WHO Suggests Tightened Measures to Control COVID-19 Spread in Thailand

[Kevin Taylor]

6 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

On whether this will be looked back as successful or not... here's why they did it:

 

Now the whole point was to try to keep the number of infected below the healthcare system capacity. Where of course we would have hoped that, like in China, that would not be a flat line but increasing over time. On the flip side - the "without protective measures" would be that 1-2 years that a normal pandemic would have lasted until it ran out of people to infect as most would have already been immune or dead.

 

But here's the catch. By prolonging time, and viruses mutating constantly, you get to the point where the same people get reinfected by mutations they are not immune to, so it no longer is one wave like in the image above, but more like a sinus curve, with one wave after another. Add in the mix the vaccines against most spread out strains, and we're creating opportunities for variants that otherwise might not make it to thrive. By immunising against one strain, that strain can no longer prosper, but a mutation that would have otherwise stood no chance of thriving is given opportunity, as it's different enough to bypass immunity.

 

Hence overall, I think this will be looked back as a very short term plan without taking into consideration how implementing it would make matters worse in the long run, but we should be prepared, with the strategy taken, that this thingy is not going away for many years. And by the time the direction changes, it might either mutate to something more akin to common cold, or it could turn into something more like MERS, with 1 in 3 infected succumbing to it. We can only hope it would be the first option, as collectively as a human race we'll never step together and do what's needed to get rid of it.

Do you get the feeling we are messing with nature here. I do. I feel if we hadn't messed with it initially there would never have been a covid virus, lab leak. Now we are .trying to outsmart it with vaccines and lockdowns, nature seems to respond with new variants.

[Almer]

13 hours ago, impulse said:

That's easy to say when you've already made your nugget (or not) and you're living on a pension or investment income or a government salary.  Meanwhile, millions of Thai people (many barely above the poverty level in good times) aren't allowed to make a living- to keep you on the safe side.  For many, their entire economic future has been derailed in an experiment.  It'll take years to determine whether locking down was successful in any but the short term.  And more years to make up for the income lost during this experiment.

 

Agreed

[sucit]

10 minutes ago, MikeyIdea said:

 

Different what? Different population? I have already explained that in a previous post. Demographics is more than just population density. Demographics takes people into consideration, how people live and work, culture and the extension of that, multi generation households. As you argue that Denmark is not a valid comparison with its higher population density, you actually prove that closures work as deaths per capita was much lower despite higher population density.

 

Or are you talking about population disregaring population density?

You are saying things I have never said. I don’t even think I mentioned population density. 
 

It is difficult to respond to you when you are not even stating what I have said correctly. My posts are all there. Read em again. 

[d2b2]

12 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

I strongly believe that after 28th July there will be more measures.. First the long weekend and the Birthday of the king and than a lockdown??

I am wondering if it will still be the same government after the long weekend

[sucit]

34 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

On whether this will be looked back as successful or not... here's why they did it:

 

Now the whole point was to try to keep the number of infected below the healthcare system capacity. Where of course we would have hoped that, like in China, that would not be a flat line but increasing over time. On the flip side - the "without protective measures" would be that 1-2 years that a normal pandemic would have lasted until it ran out of people to infect as most would have already been immune or dead.

 

But here's the catch. By prolonging time, and viruses mutating constantly, you get to the point where the same people get reinfected by mutations they are not immune to, so it no longer is one wave like in the image above, but more like a sinus curve, with one wave after another. Add in the mix the vaccines against most spread out strains, and we're creating opportunities for variants that otherwise might not make it to thrive. By immunising against one strain, that strain can no longer prosper, but a mutation that would have otherwise stood no chance of thriving is given opportunity, as it's different enough to bypass immunity.

 

Hence overall, I think this will be looked back as a very short term plan without taking into consideration how implementing it would make matters worse in the long run, but we should be prepared, with the strategy taken, that this thingy is not going away for many years. And by the time the direction changes, it might either mutate to something more akin to common cold, or it could turn into something more like MERS, with 1 in 3 infected succumbing to it. We can only hope it would be the first option, as collectively as a human race we'll never step together and do what's needed to get rid of it.

Now notice, this guy Salerno liked this post I quoted. 
 

The key thing to note about that graph is the area is under the curve is roughly the same in both cases. Meaning number of overall deaths is the same. 
 

