9 hours ago, Denim said:

Some of our strange American cousins not only don't want to wear a mask they are hassling those that do ?  Wonder if these people are also daft enough to have an issue with vaccines.

 

 

Of course, it's the same sorry crowd.

26 minutes ago, frantick said:

Not sticking up for those tennesseans, but the video lacks context. We have no idea what was said to them earlier by the man driving away, unmasked by the way, in his car. Probably telling the crowd he was enforcing masks for children regardless of what the community wants for their own children. 

 

Most antimaskers I know are all for individual choice, and give 2cents what you do with your life.

That's exactly how I feel about drinking and driving. If other drivers got a problem with that, let 'em walk or stay home.

12 hours ago, frantick said:

Funny that a higher percentage of PhD recipients do not want the "vaccine". From WebMD assuming that's an "accepted" site: "The eye-opener: By May, the group with PhDs were more hesitant than those with lower educational levels."

 

Aren't all those scientists and doctors being praised PhDs?

 

(Here's where you comment about all the stupid PhD recipients you know)

Link please. Since you have a history of promoting falsehoods.

 

Just now, cdemundo said:

Link please. Since you have a history of promoting falsehoods.

 

Posted above, read the thread.

 

1 hour ago, frantick said:

Posted above, read the thread.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full-text

the original study is here.

"The association between hesitancy and education level followed a U-shaped curve with the lowest hesitancy among those with a master’s degree (RR=0.75 [95% CI 0.72-0.78] and the highest hesitancy among those with a PhD (RR=2.16 [95%CI 2.05-2.28]) or ≤high school education(RR=1.88 [95%CI 1.83-1.93]) versus a bachelor’s degree."

 

So this survey found  high school education or less and PhD to be most hesitant.

So that is interesting.

This study is self-congratulatory about having a higher granularity of educational levels than most surveys which simply report "College Degree or higher". That is (could be) a good point and many surveys which use "health care workers" as a category place all health care workers in the same category whether CNAs, dental hygienists or MDs.

 

A couple of problems with this study, in spite of the sophisticated statistical data analysis:

Participation was self-selected, "on line survey" is all it says, but study was sponsored by Zuckerberg's foundation so I am guessing (since the study doesn't state) that this was done on Facebook.

Self-selection is of course a possible source of bias.

 

The second problem: "Additionally, we assume the survey was completed in good faith." in a controversial study such as this the assumption is questionable. 

No one knows better than you the lack of good faith in the vaccine debate.

Additionally, even assuming good faith report of PhD level of education: PhDs are granted in French Literature, Art History, Linguistics etc.; so not all PhDs indicate a higher level of knowledge about viruses and vaccines.

 

Other studies have found conflicting results.

So for example a study on the same server, "Predictors of COVID-19 vaccination uptake", states:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261261v1.full.pdf

 

"Higher education level (Schrading et al., 2021), higher income (McCabe et al., 2021), and higher rank occupation (Malesza & Bozym, 2021) were related with higher levels of COVID-19 vaccination uptake."

 

"COVID-19 vaccination uptake was more likely in physicians (Schrading et al., 2021), in allied health professionals and administrative/executive staff (Martin et al., 2021), and in healthcare workers in university hospitals and intensive care units (Barry et al., 2021)."

 

"As we found in our review, limited knowledge about the vaccines decreases the probability to take a COVID-19 vaccine (L. Nguyen et al., 2021)."

 

So the finding about PhDs in the Facebook survey you quoted must be taken with a grain of salt.

Even still, it is an interesting finding, but it certainly needs to be clarified.

17 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full-text

the original study is here.

"The association between hesitancy and education level followed a U-shaped curve with the lowest hesitancy among those with a master’s degree (RR=0.75 [95% CI 0.72-0.78] and the highest hesitancy among those with a PhD (RR=2.16 [95%CI 2.05-2.28]) or ≤high school education(RR=1.88 [95%CI 1.83-1.93]) versus a bachelor’s degree."

 

So this survey found  high school education or less and PhD to be most hesitant.

So that is interesting.

This study is self-congratulatory about having a higher granularity of educational levels than most surveys which simply report "College Degree or higher". That is (could be) a good point and many surveys which use "health care workers" as a category place all health care workers in the same category whether CNAs, dental hygienists or MDs.

