scientists.  I'm not interested in dissenting opinions that contradict what they say.  Seems you're interested in finding info that contradicts lockdowns, mask wearing and social distancing?

All new discovery is made by scientists dissenting from the main stream.

World created in 7 days = main stream.

Sun moves around the earth = main stream. 

World is flat = main stream.

Men can't fly = main stream.

If  you sail to the west, you will fall off the earth = main stream.

 

If you insist on going with the main stream, you stop all exploration and discovery.

I suspect COVID will never be stopped, new variants will arise every few months, vaccines will prove ineffective, the world will remain in lock-down (on and off) for the foreseeable future. Travel away from your home at the risk of being denied return.

Edited April 10, 2021 by BritManToo

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If you insist on going with the main stream, you stop all exploration and discovery.

What you're implying is that "mainstream" scientists don't engage in research and discovery. A risible claim on its face.

[BritManToo]

Just now, ozimoron said:

What you're implying is that "mainstream" scientists don't engage in research and discovery. A risible claim on its face.

What I was implying is that main stream scientists are more concerned with keeping their job and their status and the respect of their peers than actually taking a chance and discovering something new or possibly controversial.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

What I was implying is that main stream scientists are more concerned with keeping their job and their status and the respect of their peers than actually taking a chance and discovering something new or possibly controversial.

The best way for a scientist to lose their job is to NOT discover anything new. The controversial bit is just a conspiracy theory.

 

How to pick a conspiracy theory from a real conspiracy? Real conspiracies involve few people over a short period of time and are kept quiet. Conspiracy theories involve a lot of people over a long period of time and are widely publicised.

[Jeffr2]

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

What I was implying is that main stream scientists are more concerned with keeping their job and their status and the respect of their peers than actually taking a chance and discovering something new or possibly controversial.

Totally ridiculous statement.  You've obviously not worked with many scientists before.  And yes, I have.  Mainly on the research side.  Sold software that helped them in their efforts.

[dbrenn]

59 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Horrible deflection.  War and military versus a pandemic and scientists.  Wow...stunning.

Of course it isn't a defection. It's a textbook case of the mainstream media amplifying experts on one side, the side that happened to be wrong. 

 

The results are well known.

Edited April 10, 2021 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

48 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Why are so many Christians to be found in the ranks of today’s conspiracy theorists? Just consider the popularity of a movement like QAnon — which claims that [redacted] is waging a secret war against “a worldwide cabal of Satan-worshipping paedophiles” — among evangelicals. As is apparent from the testimony of Lorrie Shock, the very language of evangelical Christianity is amenable to adherence to QAnon:

 

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/why-are-christians-susceptible-to-conspiracy-theories/13003550

 

As churches prove 'fertile ground' for conspiracy theories, some pastors are taking a stand

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-23/christian-churches-fertile-ground-qanon-conspiracy-theories/13006868

 

Why QAnon Has Attracted So Many White Evangelicals

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-qanon-has-attracted-so-many-white-evangelicals/

 

Why are Christians so susceptible to conspiracy?

 

https://baptistnews.com/article/why-are-christians-so-susceptible-to-conspiracy/

 

Too many evangelical Christians fall for conspiracy theories online, and gullibility is not a virtue

 

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/17/too-many-evangelical-christians-fall-for-conspiracy-theories-online-and-gullability-is-not-a-virtue/

What a lot of nonsense. I don't listen to extremists either, but many of those who don’t agree with the mainstream narrative are distinguished experts in the sciences and  medicine. Religion has nothing to do with it.

[metisdead]

A number of off topic posts and replies about MSM, main stream science, science degrees, global cooling have been removed. 

 

 

A post has now been removed for commenting on moderation. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by metisdead

[placnx]

23 hours ago, sandyf said:

You are wrong, the proportion of covid cases in China to the population is inconsistent with a pandemic, less than 100K out of nearly 1.5 billion. Infection was very localised in China with nearly 75% of cases in just one province.

Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

You don't know much about statistics in China, it seems. Numbers are subject to manipulation to feed the narrative. People who reported what was happening have been disappeared except for the doctor who got Covid himself and passed away.

 

Perhaps you don't remember that some 5mn people left the province around Wuhan at Chinese New Year in 2020 before the government could lock down. So they were all free of Covid? Judging from hospital scenes, people packed in corridors, that doesn't make sense. 

[placnx]

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

What I was implying is that main stream scientists are more concerned with keeping their job and their status and the respect of their peers than actually taking a chance and discovering something new or possibly controversial.

That may be true sometimes. Conflict of interest is a huge problem here, mainly scientists and institutions who are afraid of losing access in China. This especially affects the lab leak question and whether there should be additional investigation in China of the origin of SARS-2. The Australian experience shows that whole countries can put their China trade at risk for asking too many questions.

[sambum]

On 4/9/2021 at 3:17 PM, unblocktheplanet said:

Does it really matter now???

That's like asking does the Holocaust really matter now!

 

If it had been a smaller less affluent country to blame, I am sure that the World's media would have been all over it like a rash!