Thailand previews difficult life without tourists

[Thomas J]

On 5/7/2021 at 8:49 PM, BritManToo said:

their total inability to do anything right.

Their education system is appalling, their greed is unbelievable, their morality is a world low, and their incompetence at everything is verging on the ridiculous.

Are you sure you are not describing the U.S. Congress? 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Are you sure you are not describing the U.S. Congress? 

Do you believe that the U.S. Congress has an education system. It's back-to-school time for you.

[Thomas J]

18 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Utter nonsense......there is no end of evidence they stop the spread of the virus..

Looks like we meet on another post.  What evidence.  Can you provide links to evidence showing the Covid quarantines/masks etc are effective?

  From what I have read they have failed to establish a link between countries/regions/states with limited Covid restrictions having lower rates of infection from those with very strict Covid restrictions.  Take New York and New Jersey,  they have some of the toughest Covid restrictions.  Washington DC a very urban area close to New York with a black population of approximately 50% has one of the one of the lowest and supposedly the minority population is more at risk.  Likewise you have the least amount of Covid restrictions in Texas and Florida and their rates of infection are less than New York and New Jersey and Florida is filled with an elderly retired population.  That should make them more susceptible.

 

You can have  countries like France, Belgium, and Poland with markedly higher Covid rates of infection that adjacent country Germany.  Why?  If masks, quarantines, etc were effective they should be equally effective across common regions.  If temperature was the overriding consideration  why would California the most populous state have a lower Covid infection rate than neighboring Oregon which is sparsely populated. 

 

From my observation of the statistics there is no discernable pattern other than there is a tendency for regions with the warmest temperatures, youngest average age, and remote islands to have the lowest rates of infection. Even with those correlations, they don't appear to be absolute.  

 

 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[Surelynot]

9 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Looks like we meet on another post.  What evidence.  Can you provide links to evidence showing the Covid quarantines/masks etc are effective?

  From what I have read they have failed to establish a link between countries/regions/states with limited Covid restrictions having lower rates of infection from those with very strict Covid restrictions.  Take New York and New Jersey,  they have some of the toughest Covid restrictions.  Washington DC a very urban area close to New York with a black population of approximately 50% has one of the one of the lowest and supposedly the minority population is more at risk.  Likewise you have the least amount of Covid restrictions in Texas and Florida and their rates of infection are less than New York and New Jersey and Florida is filled with an elderly retired population.  That should make them more susceptible.

 

You can have  countries like France, Belgium, and Poland with markedly higher Covid rates of infection that adjacent country Germany.  Why?  If masks, quarantines, etc were effective they should be equally effective across common regions.  If temperature was the overriding consideration  why would California the most populous state have a lower Covid infection rate than neighboring Oregon which is sparsely populated. 

 

From my observation of the statistics there is no discernable pattern other than there is a tendency for regions with the warmest temperatures, youngest average age, and remote islands to have the lowest rates of infection. Even with those correlations, they don't appear to be absolute.  

 

 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 NO NO NO.............555

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

 NO NO NO.............555

US never lockdown anywhere....not in a million years.....they don't have a clue what lockdown means.

 

UK......three lockdowns.......virus halted in its tracks each time.......lockdown lifted three times........first two times virus runs riot (no vaccine)....third time we lift the lockdown we have vaccinated significant numbers spread of virus remains under control.....in each case the spread was controlled by lockdowns........

[JayClay]

19 hours ago, BenDeCosta said:

If anything, they just slow, but don't reduce the spread 

 

Could you please enlighten us to your perceived difference between "slowing" and "reducing" the spread?..

[BenDeCosta]

6 minutes ago, JayClay said:

 

Could you please enlighten us to your perceived difference between "slowing" and "reducing" the spread?..

 

By slowing the infection, I am saying that the same number of people will get infected, just over a longer period of time.

 

By reducing the spread, I mean that fewer people contract the virus.

 

What's your point?

 

Sorry, English is my second language. If I used the wrong words, I'm more than happy to be questioned about it.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by BenDeCosta

[JayClay]

2 minutes ago, BenDeCosta said:

By slowing the infection, I am saying that the same number of people will get infected, just over a longer period of time.

 

By reducing the spread, I mean that fewer people contract the virus

 

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing that I've read all day (and I've been doing a lot of TV reading today, so there's a lot of competition).

 

How do you intend to prove your theory? Because all the numbers show that the less people that come into contact with the virus, the less people contract it (crazy as that concept might sound...)

[Thomas J]

41 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

US never lockdown anywhere....not in a million years.....they don't have a clue what lockdown means.

Perhaps but what you stated if you continue to lock down the virus would be contained.  If I even accept that it means as soon as the lockdowns cease the virus roars back.  Now perhaps if the vaccines are effective the quarantines are a delaying tactic. 

