Thailand to tax residents’ foreign income irrespective of remittance

[Rimmer]

A post linking to an unapproved pseudoscience conspiracy website has been removed also replies

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

 

The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

 

It's just a coincidence this change happened now. I think not.

 

 

 

Up until covid hit us we looked upon a vaccine as a stopper more or less. We felt sort of safe having kids vaccinated. When my daughter was born here in Thailand they gave her  many vaccinations or shots or whatever really smart people call them so they can feel smart. Now you're trying to say it's just a coincidence that the definition of vaccine changed.  

"we looked upon a vaccine as a stopper more or less?"

 And the flu vaccine? Has that been viewed as a stopper more or less? 

There's also the shingles vaccine. Has that been viewed as a stopper,more or less?

What about the HSV1 Herpes vaccine? Has that been viewed as a stopper, more or less?

What do you mean by "more or less"?

 

Clearly, if anyone is changing the criteria for what constitutes a vaccine it's you and the vanishingly small number of those who support your position.

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by placeholder

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The definition just like I stated and which yous guys vigorously claimed as false was indeed changed. But you go ahead and believe as you please. 

Nobody is disputing the definition has been changed.

 

What has been disputed and demonstrated a falsehood is your claim as to why the definition was changed.

 

 

[ozimoron]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

Yes words were changed the definition was made more clear. If you really read what you posted you too would understand that this is a lot about nothing and like placeholder says the definition has changed a lot over the years. That is what happens when science evolves. 

they use the same game plan to suggest that climate change is fake because it's now called climate change instead of global warming and the goal posts have changed ????

Edited September 20, 2021 by ozimoron

[Humanoid]

 

For those considering that the giant spikes shown in the Thailand graph above are due to a new variant.  Remember that Delta is only about twice as infectious as the previous one.  Does that graph look like the work of a virus that is only twice as infectious as the previous one?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2

 

Look in the table where it says +97%.  Then look again at the Thailand graph I posted earlier.  It's not too hard to make a good guess.

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Humanoid said:

Wow, that was fast.  I barely got any replies and my posts were already deleted.  Who is it that said: "The best way to figure out the truth is to silence the people with different ideas."  I don't remember.

 

unsincerely

Silenced Humanoid

 

While that might be true i think in case of antivaxxers its more that we want to prevent the lies that you spread becoming the truth.

 

I think the antivaxxers learned that from Goebbels and Trump. Spread a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. 

 

So they keep spreading lies hoping that people will believe them.

 

Any proof that vaccinations are the vaccines are the cause of the higher spread of covid as that is what your saying. Please show me some research backing those lies up. 

 

Twice as infectious does not mean two time the amount of cases but many times more. Its pure math. 

 

1 person infects two people, twice as bad is 1 person infects four people, then go a five steps further and the difference really shows.

 

1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16  (1 person infecting 2 people)

1 - 4 - 16 - 64 - 256  (1 person infecting 4 people)

 

Twice as infective but many many more infections. So that kinda busts your claims. Dont worry you can find a new conspiracy to chase there are plenty.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Humanoid said:

That's a good strategy.  But which side is using this strategy the most?  Which side is allowed to spread ideas here, and which side is being silenced?  Which side is allowed to spread ideas on national tv, and which side is not allowed?

 

There exist other strategies as well.  For example: "Silence the truth often enough, and it becomes a lie."  This strategy is also being applied on this forum.

 

I'd love to.  But the moderators already silenced me on this topic.  I can talk about strategies of spreading lies, and mathematics, but not you know what.  If you really want to see the research, you can search for it online.

 

I would love to see you finish your calculation to match up with the graphs.  If you can do that, PM me please with the matching equations.

 

Silenced Humanoid

 

I would say your side given the fact that the normal people (pro vaccination pro science) don't lie your side on the other hand ehh... lets just say your kind puts Pinokkio to shame.

 

So you have nothing to back it up besides some antivaxer sits ah... get it no proof.

 

I just showed you with math how a double as much infection rate could lead to much more as double the number of people infected. I don't need a graph for that to show you. I mean if you don't understand how it works then i will have to question your IQ.