So what is happening here is the “lockdown proponents” are agreeing, yes, in the long run, cases will be more or less the same. Well, thank you for finally seeing the light Salerno, namely that lockdowns just postpone the inevitable. 
 

Now it’s time to take the next baby step however. The lockdowns kill. 
 

If you look into drug overdoses before and after lockdowns, here is what a San Francisco study found (lockdown went into effect in March): see pic

 

These are young people dying. This is just a single effect of lockdowns. Start tallying up domestic abuse, depression, alcoholism, lack of cancer screenings, children missing social gatherings, and on and on

 

Quote from study: “The median (interquartile range) number of weekly overdose deaths was 10 (7-12) before the shelter-in-place order vs 15 (11-18) after the order, representing a 50% increase.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779782

Edited July 25, 2021 by sucit

[Andycoops]

After letting the flood gates of Songkran open it's a bit too late.

 

What an about turn, from slapping them on the back last year for a job well done, never trust an army to run a country.

 

Their bringing happiness to the people a complete and utter failure with misery nationwide instead.

[MikeyIdea]

9 minutes ago, sucit said:

You are saying things I have never said. I don’t even think I mentioned population density. 
 

It is difficult to respond to you when you are not even stating what I have said correctly. My posts are all there. Read em again. 

Ah, I thought that you just forgot "density" as population on its own of course is irrelevant.

 

Let's take an example: Which situation transmits a contagious disease more efficiently?   

a) a train with 5 cars with 15 people in each car? This translates to low population density

b) a train with one car with 75 people in one car? This translates to high population density

  

No wonder I couldn't understand you. 

 

[brucegoniners]

Exactly. Been saying that for months. 

[sucit]

3 minutes ago, MikeyIdea said:

Ah, I thought that you just forgot "density" as population on its own of course is irrelevant.

 

Let's take an example: Which situation transmits a contagious disease more efficiently?   

a) a train with 5 cars with 15 people in each car? This translates to low population density

b) a train with one car with 75 people in one car? This translates to high population density

  

No wonder I couldn't understand you. 

 

Yes. We had someone comparing total deaths of countries with different populations. As I initially stated, this makes as much sense as saying Malta is doing great because they have fewer deaths than the United States. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense at all. 

[MikeyIdea]

24 minutes ago, sucit said:

Yes. We had someone comparing total deaths of countries with different populations. As I initially stated, this makes as much sense as saying Malta is doing great because they have fewer deaths than the United States. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense at all. 

I never compared apples to oranges. "We" were you.

Edited July 25, 2021 by MikeyIdea

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, sucit said:

Yes. We had someone comparing total deaths of countries with different populations. As I initially stated, this makes as much sense as saying Malta is doing great because they have fewer deaths than the United States. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense at all. 

And you're still saying the same nonsense. If Sweden has twice the population of a neighboring state that it's demographically very similar to then it should have twice the number of covid deaths.  Yet that os not the case. It has many times the deaths of Finland and Norway even when adjusted for population differences. And aWhat don't you understand about that? This is basic arithmetic.

Here's a graph to make it clearer. You can either divide Sweden's total deaths by 2 or multiply the other 3's deaths by 2. Let's multiply. Denmark would have 5086 deaths. Finland would have 1958 deaths. Norway would have 1598 deaths. Sweden had 14561 deaths. Clear now?.

[tomazbodner]

30 minutes ago, sucit said:

The key thing to note about that graph is the area is under the curve is roughly the same in both cases. Meaning number of overall deaths is the same. 

Cases yes, deaths no. At least that's the idea. When there are fewer cases than the capacity of healthcare system to handle, the deaths are generally lower as many people can be treated. When the number of cases exceed the capacity of healthcare system, the deaths in the surplus increase quite dramatically, if healthcare system is of reasonable standard.

 

You also need to consider the non-infection related healthcare needs. For example someone had an accident and is severely injured. But... can't be admitted to hospital as it's full of COVID patients. Because of filled hospitals, and many medics infected thus reducing availability of care further, many others will die who would normally have been taken care of by the healthcare system.

 

But on cases of infections - yes. Not only will they not be any lower by dragging out the time, they will likely increase compared to just letting it go its own path, due to reinfections of same people with different variants.

 

It is the number of deaths that count to politicians and medical advisors, though. If you look back at Spanish flu.... what does history remember? How many perished. Like when there's a plane crash or another disaster - it's only the dead that are counted. And those in charge do not want to be remembered as those who allowed large number of deaths during their governance and will always look at ways to lower that number in the short term. As for the long term, that's the problem of their successors.