 

A couple of problems with this study, in spite of the sophisticated statistical data analysis:

Participation was self-selected, "on line survey" is all it says, but study was sponsored by Zuckerberg's foundation so I am guessing (since the study doesn't state) that this was done on Facebook.

Self-selection is of course a possible source of bias.

 

The second problem: "Additionally, we assume the survey was completed in good faith." in a controversial study such as this the assumption is questionable. 

No one knows better than you the lack of good faith in the vaccine debate.

Additionally, even assuming good faith report of PhD level of education: PhDs are granted in French Literature, Art History, Linguistics etc.; so not all PhDs indicate a higher level of knowledge about viruses and vaccines.

 

Other studies have found conflicting results.

So for example a study on the same server, "Predictors of COVID-19 vaccination uptake", states:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261261v1.full.pdf

 

"Higher education level (Schrading et al., 2021), higher income (McCabe et al., 2021), and higher rank occupation (Malesza & Bozym, 2021) were related with higher levels of COVID-19 vaccination uptake."

 

"COVID-19 vaccination uptake was more likely in physicians (Schrading et al., 2021), in allied health professionals and administrative/executive staff (Martin et al., 2021), and in healthcare workers in university hospitals and intensive care units (Barry et al., 2021)."

 

"As we found in our review, limited knowledge about the vaccines decreases the probability to take a COVID-19 vaccine (L. Nguyen et al., 2021)."

 

So the finding about PhDs in the Facebook survey you quoted must be taken with a grain of salt.

Even still, it is an interesting finding, but it certainly needs to be clarified.

As some discussed after my post, we don't conclude that having a PhD necessarily means you're smart. I've known a few, professional students, as they're called, that upon receiving their PhD, couldn't make a wise decision if their life depended on it. One became a house husband.

 

I just found it interesting.

I am just hoping that in June of 2022 we can find entrance to Thailand with no quarantine in order to visit family. 

14 hours ago, cdemundo said:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full-text

the original study is here.

"The association between hesitancy and education level followed a U-shaped curve with the lowest hesitancy among those with a master’s degree (RR=0.75 [95% CI 0.72-0.78] and the highest hesitancy among those with a PhD (RR=2.16 [95%CI 2.05-2.28]) or ≤high school education(RR=1.88 [95%CI 1.83-1.93]) versus a bachelor’s degree."

 

So this survey found  high school education or less and PhD to be most hesitant.

So that is interesting.

This study is self-congratulatory about having a higher granularity of educational levels than most surveys which simply report "College Degree or higher". That is (could be) a good point and many surveys which use "health care workers" as a category place all health care workers in the same category whether CNAs, dental hygienists or MDs.

 

A couple of problems with this study, in spite of the sophisticated statistical data analysis:

Participation was self-selected, "on line survey" is all it says, but study was sponsored by Zuckerberg's foundation so I am guessing (since the study doesn't state) that this was done on Facebook.

Self-selection is of course a possible source of bias.

 

The second problem: "Additionally, we assume the survey was completed in good faith." in a controversial study such as this the assumption is questionable. 

No one knows better than you the lack of good faith in the vaccine debate.

Additionally, even assuming good faith report of PhD level of education: PhDs are granted in French Literature, Art History, Linguistics etc.; so not all PhDs indicate a higher level of knowledge about viruses and vaccines.

 

Other studies have found conflicting results.

So for example a study on the same server, "Predictors of COVID-19 vaccination uptake", states:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261261v1.full.pdf

 

"Higher education level (Schrading et al., 2021), higher income (McCabe et al., 2021), and higher rank occupation (Malesza & Bozym, 2021) were related with higher levels of COVID-19 vaccination uptake."

 

"COVID-19 vaccination uptake was more likely in physicians (Schrading et al., 2021), in allied health professionals and administrative/executive staff (Martin et al., 2021), and in healthcare workers in university hospitals and intensive care units (Barry et al., 2021)."

 

"As we found in our review, limited knowledge about the vaccines decreases the probability to take a COVID-19 vaccine (L. Nguyen et al., 2021)."

 

So the finding about PhDs in the Facebook survey you quoted must be taken with a grain of salt.

Even still, it is an interesting finding, but it certainly needs to be clarified.

So the survey was online.

 

It is not unreasonable to, given the political charged nature of the vaccine issue, to expect ‘motivated individuals’ make returns supporting their political position and adding a few imagined credentials to bolster their position,

 

 

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So the survey was online.