 

Math is math and depending on the original rate a doubling of it leads to  far more then double number of infections. There is no need to get a graph for that it just shows the principle. Once you understand the principle you understand WHY your theory is wrong to think that a doubling of the infection rate should lead to only a doubling of cases. 

 

 

[Jeffr2]

36 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

I just noticed your signature now.  How ironic.

 

Silenced Humanoid

 

Lies are not valid ideas. Impossible to have intelligent arguments with these around.

[Humanoid]

For those who are considering the 2^x and 4^x sequences that were posted by robblok as a valid explanation.  Just take any graphing calculator, for example here:

 

https://www.desmos.com/calculator

 

On the top left box, enter y = 2^x and then in the 2nd box below it, enter y = 4^x.  The x will appear in superscript as you type it.  You will see 2 graphs drawn on the right.  At x = 0, you will see y = 1 for both representing 1 you know what.  At x = 1, you will see the graphs go to 2 and 4, and at x = 2, you will see them go to 4 and 16.  These are the 2 sequences that robblok gave as an explanation for the graph that I posted earlier, which has been deleted by a moderator.

 

Now try to match up those 2 graphs with the other graph that he claims these are a valid explanation for.  If he is correct, the 4^x graph should be matched up with that thing seen in 2021, while the 2^x graph should be matched up with things seen earlier.

 

You can even try stretching the graphs horizontally by replacing x with something like x/10.  Zoom in.  Zoom out.  See if you can find anything that matches.

 

If you know what a derivative is, you can also take the derivative of both equations if you think that changes anything.

 

You can also try modifying the equations to make them more realistic to account for real life behaviour.

 

I have my own alternative idea to all this, however, it is believed by others to be a lie.  And lies are not allowed to be mentioned on this forum.  So I will not mention what my alternative idea is.

 

To be clear to the moderators.  I have zero intention of breaking any of the forum rules here.  I hope that what I wrote above, which is mostly about math, does not violate any of the rules here.  I'm being very careful about what I write.

 

Maybe I should stop posting in this thread altogether.  I'm afraid I might get banned from the forum if I accidentally misspeak in some way.  I think a lot of people already hate me for having alternative ideas.

 

Silenced Humanoid

 

[ozimoron]

12 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

Maybe I should stop posting in this thread altogether.  I'm afraid I might get banned from the forum if I accidentally misspeak in some way.  I think a lot of people already hate me for having alternative ideas.

It's blindingly obvious that twice as infectious means that growth in infections is going to be exponential. As in, 2, 4, 8, 16. Basic high school math. No need to prove it.

 

The reason you get silenced is not because you have alternative ideas, it's that you spread dangerous misinformation. You don't seem to understand that you're simply wrong and when it comes to covid that has potential consequences for everyone else. That is the problem here. You can say the Earth is flat all day long and nobody cares but start saying that vaccinations cause covid to spread (if that was you, I can't be bothered to check) and people have every right to object. Ask yourself why your ideas aren't being tolerated. There is no conspiracy to silence alternative ideas in play. There is truth and there are lies.

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

For those who are considering the 2^x and 4^x sequences that were posted by robblok as a valid explanation.  Just take any graphing calculator, for example here:

 

https://www.desmos.com/calculator

 

On the top left box, enter y = 2^x and then in the 2nd box below it, enter y = 4^x.  The x will appear in superscript as you type it.  You will see 2 graphs drawn on the right.  At x = 0, you will see y = 1 for both representing 1 you know what.  At x = 1, you will see the graphs go to 2 and 4, and at x = 2, you will see them go to 4 and 16.  These are the 2 sequences that robblok gave as an explanation for the graph that I posted earlier, which has been deleted by a moderator.

 

Now try to match up those 2 graphs with the other graph that he claims these are a valid explanation for.  If he is correct, the 4^x graph should be matched up with that thing seen in 2021, while the 2^x graph should be matched up with things seen earlier.

 

You can even try stretching the graphs horizontally by replacing x with something like x/10.  Zoom in.  Zoom out.  See if you can find anything that matches.

