There have been a number of threads about a potential lockdown of Bangkok for 7 days to get the virus under control.   In your opinion, is this a good idea?   Is it long enough?   Is there an adequate plan as to what will be gained or do you think it is just  a measure to cover up the lack of vaccines.  

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

 

For further reading:

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1221486-prominent-doctor-suggests-one-week-lockdown-of-bangkok-to-curb-covid-19-spread/

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1221569-bangkok-ccsa-reject-calls-for-lockdown/

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1221721-pm-unsure-7-day-lockdown-of-bangkok-will-stop-spread-of-covid-19/

 

 

 

Quarantine should be for 14 days

Lockdown 1 month!

Seven weeks would be better; should have been locked down before Songkran !

48 minutes ago, chilly07 said:

Quarantine should be for 14 days

Lockdown 1 month!

Got your wish  Bangkok locked down for 1 month

Plan....Do....Action....Control

 

Plan............let's say 7/14 day lockdown (or maybe longer to be sure of its impact).............Do.........put the lockdown in place. .........Action........is the pan being adhered, monitor it?.......Control..........review and do what now? keep it going/stop it/modify it.

No. They should lock down the entire administration and senate. They are the grand sabateurs. They are responsible for the mess the nation finds itself in. 

 

This is not the fault of the people. This is the fault of the horrendously incapable leadership. 

30 days, please.

The answer with the most voters is probably never going to happen . A lockdown works if they also ramp up vaccines ???????? thats the part that will not happen 

2 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Plan....Do....Action....Control

 

Plan............let's say 7/14 day lockdown (or maybe longer to be sure of its impact).............Do.........put the lockdown in place. .........Action........is the pan being adhered, monitor it?.......Control..........review and do what now? keep it going/stop it/modify it.

 

56 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

30 days, please.

I agree minimum 30 days. The 14 days figure was never a Golden Rule, it was a compromise chosen by experts around the world Their original suggestions ranged from 5 days to 6 months. 14 days was chosen as a compromise that would allow time to catch most of the infected without flooding the hospitals. Thailand is a specific case and id slipping into further trouble so I believe that 30 days may well work to curb the rate of growth. However this is Thailand and I am not expecting the Government to take a lot of notice of what we say. The Health Minister from the UK resigned yesterday and may like to help in Thailand where he wont have any problems with "Cuddling". 

1 minute ago, peterpaintpot said:

 

I agree minimum 30 days. The 14 days figure was never a Golden Rule, it was a compromise chosen by experts around the world Their original suggestions ranged from 5 days to 6 months. 14 days was chosen as a compromise that would allow time to catch most of the infected without flooding the hospitals. Thailand is a specific case and id slipping into further trouble so I believe that 30 days may well work to curb the rate of growth. However this is Thailand and I am not expecting the Government to take a lot of notice of what we say. The Health Minister from the UK resigned yesterday and may like to help in Thailand where he wont have any problems with "Cuddling". 

If she excited him....imagine what he would be like in Nana Plaza.......

7 days definitely not long enough, lock the worst provinces down for at least a month, stop interprovincial travel, close  schools, shut unnecessary retail outlets, only one person per household shopping etc etc.

 

Plenty of deniers here to tell us how unnecessary this is and the country can't afford it, how do they think other countries got this thing under control? It's gonna cost a lot of 1st world countries gonna be paying for it for many generations to come, I suppose in their eyes Thailand should be exempt?

A proper lockdown of a capital city like Bangkok in a centralized country like Thailand would be both challenging and a disaster for the economy. I actually give them credit for trying to avoid that, although I do find many of their measures questionable.

 

They've already prioritized vaccines for Bangkok and obviously need to keep this up. Vaccinating a large percentage of a city population is doable in quite a short amount of time, so along with other sensible measures such as preventing super-spreading events and closing high-risk venues, the situation should show signs of improvement within 1-2 months. That will be a stressful time for all of us in Bangkok, that's a given.

lockdown lockup lockjaw...the answer is vaccinations for local population as well as visitors...otherwise you are just playing whack a mole

 

it's not rocket science

Look, EFF the 'economy'. It's trashed already.