[Venom]

Thank goodness for WHO and big pharma. Saving lives is their mission. We are so lucky to have them looking out for our best interests.????

[jacko45k]

16 hours ago, Caldera said:

What more does he want to see tightened? Everything is already closed!

 

The only difference I see now is last year we had a short alcohol sale ban.....am I missing something?

[ramrod711]

15 hours ago, sucit said:

It’s amazing the best run societies on earth all run on the fact that businesses and people have freedom to make their own decisions. And the system runs very efficiently. Yet, during covid, all the sudden, the people can’t decide how to best go about things. Amazing! And all the sudden, government is the most efficient entity on earth. 
 

What on earth has government ever run well or efficiently? Letting people free to protect themselves is the only sane answer. 

Giving people access to effective vaccines is the only sane answer. I want a vaccine, I registered for a vaccine and I prepaid for a vaccine. I wear a mask, I don't want to die and I don't want to spread the virus if I get it.

[Sundown]

all bashing Thailand but nobody care who pays the WHO? who are the WHO? and WHO has interest in pushing sCOVID? Bunch of sheeps.

[Cake Monster]

17 hours ago, Thaiwrath said:

The main reason for Thailand's problems is their incompetent vaccine strategy.

I would suggest thats its an incompetent Leadership

[placeholder]

59 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

On whether this will be looked back as successful or not... here's why they did it:

 

Now the whole point was to try to keep the number of infected below the healthcare system capacity. Where of course we would have hoped that, like in China, that would not be a flat line but increasing over time. On the flip side - the "without protective measures" would be that 1-2 years that a normal pandemic would have lasted until it ran out of people to infect as most would have already been immune or dead.

 

But here's the catch. By prolonging time, and viruses mutating constantly, you get to the point where the same people get reinfected by mutations they are not immune to, so it no longer is one wave like in the image above, but more like a sinus curve, with one wave after another. Add in the mix the vaccines against most spread out strains, and we're creating opportunities for variants that otherwise might not make it to thrive. By immunising against one strain, that strain can no longer prosper, but a mutation that would have otherwise stood no chance of thriving is given opportunity, as it's different enough to bypass immunity.

 

Hence overall, I think this will be looked back as a very short term plan without taking into consideration how implementing it would make matters worse in the long run, but we should be prepared, with the strategy taken, that this thingy is not going away for many years. And by the time the direction changes, it might either mutate to something more akin to common cold, or it could turn into something more like MERS, with 1 in 3 infected succumbing to it. We can only hope it would be the first option, as collectively as a human race we'll never step together and do what's needed to get rid of it.

I think there are several flaws in your reasoning.

First off, even though people are getting re-infected hospitalizations and mortalities for the fully vaccinated are still very low. So T-cell and B-cell response must still be robust. What's more, If these were the rates when the coronavirus first made its appearance, would any special measures be taken to combat it? What's to stop vaccines tailored to the new variants being made? As the past year shows, vaccine technology has made huge progress and can react swiftly to new variants.

As vaccine production continues to ramp up, ultimately there will be enough vaccines for everyone. 

 

Also, the virus is going to mutate anyway, regardless of whether  or not vaccinations take place. So, if you want to cut down on its opportunities to reproduce and mutate vaccination still works. Not only will vaccines still protect some people from infection but they reduce viral load and the length of time one is actively infected.

 

. Because of vaccines the virus is being selected for is resistance to the vaccines. But the vaccines aren't making them be selected for virulence or transmissibility. There's no reason why such mutations wouldn't happen anyway and at the same rate regardless of vaccinations. The virus could still turn into something resembling the common cold. Or Mers.

 

[hotchilli]

17 hours ago, Jonathan Fairfield said:

Dr Richard Brown, Health Emergencies program manager of the WHO’s Thailand office, said the main reason for Thailand’s problems was the emergence of the new variants.

The main reason is a government who don't have enough vaccines in the country, any idea how to control the infections spreading and wasting time on idiotic sandbox schemes instead of keeping their focus on the real problems. 

[LazySlipper]

16 hours ago, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

it is scary. they are going wuhan style lockdown. will destroy thai economy

Honestly, why do you care about the economy of Thailand? Have you a vested interest here?

 

I lose money from my retirement when their economy is doing well... what about you?