 

If you know what a derivative is, you can also take the derivative of both equations if you think that changes anything.

 

You can also try modifying the equations to make them more realistic to account for real life behaviour.

 

I have my own alternative idea to all this, however, it is believed by others to be a lie.  And lies are not allowed to be mentioned on this forum.  So I will not mention what my alternative idea is.

 

To be clear to the moderators.  I have zero intention of breaking any of the forum rules here.  I hope that what I wrote above, which is mostly about math, does not violate any of the rules here.  I'm being very careful about what I write.

 

Maybe I should stop posting in this thread altogether.  I'm afraid I might get banned from the forum if I accidentally misspeak in some way.  I think a lot of people already hate me for having alternative ideas.

 

Silenced Humanoid

 

Humanoid,

 

You really have no clue, i gave the numbers as an example. I did not say these were the real rates of infection of the virus. I gave you a good explanation why the spread rate is higher and different. Real world situations dont match math calculations exactly.

 

There are many reasons for this, one being that you never know the real infection rates somewhere because you don't know how the virus really spreads because often not enough testing is done. An other one is that the delta variant does not take over at once but gradually so its a combination of normal and delta at times. These things make it hard for calculations to be the same as the real data. 

 

Your alternative idea has no proof, basically that is what is called a lie. Do you have any MEDICAL or SCIENTIFIC proof of what you think. I mean based on research from doctors who investigated patients ect ect. Because nobody besides crazies have ever said anything about this. So my question is do you have proof from a real website that has credibility.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/08/07/did-covid-19-vaccines-cause-coronavirus-delta-variants-no-evidence-behind-such-claims/?sh=3ce5fc44281d

 

seems that some on the internet seem to think delta is because of the vaccines. In the link above they explain why this is not true. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Humanoid said:

 

For those considering that the giant spikes shown in the Thailand graph above are due to a new variant.  Remember that Delta is only about twice as infectious as the previous one.  Does that graph look like the work of a virus that is only twice as infectious as the previous one?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2

 

Look in the table where it says +97%.  Then look again at the Thailand graph I posted earlier.  It's not too hard to make a good guess.

 

Twice as infectious doesn’t sound like much does it?!

 

So let’s give it a try.

 

For the purpose of illustration let’s assume for COVID#1 R0= 2.

 

Each person infected goes on to infect another 2.

 

1*2=2, then 2*2=4, then 4*4=8, then 8*2=16, then 16*2=32, then 32*2=64, then 64*2=128, then 128*2=256, then 256*2=512 

and by the 10th iteration of transmission COVID#1 has infected 522*2 = 1024 people.

 

Now let’s apply your ‘is only about twice as infectious’ to COVID#2 for ten iterations of transmission.

 

Twice as infections R0 =4.

 

1*4=4, then 4*4=16, then 16*4=256, then 256*4=1024, then 1024*4=4096, then4096*4=16,384, then 16,384*4=65,536, then 65,536*4=262,144 

and by the 20th iteration of transmission COVID#2 has infected 262,144*4=1,048,576 people.

 

The Delta variant has an R0 that may be as high as 8.

 

Do the math.

 

[Humanoid]

Maybe this is a simpler explanation for those who didn't like the graphs:

 

1 person infecting 4 people after 4 steps:

 

1 - 4 - 16 - 64 - 256

 

1 person infecting 2 people after 8 steps:

 

1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - 256

 

It's practically the same thing.  It reaches the same number.  The only difference it that it just takes twice as long to get there.  The only thing that changes in the graph is the slope.  The slope is just twice as steep.  You can see it in the graphs.

 

What happens in one week with 4 infections, happens in 2 weeks with 2 infections.  What happens in one month with 4 infections, happens in 2 months with 2 infections per person.

 

It's not going to be: "Giant bulge in the graph with 4 infections per person.  Nothing there with 2 infections per person."

 

The plateau would be at almost the same height.  It would just take twice as long to get there.  Nobody should care if an infection rate has doubled, because doubling the infection rate is not a significant occurrence.

 

For those of you who claim you can explain the graph with a double of infection rate, I'm still waiting to see your equations.

