SURVEY: Should Thailand mandate vaccination?

[Ralf001]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Flawed argument....  a Covid-19 vaccine isn’t ‘health care’ in the manner you indicate above. 

 

Covid-19 vaccinates contribute to the well being of society. A valid argument would be that ALL vaccines should be free.

 

Yet, your health care for an ear infection, a broken leg and pretty much all non-contagious ailments impact your wellbeing and not that of the society in which they live. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iam not talking about the actual vaccine.

 

the person I qouted was saying those that refuse a mandated vaccine should not get free health care for issues arising from covid.

 

I dont get free health care for ear infection, a broken leg and pretty much all non-contagious ailments.... FWIW... that costs me 30b !!

Edited May 16, 2021 by Ralf001

[4MyEgo]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I agree with you that people have rights. I have the right NOT to be infected by somebody who refuses to be vaccinated. The person who refuses vaccination does NOT have the right to infect anybody else.

How do you know who is infected ?

 

People do also die from the vaccines, i.e. Covid is not a death wish, nor is the vaccine, however people should have the right to fight in which way they believe is right for them.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

 

 

[Rookiescot]

I think the Thai people are fully aware that the current Chinese junk vaccine on offer is neither safe nor efficacious.

This probably accounts for the slow registration as people want to wait for better western vaccines. 

[4MyEgo]

13 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

I am sure there will be all sorts of legal ramifications if they choose to enforce the vaccine but the bottom line is if you have a stark choice of take it or leave your wife, family and home behind most people would end up taking it. 
 

People say all sorts after a few beers. 

 

Unlike others I don't drink during the day and your WRONG, my family has dual passports, so if it ever came to force, then we would leave.

[bermondburi]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Like most armchair epidemiologists on this forum, a talking-head on TV told you so therefore it's The Truth. 

For me?  If assertions are not backed by scientific studies then it's hearsay and doesn't hold water except for the assertion's propaganda value.  When I hear the statement from the main-stream press, "Experts Say!", I literally cringe.  But a large majority of a rather unsophisticated and unquestioning population simple nods there heads in the direction that the talking-heads on TV tell them to nod.

Me?  A want facts in the form of published studies.  Anything less, especially nowadays regarding this highly charged topic of SARS-Cov-2 and the illness it causes, is hearsay and opinion - not fact.
"All studies show..........."  <------ without links that comment has no veracity.

I think you're taking an anonymous forum on t'internet way too seriously. But feel free to go to the next post if you don't like this one.

48 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Was with my usual group of educated people last night having a few cold ones and I asked, so how many of you lads are getting vaccinated and everyone of them said; not me, so we'll accept your boycotting us.

Just let us know where you hang out so we can avoid you.

20 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

I would hazard a guess that a court challenge would be warranted.

And I would hazard a guess that Thailand will do what it wants.

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, connda said:

I find it interesting that a significant number of people nowadays would prefer to live in the strict, well-defined, authoritarian structure of a totalitarian regime as it makes them feel more safe.  However, my guess is that these same people don't necessarily study history.  Which is why I like this poem by Martin Niemöller

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

The heavy-handedness of totalitarian regimes seems efficient until you yourself become the target of the regime's repressive nature.  Those who aspire to authoritarianism and dictatorial power don't stop after their first successes.  They collect power by disemboweling the rights of others to satisfy their own needs for unending power.  It doesn't stop until the totalitarian regime is dismantled and usually at a significant cost in human life.  Then when on the docket in front of judges you hear,
"But!  I was only following orders!" 
<cue the sound of a trap door opening the the "sproing" of a rope springing taunt with weight at its end>

 

 

The ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument does not quite carry when considering the wellbeing of a nation. 

 

It could be argued that a certain level of encouragement is to some extent a form to totalitarianism...  but then in such circumstances law itself could be a form of totalitarianism and freedoms are removed with every law....  The general consensus is that laws that exist for the benefit of society are a positive thing. 

 

A Law which exists to take a vaccine could be considered a benefit to society, yet forcing someone to take a vaccine still crosses a line. 

 

I am fully supportive of a government which ‘educates and encourages’ its population to take the vaccine. 

I am fully supportive of a government which would see fit to ‘allow’ the 'limitation of privileges' of those who refuse vaccinations. 