That still doesn't explain why EU bordering countries like Belgium, France, and Poland have remarkably higher Covid rates than Germany.  They are all  supposedly following the identical EU protocols.  Now the USA may not have the same rigidness as the UK but that also doesn't explain why states like Florida and Texas with no lock downs, no quarantines, and no mask mandates have lower Covid infection rates than New York and New Jersey.  It certainly does not explain why Washington DC a crowded singularly urban area with a 50% black population has a Covid rate half of New York, New Jersey and 1/3rd lower than Texas and Florida.  If the Covid measures were effective than New York and New Jersey should be dramatically lower than Texas and Florida.  They are not.  The rate between Washington DC and New York and New Jersey should be approximately the same.  It is not.  Oregon should be the same as California or lower because of a more sparsely populated state.  However it is dramatically higher.  

As said, the statistics are as clear as mud.   The only "clear" pattern if you can say one is that the younger the average age of a region, the lower its Covid infection rate.  The more tropical a country the more "likely" it is to have a lower infection rate.  If you are an island such as Hawaii, the Falklands, the Solomon Islands, or the Marshall islands you tend to have the lowest rate.  With that said, the last time I checked the map England was an island and it has had an extremely high rate so even putting an ocean around you is no guarantee. 

 

[BenDeCosta]

22 minutes ago, JayClay said:

 

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing that I've read all day (and I've been doing a lot of TV reading today, so there's a lot of competition).

 

How do you intend to prove your theory? Because all the numbers show that the less people that come into contact with the virus, the less people contract it (crazy as that concept might sound...)

 

It's ridiculous to suggest that lockdowns don't work? If it were a 100% "proper" lockdown it might work, but people have been allowed to go out to the supermarket and to exercise, hence there has been no appreciable difference in mortality between regions that imposed heavy lockdowns and those that did not. There is no scientific proof that "soft" lockdowns can prevent the spread of a virus.

 

Unless you know better, please provide a link to a peer-reviewed article showing that they work.

 

Like I said, I was born in Portugal, so English is my second language. Sometimes I might not get the nuance of a word, but I am a scientist and only believe in facts. 

 

During the UK lockdowns, people were still able to order deliveries and still allowed to go outside for various reasons, therefore it's fair to assume that they could still have been exposed to the virus, which is why such lockdowns appear to have done nothing at all, except destroy the economy, wipe out small businesses, and take away people's livelihoods.

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by BenDeCosta

[Surelynot]

24 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

the last time I checked the map England was an island and it has had an extremely high rate so even putting an ocean around you is no guarantee. 

Not when you allow 15 million international arrivals each month.

[Thomas J]

21 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Not when you allow 15 million international arrivals each month.

I am not sure where you can possibly come up with 15 million arrivals each month.  That would be 500,000 flights arriving daily.  

Statistics show that in 2019 England had approximately 40 million tourists visit.  England has a population of 56 million so the ratio would be 71%.  By contrast Hawaii had 10.4 million visitors and its total population is 1.42 million so the ratio would be 732%.  Put another way there are nearly 10 times more visitors per resident in Hawaii than England exposing them to the virus, but Hawaii has one of the lowest rates of Covid infection.  Also 23% of Hawaii's population is concentrated in a single city, Honolulu through which the majority of the visitors to Hawaii travel through and to. 

So if visitors is what contributes and spreads the disease, why is Hawaii so devoid, of the disease and England so plagued with it. 

[BenDeCosta]

Just now, Thomas J said:

I am not sure where you can possibly come up with 15 million arrivals each month.  That would be 500,000 flights arriving daily.  

Statistics show that in 2019 England had approximately 40 million tourists visit.  England has a population of 56 million so the ratio would be 71%.  By contrast Hawaii had 10.4 million visitors and its total population is 1.42 million so the ratio would be 732%.  Put another way there are nearly 10 times more visitors per resident in Hawaii than England exposing them to the virus, but Hawaii has one of the lowest rates of Covid infection.  Also 23% of Hawaii's population is concentrated in a single city, Honolulu through which the majority of the visitors to Hawaii travel through and to. 

So if visitors is what contributes and spreads the disease, why is Hawaii so devoid, of the disease and England so plagued with it. 

 

 I'm going out on a limb here and sticking up for Surelynot, but I think he was joking.

[adammike]

21 hours ago, BenDeCosta said:

Can you provide some links to evidence that they "stop" the spread?

 

There is no reliable evidence showing that there is any correlation between lockdowns and virus control.

 

If anything, they just slow, but don't reduce the spread thereby prolonging the issue.

It's a lot of stable doors being slammed when the horses are already in the next country.They lock down too late and not hard enough.They should have stopped all international travel,at the least all really non essential.

The more it spreads the more it mutates so slowing it down buys enough time to roll out the vaccines and that seems to be the only real solution so far.Even if it does mean a booster shot every year.

 

[MaxYakov]

Money/income is the essence of 'freedom'. So are free association and the ability to travel freely. Enough said?

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Perhaps but what you stated if you continue to lock down the virus would be contained.  If I even accept that it means as soon as the lockdowns cease the virus roars back.  Now perhaps if the vaccines are effective the quarantines are a delaying tactic. 

 

"Now perhaps if the vaccines are effective..."

If the vaccines are effective? Really?

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Money/income is the essence of 'freedom'. So are free association and the ability to travel freely. Enough said?