 

Sure you can compare: 2^10 vs 4^10 and see wow, look at the huge difference between 1024 and 1048576.

 

Well, I can also do 2^10 vs 2^20 (that is, just wait twice as long) and say, wow, look at the huge difference between 1024 and 1048576.

 

Or rather 2^20 vs 4^10, and show you that the answer is exactly the same, it just takes twice as long to get there.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

52 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

For those who are considering the 2^x and 4^x sequences that were posted by robblok as a valid explanation.  Just take any graphing calculator, for example here:

 

https://www.desmos.com/calculator

 

On the top left box, enter y = 2^x and then in the 2nd box below it, enter y = 4^x.  The x will appear in superscript as you type it.  You will see 2 graphs drawn on the right.  At x = 0, you will see y = 1 for both representing 1 you know what.  At x = 1, you will see the graphs go to 2 and 4, and at x = 2, you will see them go to 4 and 16.  These are the 2 sequences that robblok gave as an explanation for the graph that I posted earlier, which has been deleted by a moderator.

 

Now try to match up those 2 graphs with the other graph that he claims these are a valid explanation for.  If he is correct, the 4^x graph should be matched up with that thing seen in 2021, while the 2^x graph should be matched up with things seen earlier.

 

You can even try stretching the graphs horizontally by replacing x with something like x/10.  Zoom in.  Zoom out.  See if you can find anything that matches.

 

If you know what a derivative is, you can also take the derivative of both equations if you think that changes anything.

 

You can also try modifying the equations to make them more realistic to account for real life behaviour.

 

I have my own alternative idea to all this, however, it is believed by others to be a lie.  And lies are not allowed to be mentioned on this forum.  So I will not mention what my alternative idea is.

 

To be clear to the moderators.  I have zero intention of breaking any of the forum rules here.  I hope that what I wrote above, which is mostly about math, does not violate any of the rules here.  I'm being very careful about what I write.

 

Maybe I should stop posting in this thread altogether.  I'm afraid I might get banned from the forum if I accidentally misspeak in some way.  I think a lot of people already hate me for having alternative ideas.

 

Silenced Humanoid

 

You missed something.

 

The examples of the R0 number series explain why a small change in how infectious a virus has a dramatic effect on the number of people potentially infected.

 

Your simplistic ‘match the math to the graph’ ignores all the other influences on transmission of the virus: 

 

Lockdowns, masks, social distancing, isolation of those infected, vaccines and constant public health messaging.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Chomper Higgot

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Twice as infectious doesn’t sound like much does it?!

 

So let’s give it a try.

 

For the purpose of illustration let’s assume for COVID#1 R0= 2.

 

Each person infected goes on to infect another 2.

 

1*2=2, then 2*2=4, then 4*4=8, then 8*2=16, then 16*2=32, then 32*2=64, then 64*2=128, then 128*2=256, then 256*2=512 

and by the 10th iteration of transmission COVID#1 has infected 522*2 = 1024 people.

 

Now let’s apply your ‘is only about twice as infectious’ to COVID#2 for ten iterations of transmission.

 

Twice as infections R0 =4.

 

1*4=4, then 4*4=16, then 16*4=256, then 256*4=1024, then 1024*4=4096, then4096*4=16,384, then 16,384*4=65,536, then 65,536*4=262,144 

and by the 20th iteration of transmission COVID#2 has infected 262,144*4=1,048,576 people.

 

The Delta variant has an R0 that may be as high as 8.

 

Do the math.

 

He has the strange idea that the calculation should match the graph of Thailand 100%.

 

Totally crazy of course given that the delta variant did not take the alpha one at once (so that muddies things up)

The fact that we don't really know the real number of infections because of limited testing (so can't compare)

Actions taken by government can also influence the spread.

 

Its impossible to have the graphs match as calculations and real word will always be different I gave a few reasons but there are many more. He just does not seem to get stuff like that.

[Humanoid]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your simplistic ‘match the math to the graph’ ignores all the other influences on transmission of the virus: 

I'm not the one who posted the 2^x and 4^x sequences.  I'm not saying that those are the correct equations.  I'm just showing that those equations DON'T match the data.  And are therefore incorrect equations.