 

‘Education and encouragement’ - provide people with factual unbiased information on both the risks and benefits of the vaccine vs the factual unbiased risks a non-vaccinated population continue to face. 

 

‘Limitation of Privileges’ - the privilege of freedom of travel (airlines should be free from the risk of prosecution if they choose not to carry unvaccinated people). 

The privilege to work (i.e. it should be well within a companies rights to remove unvaccinated people from their workforce (if they have no vaccinated by choice).

 

 

A government should be free to encourage their population to vaccinate but not ‘force’ - but the issue is a lot more complex for a government than this simple choice

 

A major part of this encouragement would be to offer full support to those who may suffer long term complications after taking a vaccine.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by richard_smith237

[bermondburi]

2 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Unlike others I don't drink during the day and your WRONG, my family has dual passports, so if it ever came to force, then we would leave.

Okay. Seeya.

[wwest5829]

Sorry, I cannot accept any one of the choices without qualification. As far as a demand to take vaccine, that is problematic. You face human rights abuse accusations (recognizing that a nation has a right to protect the majority but this answer presents real issues). As a foreigner residing retired for a decade, I would expect my Embassy to intervene (as well as the UN). Moving on, I would hope that vaccines will be made freely available to all, as the Thais cannot be protected unless the overwhelming population is vaccinated, however ... as an aging boomer with heart conditions? Well, I rely on my Thai Cardiologist to make the recommendation. Currently, considering Pfizer, Moderna ... Am I open to taking the vaccine on medical advice? yes. Do I want to be subject to a political decision demanding I use Sinovac? No ... Come on Thailand. Over a million baht a year brought into the country in support of a Thai family. Why not grant me Permanent Resident status and not demand unreasonable immigration or medical actions. Royal Thai Immigration granted my request for a retirement Visa on the basis of providing financial, medical and law enforcement proof that I would be a good resident.

[4MyEgo]

4 minutes ago, bermondburi said:

Just let us know where you hang out so we can avoid you.

 

4 minutes ago, bermondburi said:

And I would hazard a guess that Thailand will do what it wants.

 

Zzzzzz's

[Ralf001]

34 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I agree with you that people have rights. I have the right NOT to be infected by somebody who refuses to be vaccinated. The person who refuses vaccination does NOT have the right to infect anybody else.

 

If one is vaccinated how would they become infected from a non vaccinated person.

 

do the vaccines not work ?

[4MyEgo]

5 minutes ago, bermondburi said:

Okay. Seeya.

 

Do you have to reply to posts which have nothing to do with you, getting boring, Zzzz's

[HandsomeTallFarang]

3 hours ago, Boomer6969 said:

I voted 1, but only because my preferred option ins't available. I believe that, after a sensible deadline, access to services (government, bank, ATM, 7/11, markets) should be denied to unvaccinated people. Under Thailand's current plans  this should probably be announced, right now, as of November 1. 

 

So people are given a choice, but would have to send their gardener to get cash from the ATM if they chose to stay unprotected.

Name is "Boomer"

 

Name checks out, completely unhinged selfish boomer mentality.

 

[Kadilo]

11 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Unlike others I don't drink during the day and your WRONG, my family has dual passports, so if it ever came to force, then we would leave.

That’s is your prerogative. If you’re willing to give up your home and  life in Thailand  over the principal of having a vaccine then I take my hat off to you. The vast majority wouldnt imo

Let’s hope it never comes to a choice. 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Kadilo

[HandsomeTallFarang]

3 hours ago, androokery said:

This is presumably based on the notion that your body is your own and you should be allowed to decide what happens to it. If it's in a society's best interest to remove an individual from the collective, the collective quite commonly does so, both in democratic and in totalitarian societies. For various reasons and with varying degrees of fairness and logic. 

 

If there is a person in a group who insists on being a possible vector for a deadly disease it makes sense for the group to remove that person physically, by sending them to another place or burning them. I'm arguing the principle here, such as if these were medieval times and the bubonic plague was upon us and somehow a very clever person developed a vaccine against it. But we can enjoy cute arguments now, because Covid-19 isn't killing enough people to compare it with medieval plagues. We seem to be fine with allowing individuals to put other people at risk while they seem to be fine with reaping the benefits of the people around them getting vaccinated. You don't want to be vaccinated. Fine. Leave society. Take the other needle-shy people with you to St Helena. Or anywhere but here. 