Edited July 25, 2021 by LazySlipper

[crazykopite]

If WHO had got there act together at the beginning of this pandemic we would be in this situation they were well aware of the Chinese problem but kept it to themselves until it was to late the organisation is in the pockets of the Chinese regime  

[ourmanflint]

5 hours ago, Kinnock said:

The Delta variant is already dominant in Sweden.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/covid-19-rise-swedish-cities-delta-outbreaks-dominate-2021-07-23/

It's barely started in Sweden. Give it a month

[Phoenix Rising]

1 hour ago, Sundown said:

all bashing Thailand but nobody care who pays the WHO? who are the WHO? and WHO has interest in pushing sCOVID? Bunch of sheeps.

Oh no, not another one....

[SCOTT FITZGERSLD]

38 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

Honestly, why do you care about the economy of Thailand? Have you a vested interest here?

 

I lose money from my retirement when their economy is doing well... what about you?

you think like the ultimate cheap charlie. maybe you should move to laos, and than, when laos economy picks up, move to zimbabawe, and  so on, until you get to antartica.

[zyphodb]

5 hours ago, atpeace said:

Firstly, not in favor of strict lockdowns but Sweden was far from a success.  A sparsely populated county compared to Thailand, roughly 1,500 people died per 1 mil.  Population adjusted equals about 100,000 Thais.  Roughly 100,000 more Thais would need to perish to equal Sweden success.  

 

Common sense - wear masks, stay away from groups and figure out this vaccine screwup.  Definitely don't try to emulate Sweden.

But what none of them tell you is how many died OF Covid rather than with, a positive test.

 Doesn't suit the fear mongering to tell you that...

[SCOTT FITZGERSLD]

4 hours ago, MikeyIdea said:

And Denmark locked down. Hotels closed. I had a holiday in Copenhagen planned for May, the hotel cancelled my booking citing covid restrictions, I went to Copenhagen (from Malmoe) in July, everyone on the train was stopped and had to show proof that they had valid reason to be let in. The Swedes (except me) didn't use masks in Sweden, all put on their masks before they entered Denmark. 

 

Yes, Denmark has a higher population density, yet much lower mortality. Because they took covid much more seriously. Norway and Finland's numbers speaks for themselves.

i tried to book an air ticket  to spain and emailed qatar air,just to make sure,

they gave me confusing answers as to the requrements, and when i asked more, they

asked: WHAT IS THE REASON FOR YOUR TRAVEL?

i answered :"OH SO NOW YOU ARE ASKING FOR THE REASON OF MY TRAVEL?

WELL LET'S SAY IT  IS FOR HOLIDAY".

 

They did not came back to me since.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, zyphodb said:

But what none of them tell you is how many died OF Covid rather than with, a positive test.

 Doesn't suit the fear mongering to tell you that...

Excess mortality rates tell us all we need to know.

[atpeace]

One thing is obvious in this thread. Be as polite and express an opinion and some people will take it as insult to their manhood.  In their rage they lose the capacity to express coherent thoughts and go on silly rants.  

 

Everybody knows, Obtuse, and in the future.... Yawn, this poster doesn't even see his inability to discuss a topic.  I think if 10,000 people a day died in Sweden he would find a way to twist rationality and state Sweden is a success.

 

Sweden has been a dismal failure as of yet.  In the future their strategy might look a little better but who knows?  Oh, I think I know the poster that thinks he does.  

[zyphodb]

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

I wouldn't mind so much if I didn't still regularly see Thais sitting around with their friends with their masks under their chin.

 

It seems like a major part of this wave is the thinking "you can only get covid from strangers".

Just maybe, Thais who are by and large Buddhist in outlook. aren't as afraid of dieing as westerners are...

[placnx]

17 hours ago, pissedoff2am said:

Or we could just do what Sweden did (nothing) and get back to life.

https://fee.org/articles/daily-covid-deaths-in-sweden-hit-zero-as-other-nations-brace-for-more-lockdowns/amp

Your source, fee.org (Foundation for Economic Education), is right-wing libertarian, according to wikipedia and greenpeace. Some of the claims in the article don't seem credible. Back in 2020, comparisons with other Scandinavian countries showed Swedish mortality a lot higher. Since then, Sweden has been quite agressive in controlling infection and getting its population vaccinated:

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency-of-sweden/communicable-disease-control/covid-19/vaccination-against-covid-19/

https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazards-and-risks/disasters-and-incidents/2020/official-information-on-the-new-coronavirus/current-rules-and-recommendations