 

I'm not the one ignoring the other influences.  It is your equations that are ignoring the other influences.

 

In fact, all the equations posted here to explain the Delta explanation, have a zero match with the data.

 

If your equations don't match the data, then they are not correct explanations.

 

If you have a correct equation, go ahead and post it.  And let's see if it matches the data.

 

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You missed something.

 

The examples of the R0 number series explain why a small change in how infectious a virus has a dramatic effect on the number of people potentially infected.

 

Your simplistic ‘match the math to the graph’ ignores all the other influences on transmission of the virus: 

 

Lockdowns, masks, social distancing, isolation of those infected, vaccines and constant public health messaging.

 

 

Not to mention the fact that he assumes the numbers of infected people are real numbers. That would only be true if they tested everyone. He assumes that the graph is based on real numbers while in reality it is based on the amounts of tests. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Humanoid said:

I'm not the one who posted the 2^x and 4^x sequences.  I'm not saying that those are the correct equations.  I'm just showing that those equations DON'T match the data.  And are therefore incorrect equations.

 

I'm not the one ignoring the other influences.  It is your equations that are ignoring the other influences.

 

In fact, all the equations posted here to explain the Delta explanation, have a zero match with the data.

 

If your equations don't match the data, then they are not correct explanations.

 

If you have a correct equation, go ahead and post it.  And let's see if it matches the data.

 

The equation is correct but to simplistic. You have no clue about what your doing.

 

I used the equasion as a tool to explain the faster spread. Not to match a graph because anyone with half a brain knows this is impossible because of many outside factors.

 

- you assume the graph of Thailand is correct, but it is not not enough tests were done. So the data in the graph will never match based on that alone.

- you assume delta took over in one time while in reality it took time so you had 2 virusses with different spreading speed living in the same population ) also makes things different then the calculation i just made

- you assume that nobody reacted to the virus (lockdowns vaccination ect)

 

all those things make it so that a simple calculation can never match the real world. 

[Humanoid]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I used the equasion as a tool to explain the faster spread. Not to match a graph because anyone with half a brain knows this is impossible because of many outside factors.

If it's "impossible" to match the graph, then how do you know that your "delta" explanation is correct?

 

"well it gives bigger numbers"... yeah it gives bigger numbers, but how much bigger.  And how much bigger is that bulge in the data?  It's just a 2x slope.  You can't say that since this is bigger and that is also bigger, so that's proves it's the correct explanation.  You need something much more quantitative than that.

 

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

If it's "impossible" to match the graph, then how do you know that your "delta" explanation is correct?

 

"well it gives bigger numbers"... yeah it gives bigger numbers, but how much bigger.  And how much bigger is that bulge in the data?  It's just a 2x slope.  You can't say that since this is bigger and that is also bigger, so that's proves it's the correct explanation.  You need something much more quantitative than that.

 

If a virus variant is more infectious than another, it is impossible for the slope of the graph to be anything other than exponential, all other factors being equal. This is basic math.

 

1. We do know that the delta variant is several times more infectious than the alpha. It may be many more times and has a nasal viral load up to 1000 times more than the alpha variant.

 

2. Given an exponential rise in cases, any population is going to react accordingly which mitigates the spread of the virus and pushes the case load down so the graph becomes less steep.

 

3. Every country has a different graph reflecting the percentage of the vaccinations administered, the government response, density of the population, etc.

 

 

 

 

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

If it's "impossible" to match the graph, then how do you know that your "delta" explanation is correct?

 

"well it gives bigger numbers"... yeah it gives bigger numbers, but how much bigger.  And how much bigger is that bulge in the data?  It's just a 2x slope.  You can't say that since this is bigger and that is also bigger, so that's proves it's the correct explanation.  You need something much more quantitative than that.

 

How about this one Humanoid. The data is incorrect. The graph is incorrect because of the limited amount of tests. You do know that Thailand had a limited amount of tests so the real figures are hidden so even the way the graph is made up is incorrect.