Greater than 99% survival rate. What a deadly disease.

[richard_smith237]

10 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

How do you know who is infected ?

 

People do also die from the vaccines, i.e. Covid is not a death wish, nor is the vaccine, however people should have the right to fight in which way they believe is right for them.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

 

 

 

 

IF you take a population of 70 million people, no lock downs, continue life as normal - how many will succumb to Covid-19 ?

 

IF you take a population of 70 million people and vaccinate them - how many will still succumb to Covid-19 and also succumb to negative effects of the vaccine ?

 

 

If a society is to free itself from the burden of Covid-19 a critical proportion of that population needs to be vaccinated against Covid-19. 

 

Governments need to find a way to achieve that ‘critical proportion’ for the vaccination program to be truly effective. 

 

The governments need to find a way to educate and get through to people who don’t realise they are uneducated and don’t know what they don’t know/ 

 

At the same time, its a compromise of human rights for a government to enforce vaccination. 

At the same time, shouldn’t it be the right of society to live in a safe environment. 

 

Thus, should those who refuse vaccination have an equal right to live in a society where they may present a risk to innocent others ?

 

A huge conundrum. I just hope the society I live in does not have a bunch of nutty antivaxxers !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cyril sneer]

if sinovac never existed, neither would this mandate they've started 

[HandsomeTallFarang]

2 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

 

there is another side to that that will also fill up the courts.

- travellers suing for being infected whilst travelling with unvaccinated travellers

- Employees suing for being infected by unvaccinated other employees

- Interviewees suing for getting infected by unvaccinated people doing the interviews.

 

Either way you cannot win and the courts will be full for the next 50 years

Is this satire? So an unvaccinated travelers gets infected from another unvaccinated travel, and thus can sue? How do you not see how ridiculous this is lol? They weren't vaccinationed either so arguably it was their choice to take on the risk of getting covid. You can't sue for that.

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, HandsomeTallFarang said:

Greater than 99% survival rate. What a deadly disease.

 

 

You are being sarcastic and implying its not deadly because 99% survive ?

 

You are saying that Covid-19 kills 1% of all people who contract it ?

 

 

So... using your figure, Covid-19 is deadly to 10,000 people out of 1 Million.

 

Using your figures, not deadly enough for you ?????? 

 

 

-------------

 

This is the problem with so many of the arguments on Covid-19... people come up with galactically dumb arguments such as it has a 99% survival rate. 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, HandsomeTallFarang said:

3 hours ago, Boomer6969 said:

I voted 1, but only because my preferred option ins't available. I believe that, after a sensible deadline, access to services (government, bank, ATM, 7/11, markets) should be denied to unvaccinated people. Under Thailand's current plans  this should probably be announced, right now, as of November 1. 

 

So people are given a choice, but would have to send their gardener to get cash from the ATM if they chose to stay unprotected.

Name is "Boomer"

 

Name checks out, completely unhinged selfish boomer mentality.

 

Your argument that that those who take the vaccine are selfish because they believe those who cannot be protected by a vaccine should at least be protected from those who choose not to take a vaccine ???

 

 

Complete unhinged selfish mentality - but its those who refuse a vaccine which that statement better suits. 

 

 

 

[HandsomeTallFarang]

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

Your argument that that those who take the vaccine are selfish because they believe those who cannot be protected by a vaccine should at least be protected from those who choose not to take a vaccine ???

 

 

Complete unhinged selfish mentality - but its those who refuse a vaccine which that statement better suits. 

 

 

 

So according to you in other words - the vaccine doesn't work.

 

Nice argument???? Are you trying to refute your own point? 

 

Boomer-mush-brain strikes again.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, HandsomeTallFarang said:

So according to you in other words - the vaccine doesn't work.

 

Nice argument???? Are you trying to refute your own point? 

 

Boomer-mush-brain strikes again.

Don't think it's him who's suffering from brain mush. The public health reason everyone should get vaccinated is that the more vaccinated people there are, the slower the spread of the virus. 

[richard_smith237]

38 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

We have had this discussion a few times already, where you accuse people of struggling with this or that, while it is actually you who is the one struggling.

 

Let me make it clear to you.