 

[QUOTE]

"how do they think other countries got this thing under control? It's gonna cost a lot of 1st world countries gonna be paying for it for many generations to come"

 

The fact is, the "first world" countries have NOT got anything under control so far. Delta is posing such a serious risk in the UK, its health minister resigned. And they're well-vaccinated.

 

While health minister--and PM--resigning would be greeted with applause, face the fact that they'd just be replaced by more incompetents.

5 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Look, EFF the 'economy'. It's trashed already.

 

[QUOTE]

"how do they think other countries got this thing under control? It's gonna cost a lot of 1st world countries gonna be paying for it for many generations to come"

 

The fact is, the "first world" countries have NOT got anything under control so far. Delta is posing such a serious risk in the UK, its health minister resigned. And they're well-vaccinated.

 

While health minister--and PM--resigning would be greeted with applause, face the fact that they'd just be replaced by more incompetents.

So good to see that you keep up with the real news. ???????????? you have absolutely no idea why he resigned have you ????????????????  when you get up to speed with the real world feel free to get back to us.

On 6/27/2021 at 6:29 AM, Caldera said:

A proper lockdown of a capital city like Bangkok in a centralized country like Thailand would be both challenging and a disaster for the economy. I actually give them credit for trying to avoid that, although I do find many of their measures questionable.

 

They've already prioritized vaccines for Bangkok and obviously need to keep this up. Vaccinating a large percentage of a city population is doable in quite a short amount of time, so along with other sensible measures such as preventing super-spreading events and closing high-risk venues, the situation should show signs of improvement within 1-2 months. That will be a stressful time for all of us in Bangkok, that's a given.

May I ask what planet you are on? What part of they don't have the vaccines don't you understand? 

8 hours ago, pegman said:

May I ask what planet you are on? What part of they don't have the vaccines don't you understand? 

 

They have enough to vaccinate Bangkok within 1-2 months, which is what I wrote. That seems to be their strategy; supplies to the provinces have been cut significantly.

What Prayuth says and does, at this stage, means less than zero. 

 

All credibility is lost. It seems as this catastrophe escalates, so does the degree of incompetence, and bewilderment on their part. It is as if the crisis has unmasked the leadership, and shown the people and the world that the nation is being run by super rich, out of touch, corrupt, mindless toddlers. 

I'd say the lockdown should be for 30 days, not 7. If youre going to do something, do it so it has a major impact.

Hilarious! Lockdown to allow a pause until more cases causes another unnecessary one.. madness personified

1. Define "lockdown"

2. Is it enforceable? Who should/will enforce it? I.e. the police?

 

2 is basically impossible. So whatever this lockdown would be it would likely be only an opportunity for the BiB to make some extra money by looking the other way.

Conclusion: It is impossible to efficiently lock down a city like Bangkok.

 

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

1. Define "lockdown"

2. Is it enforceable? Who should/will enforce it? I.e. the police?

 

2 is basically impossible. So whatever this lockdown would be it would likely be only an opportunity for the BiB to make some extra money by looking the other way.

Conclusion: It is impossible to efficiently lock down a city like Bangkok.

 

What you state has been proven false by the lockdown at the beginning of the pandemic 

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

What Prayuth says and does, at this stage, means less than zero. 

 

All credibility is lost. It seems as this catastrophe escalates, so does the degree of incompetence, and bewilderment on their part. It is as if the crisis has unmasked the leadership, and shown the people and the world that the nation is being run by super rich, out of touch, corrupt, mindless toddlers. 

Now compare that with those competent politicians like i.e. Trump and Boris... 

1 minute ago, pegman said:

What you state has been proven false by the lockdown at the beginning of the pandemic 

What lockdown was that?

Did nobody go out (like i.e. shopping) anymore?

Were all roads to and from Bangkok closed?

There was never a complete lockdown and there never will be a complete lockdown of Bangkok.

35 minutes ago, pegman said:

What you state has been proven false by the lockdown at the beginning of the pandemic 

Incorrect. There never was a real lockdown of Bangkok. It was partial, at best. And highly selective.