 

Then nr 2 not sure if you followed the news but quite often they did not count cases they found but put them on later. Plus the prison population that was all done in 1 go. All these things make the graph less then reliable for most things. Whatever you read in it i would not be so sure about it. If you want graphs that are better take the UK or the Netherlands or other countries that did high number of tests. Then the graph would be "better"  but still not perfect. 

 

Anyway your assumption that vaccines caused this is crazy. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Anyway your assumption that vaccines caused this is crazy.

You're too kind.

[chalawaan]

It's not that I mind if morons die, it's that they may take people who want the vaccine, but can't get it, with them, to an early death.

 

The reason this post was able to be made at all is that the refusenik who posted it, was fully vaccinated as a child, and that is mandatory, and always has been.

 

I hope you all make it, meanwhile have fun on your 100% inevitable Delta Covid ride to hell and back, freedumb lovers!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by chalawaan

[chalawaan]

4 hours ago, Humanoid said:

 

For those considering that the giant spikes shown in the Thailand graph above are due to a new variant.  Remember that Delta is only about twice as infectious as the previous one.  Does that graph look like the work of a virus that is only twice as infectious as the previous one?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2

 

Look in the table where it says +97%.  Then look again at the Thailand graph I posted earlier.  It's not too hard to make a good guess.

 

Where do you want us to send the flowers?

[Humanoid]

11 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

Where do you want us to send the flowers?

Send them to R01AI110964

 

Thanks!

[delgarcon]

On 7/27/2021 at 12:37 AM, internationalism said:

you just go to visa agency and they charge an additional 5k for vax document.

 

But there would be shortage of vax, especially for foreigners, for many years. Thanx to dr Anutin.

The only reason the government will try to force vax on foreigners is for their money, not because 

they do care about your health or health in the general population.

 

Still, herd immunity is around 70-80%, you can chose to be in those 20-30%. Especially, if you are not in a risk group.

I've had a shot of AZ and I'm due for a 2nd shot next month and I haven't been charged.

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, Humanoid said:

Maybe I should stop posting in this thread altogether.

Best post of the thread!! ????

[chalawaan]

18 minutes ago, delgarcon said:

I've had a shot of AZ and I'm due for a 2nd shot next month and I haven't been charged.

Exactly, and your MOH vaccine certificate will be issued free on the day of your second jab before you leave the center.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Humanoid said:

I'm not the one who posted the 2^x and 4^x sequences.  I'm not saying that those are the correct equations.  I'm just showing that those equations DON'T match the data.  And are therefore incorrect equations.

 

I'm not the one ignoring the other influences.  It is your equations that are ignoring the other influences.

 

In fact, all the equations posted here to explain the Delta explanation, have a zero match with the data.

 

If your equations don't match the data, then they are not correct explanations.

 

If you have a correct equation, go ahead and post it.  And let's see if it matches the data.

 

You’re trolling.

 

It was you who introduced the observation of a doubling of the infection rate, with your:

 

“Remember that Delta is only about twice as infectious as the previous one.  Does that graph look like the work of a virus that is only twice as infectious as the previous one?”

 

I and others have demonstrated that (only) a doubling of the infection rate is not in any sense insignificant. There’s nothing ‘only’ about it.

 

What you failed to address in your observation is all the other ‘real world’ influences on the graph, you might recall these are: lockdowns, social distancing, masks, isolating the infected, reputed public health messaging and vaccines.

 

Now if you think there is something wrong with the graph, first YOU take these other issues into account otherwise the rest of us are quite right to point out your whole argument is based on your over simplistic view and a failure to understand even rudimentary math.

 

Nobody here owes you mathematical modeling catch up classes.

 

 

[redwood1]

2 hours ago, delgarcon said:

I've had a shot of AZ and I'm due for a 2nd shot next month and I haven't been charged.

Has anyone here ever used their brain ask the question why the vaxes are FREE all over the world? Have Farangs in the entire history of Thailand ever been given  FREE medical anything EVER on a large scale........No not ever........I bet not a single poster here has ever received any medical thing in Thailand FREE before...

 

Maybe there is more to all this Freeness.... 

Edited September 21, 2021 by redwood1