 

 

Disagreeing with people exercising their rights is the same as denying them any rights, which is the same as enforcing them to accept what you think is right.

 

Got it now?

 

[Disagreeing with people exercising their rights is the same as denying them any rights, which is the same as enforcing them to accept what you think is right]

 

Go back and study English. 

 

Disagreement is not the same as Denying.

 

I do not deny people their right to freedom to choose. But I disagree with their choice if that choice it not to vaccinate against covid. 

 

 

I agree with the rights of someone not to educate themselves. At the same time I disagree with your choice not to. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, HandsomeTallFarang said:

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Your argument that that those who take the vaccine are selfish because they believe those who cannot be protected by a vaccine should at least be protected from those who choose not to take a vaccine ???

 

 

Complete unhinged selfish mentality - but its those who refuse a vaccine which that statement better suits. 

 

 

 

Expand  

So according to you in other words - the vaccine doesn't work.

 

Nice argument???? Are you trying to refute your own point? 

 

Boomer-mush-brain strikes again.

 

Can you even read ?????   - I have not mentioned once that the vaccine does not work. 

 

Mush-brain definitely strikes again !!! 

 

 

 

Now.... lets try that again........

 

Some people cannot take vaccines for various medical reasons.......    Should these people be placed at risk by those who refuse to take the vaccine ?

 

If a lot of people refuse to take the vaccine, should those people (who cannot take vaccines for various medical reasons) be placed at greater risk ?

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, HandsomeTallFarang said:

What else is meant by "those who can't be protected by the vaccine" you dingus? ????

That's an admission that the vaccine doesn't work. If it worked then "those who can't be protected by the vaccine" wouldn't be a statement. Pretty much anyone who wants a vaccine can afford one once they become widely available.

 

 

I have to ask a serious question - Is English your primary language?

 

If not, its ok....   I simply meant some people cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons (allergies etc). 

 

That is not an admission that the vaccine doesn’t work - its obvious by now that the vaccines work for the vast majority of people who take them. 

 

But, the vaccines are not effective against contracting Covid-19 for 100% of people who take the vaccine, so for some people they don’t work (or for some people the vaccine is not effective against contracting Covid-19).  

 

 

 

 

[johng]

2 hours ago, rickudon said:

Personally, until i get vaccinated i will avoid/boycott those who refuse to do so

How will you know they are not vaccinated ?     maybe they will be wearing a yellow star

or have to walk around ringing a bell shouting unclean unclean whenever out in a public place ?

[rickudon]

14 minutes ago, johng said:

How will you know they are not vaccinated ?     maybe they will be wearing a yellow star

or have to walk around ringing a bell shouting unclean unclean whenever out in a public place ?

Hopefully......

[Susco]

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I agree with the rights of someone not to educate themselves. At the same time I disagree with your choice not to. 

 

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Can you even read ?????  

 

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So many halfwits going on about their ‘rights’... Don’t you think society has a right to be protected from selfish people who refuse to vaccinate ?

 

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I have to ask a serious question - Is English your primary language?

 

 

Looks like not many agree with you, and you have to result to name calling to enforce your opinion.

 

I assume you can agree I add you to my ignore list, bye

[KannikaP]

3 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

 

 

I have now, twice... Iam not reading anywhere it about mandatory registration.

 

I note this is the 2nd time today you have qouted me to criticise... do you need step by step instruction on how to put a person on ignore ?

I do apologise Ralf, it was Scott, the OP who said 'With cases ticking upward, one province has indicated that everyone must register for a vaccine by May 31 or face a possible month in jail and a 10,000 baht fine.  '

 

Would it not be better if YOU put ME on ignore?

[Ralf001]

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

There is every 'moral and scientific’ argument to support vaccination. 

 

 

 

 

and they are ?

[richard_smith237]

15 minutes ago, johng said:

How will you know they are not vaccinated ?     maybe they will be wearing a yellow star

or have to walk around ringing a bell shouting unclean unclean whenever out in a public place ?

 

No... You are brining ‘Holocaust’ into the argument which is both highly emotive and also plain idiotic. 

 

We’re talking about vaccinating against a devastating global pandemic, not racial or ethnic persecution and genocide. 

 

 

This ‘star’ augment has been used in an extremely flawed manner a number of times, its idiotic and dilutes historical severity of such atrocities.