And also being allowed to say what you please. Like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

[MaxYakov]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And also being allowed to say what you please. Like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Nice non sequitur. Got something relevant to say? Like tell us the last time you were in a Thai theater (example)..

 

Casual readers: refer to my comment HERE: 

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Nice non sequitur. Got something relevant to say? Like tell us the last time you were in a Thai theater (example)..

 

Casual readers: refer to my comment HERE: 

Not irrelevant at all. You treat freedom to travel and to associate freely as absolute and paramount rights. But they're not, or shouldn't be, when they endanger others. Just like shouting fire in a crowded theater shouldn't be protected as a right to free speech.

[BenDeCosta]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 a right to free speech.

 

The right to free speech is a fallacy. Nowadays, you only have a right to free speech on the proviso that what you say doesn't offend someone. And given the current situation, even if you say "the sky is blue", there'll be a left-wing moron somewhere who will be offended, and they'll try and get you arrested, therefore we do not have free speech at all.   

 

Go on Twitter and say that a woman who is born a woman is a woman. These people are buffoons with noting better to do.

Edited May 10, 2021 by BenDeCosta

[MaxYakov]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Not irrelevant at all. You treat freedom to travel and to associate freely as absolute and paramount rights. But they're not, or shouldn't be, when they endanger others. Just like shouting fire in a crowded theater shouldn't be protected as a right to free speech.

Again, casual readers reference HERE and HERE. BTW, Just want to argue off-topic, as usual, huh? Get educated HERE and don't get back to us!

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, BenDeCosta said:

 

The right to free speech is a fallacy. Nowadays, you only have a right to free speech on the proviso that what you say doesn't offend someone. And given the current situation, even if you say "the sky is blue", there'll be a left-wing moron somewhere who will be offended, and they'll try and get you arrested, therefore we do not have free speech at all.   

It's a constitutionally guaranteed right in the USA. At least as far as government intervention goes. As for facing consequences from private parties, that's another question altogether.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Again, casual readers reference HERE and HERE. BTW, Just want to argue off-topic, as usual, huh? Get educated HERE and don't get back to us!

Empty assertions as per usual.

[kimamey]

On 5/9/2021 at 8:22 PM, wn78 said:

sorry for a slight off-topic, but that's an interesting structure.  What is it?

Don't worry it's me that was off topic. I did say that it was Pak Mun Dam in Ubon Ratchathani but your shameful lack of observation has given me the excuse to talk about it.  ????

It was in June last year and my wife and I had gone to visit her friend in Ubon but on this day we'd planned to go on our own to the nearby national park which I think was Kaeng Tana National Park but when we got to the dam there were young people there who said it was still closed at that time which we already knew was a possibility so we walked across the dam and then walked down to the river on the western side. Also on this side there are channels for the water to flow through which have staggered walls to slow the flow as it reaches the bottom. In the second picture on my post you can see these and the pool in the middle half way down. We'd already been in the water at the bottom but saw some young Thais in this pool and another further up so we went in as well. I just took the picture to show the view. 

This should show the location and in satellite view you can see this channel on the left.

https://goo.gl/maps/3NSEEBHbP9TaCZsf6

 

 

[Kiujunn]

On 5/6/2021 at 7:11 PM, TaoNow said:

he key point to keep in mind is that the sex industry is demand-driven. 

Wasn't foreigner-oriented sex industry in Thailand after the VN war the exact opposite?

The girls were here, so the customers came, from Europe, later Japan or Korea.

There certainly always was high demand in a place like Switzerland - but why should Swiss fly to Bangkok to have sex?  Because they built it, and they came,  even from far away.

 

I don't think it started because Europeans started to want Asian girls,  so let's fly to Thailand and find one. That would be demand driven.

[Kiujunn]

On 5/6/2021 at 6:40 PM, TaoNow said:

 

Exactly Ben.  And my calculation is that Thai society -- as a whole -- is willing to trade that smile for the eradication of the image of Thailand as an international sex tourist mecca.  IOW, they would willingly forego the lost income as a result.

Sex hasn't been the selling point of Thai tourism for years. 

Chinese come for an exotic locale, shopping and food. They are not into Thai girls. 

Neither are Russians, they mostly have their own women.

Even many of the Europeans nowadays are family tourists. 

[MaxYakov]

On 5/13/2021 at 8:31 AM, Kiujunn said:

Sex hasn't been the selling point of Thai tourism for years. 

Chinese come for an exotic locale, shopping and food. They are not into Thai girls. 

Neither are Russians, they mostly have their own women.

Even many of the Europeans nowadays are family tourists. 

There are always exceptions. Have you ever been to the Thermae Cafe in its pre-covid heyday when it was packed like a sardine tin with male Japanese/Korean (I can't tell the difference, can you?) and many very attractive non-tourists (ahem) women of the Bangkok night (aka freelancers)?

 

BTW, I've read that Bangkok has more of them, per-capita, than any other city on the planet. I would have guessed that Pattaya would get this particular superlative.

 

It was open until recently. Now the gals (and ladyboys) have to look for scarce customers near the entrance and on the sidewalk out front.