 

It is not unreasonable to, given the political charged nature of the vaccine issue, to expect ‘motivated individuals’ make returns supporting their political position and adding a few imagined credentials to bolster their position,

 

 

If that's true, that the data source of that link was from an online survey, I agree. Funny that WebMD would publish it.

3 minutes ago, frantick said:

If that's true, that the data source of that link was from an online survey, I agree. Funny that WebMD would publish it.

It's true, read my reply to you.

Survey sponsored by Facebook, specifies that it was online.

Does not specify was on Facebook, but since it was sponsored by Facebook I am guessing it was done there.

To get back on topic, Thailand should require all foreigners to be vaccinated unless they have a confirmed medical exemption. I fully expect them to implement that policy this year for entries and next year for renewals. We need to be willing to do our part to not be a risk to our Thai hosts.

On 8/14/2021 at 1:22 AM, cjinchiangrai said:

To get back on topic, Thailand should require all foreigners to be vaccinated unless they have a confirmed medical exemption. I fully expect them to implement that policy this year for entries and next year for renewals. We need to be willing to do our part to not be a risk to our Thai hosts.

 

Luckily the Thailand of your dreams will never happen ! And even if it was required the 1000 thb risk to use a fake certificate is something that will never stops us from cheating ! If you like to live in a dictatorship, please go to US or Europe !

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, l4ml4m said:

 

Luckily the Thailand of your dreams will never happen ! And even if it was required the 1000 thb risk to use a fake certificate is something that will never stops us from cheating ! If you like to live in a dictatorship, please go to US or Europe !

Another time traveler. Apparently, he's so focused on the future that he apparently believes he's living in a country that is some form of a  democracy.

On 8/9/2021 at 2:56 PM, frantick said:

Ok, to spell it out for you, those vaccines have a long tested, proven track record of providing higher efficacy from their targeted illnesses than do the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.

 

Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine to get full FDA approval next week

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-full-220040748.html

On 8/5/2021 at 7:04 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Yet the FDA still has not approved any of the currently available COVID vaccines for use.

You would think that if a non FDA approved drug is being given to millions they would do a meticulous accounting of deaths directly related to taking the vaccine.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/why-the-fda-hasnt-approved-a-covid-shot-yet-when-millions-are-vaccinated/ar-AAMQIaZ?ocid=uxbndlbing

 

 

Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine to get full FDA approval next week

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-full-220040748.html

On 8/12/2021 at 7:24 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

As you’ve never seen the curvature of the earth for yourself, do you trust those who have or the science behind the knowledge that the earth is round ???

 

Have you studied other medicines? you trust the doctors without question when taking antibiotics, right?

 

I think you get my point. Trusting information has nothing to do with trusting ‘masters’ which is just a flawed strawmans way of dumbing down and simplifying a more complex issue that we have to evaluate the information presented to us. 

 

 

 

Hmmmm. Whenever I am at the seaside I can clearly see that the world is curved by looking at the horizon.

On 8/14/2021 at 5:03 AM, cdemundo said:

It's true, read my reply to you.

Survey sponsored by Facebook, specifies that it was online.

Does not specify was on Facebook, but since it was sponsored by Facebook I am guessing it was done there.

Do you actually trust anything on facebook? I certainly wouldn't.

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you actually trust anything on facebook? I certainly wouldn't.

Which was the point of this exchange as the poster I was replying to had been all agog over the survey he found that had been done on FB, which he had not been aware of.

 

You ought to know what is being discussed before jumping into something you don't understand.

On 7/27/2021 at 9:25 AM, ignis said:

People that DO NOT or CANNOT have the vaccine are all tarred with the same brush  ??

 

No I DO NOT take any flu shots I tried 20 years ago, and still suffer from the side effects now, as with many other vaccines from childhood to now + a good few Prescription meds

Last Sept Dr said was 100% safe to have the Pneumonia vaccine = taken to Hospital in a Coma [severe allergic reaction] told not to take part 2.. 4 nights in Hospital

 

I do not class myself as a antivaxxer, just one of the few that cannot get the Vaccine + advice from my Dr [Professor of Diabetic's at Chula Hospital] + got a 2nd opinion from  Dr. J N Naidu MBBS., MD BIOCHEMISTRY, both saying NO

 

I am 100% in the high at risk group Diabetic + CKD + 70s

 

Guess you then would class me as a ignorant antivaxxer ??

 

People with legitimate health reasons to decline vaccination are not considered Antivaxxer's by an overwhelming majority.  I guess you're in the minority on that.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you actually trust anything on facebook? I certainly wouldn't.

"Funny that a higher percentage of PhD recipients do not want the "vaccine". From WebMD assuming that's an "accepted" site:"

 

OK, my explanation was bad. 

The above quote (from another poster) was referring to a WebMD article that was discussing a FB survey.

I pointed out that the source of the WebMD article was a FB survey in order to discredit it.

 

So for once we agree on something, nobody trusts FB as a source.

 

 

5 hours ago, cdemundo said:

Which was the point of this exchange as the poster I was replying to had been all agog over the survey he found that had been done on FB, which he had not been aware of.

 

You ought to know what is being discussed before jumping into something you don't understand.

I was not agog.

2 hours ago, cdemundo said:

"Funny that a higher percentage of PhD recipients do not want the "vaccine". From WebMD assuming that's an "accepted" site:"

 

OK, my explanation was bad. 

The above quote (from another poster) was referring to a WebMD article that was discussing a FB survey.

I pointed out that the source of the WebMD article was a FB survey in order to discredit it.

 

So for once we agree on something, nobody trusts FB as a source.

 

 

Carnegie Mellon University and University of Pittsburgh did the actual study, so whatever that's worth. The study has been reported by many 'accepted' news sources, also FWIW.

 

If true, it just shows the distrust (knowledge) of the educated and their peers. 

 

Now I'm agog.

I will never take the jab despite restrictions. You can still travel most place by showing you have anti bodies. So you can go and get infected, get a PCR test as proof, and use that to travel.

 

Covid isn't deadly. So I don't worry about catching it (again).

 

They will coerce people, as they are doing, but they won't force vaccinate. They can't afford to force vaccinate people and then leave potential enemies free to roam about their lines.

 

Being able to identify the unvaxxable is enough for them. They can effectively lock you out of society with the QR code control grid they are building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Troll post reported and removed. 

 

1 hour ago, nemo38 said:

They will coerce people, as they are doing, but they won't force vaccinate. They can't afford to force vaccinate people and then leave potential enemies free to roam about their lines.

I don't know what enemies you're referring to but I agree with you 100%.

On 8/5/2021 at 7:04 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Yet the FDA still has not approved any of the currently available COVID vaccines for use.

You would think that if a non FDA approved drug is being given to millions they would do a meticulous accounting of deaths directly related to taking the vaccine.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/why-the-fda-hasnt-approved-a-covid-shot-yet-when-millions-are-vaccinated/ar-AAMQIaZ?ocid=uxbndlbing

 

 

F.D.A. Grants Full Approval to Pfizer-BioNTech Covid Vaccine

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fda-grants-full-approval-to-pfizer-biontech-covid-vaccine/ar-AAND6kw?li=BBnb7Kz

 

 

If it actually matters to anyone, the US FDA has just issued complete approval for the Pfizer covid vaccine.

 

 

Who will never vaccinate except if forced to for visa reasons ? and do you think that they will force us ?

 

 

I will never and I don't think they will force us here as the pandemics will soon end.

 

 

On 8/23/2021 at 3:11 AM, nemo38 said:

I will never take the jab despite restrictions. You can still travel most place by showing you have anti bodies. So you can go and get infected, get a PCR test as proof, and use that to travel.

 

Covid isn't deadly. So I don't worry about catching it (again).

 

They will coerce people, as they are doing, but they won't force vaccinate. They can't afford to force vaccinate people and then leave potential enemies free to roam about their lines.

 

Being able to identify the unvaxxable is enough for them. They can effectively lock you out of society with the QR code control grid they are building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior COVID Infection Doesn't Guarantee Good Immunity: Study

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/prior-covid-infection-doesnt-guarantee-good-immunity-study/ar-AANWcGU?li=BBnb7Kz

1 hour ago, Tony125 said:

Prior COVID Infection Doesn't Guarantee Good Immunity: Study

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/prior-covid-infection-doesnt-guarantee-good-immunity-study/ar-AANWcGU?li=BBnb7Kz

It's a tiny study, only 27 people, and it measured antibody levels to determine immunity. Not a real world study. I'm not claiming that its conclusions are false, but it doesn't amount to much.