Thailand reports 19,983 new COVID-19 cases, 138 deaths

[DrJack54]

12 minutes ago, Paradise Pete said:

That depends on your goal. If the goal is to minimize death, then yes.

Yep that's my goal.

[zhounan]

11 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

First time in 5 days new cases dip below 20k. Total of 19,983 new infections, with 350 of those from prison and 19,633 in the community. 138 COVID deaths recorded.

 

The above new cases does not include new counts from rapid tests.

 

Rolling 7 day average (up to 6th Aug) which includes prison cases and bar chart of community cases from daily official announcements. 

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/thailand
 

Thank You Brian, but you forget the vaccination graph.

 

[ThailandRyan]

Tonight as we made our deliveries to the few families we have adopted on the side sois around us, we watched as two of the Covid response ambulances arrived at an older apartment complex where there are 10 separate buildings.  Two plain white vans also followed them in and when I asked Nan, the mother of a family of 3 kids we assist what she thought, she said and I quote her "They come twice a day and take between 6 and 8 people away"  She then pointed out to the man in the complex wearing a white PPE suit and said he has been spraying all day around the complex to sanitize.  She and her family were tested two days ago by a team that visited the Area and were using the Rapid test kits, thankfully they were negative.  She is deathly afraid of her children being separated from her if they become sick.

[Swimfan]

3 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Can it be done with a lack of vaccines?  How many vaccines are on hand right now?

They would need approximately 17 million doses a month. At best they are getting 5 million AZ a month if they are lucky. Where are the other 12 million going to come from. They won’t be getting any significant amounts of Pfizer this year. So 12m dose of Sinovac? 
Im not saying the vaccination numbers are overstated. 
But I have my doubts they have the resources to and products to do some of the daily number of jabs we are seeing.

No evidence just my gut talking. 

[Scrotobike]

9 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Yep that's my goal.

Weird question - can there be a goal not to minimise deaths - something like I dont care people are dying or even worse to maximise deaths?

[jazzdog32095]

26 minutes ago, Paradise Pete said:

That depends on your goal. If the goal is to minimize death, then yes.

If the goal is to stop the virus sooner then the priority should be those most likely to spread it. Younger people with jobs.

Being an old person stuck in the U.S. I was happy to get vaccinated early, but I don't think it's the best strategy for getting back (or close) to normal.

 

If your goal is to minimize new cases you may have a point. Minimizing death you're why off. Since January 2000 deaths in the US , 606000 of which 560000 are 55+ or 92.5%. Under 40 account for 14000 deaths or 2.5%. The 55+ group is 37 times more likely to be affected so obviously making that group immune cuts the death rate from 190 per 100K to 14 per 100K making covid just a typical virus until herd immunity is attained.

[jazzdog32095]

29 minutes ago, Scrotobike said:

Weird question - can there be a goal not to minimise deaths - something like I dont care people are dying or even worse to maximise deaths?

Actually yes, You can minimize new cases OR you can minimize deaths. The absolute best approach is to immunize the 55+ group first (92.5 % of all deaths). In the US since January 1st 560000 of 606000 were in this group. Eliminating these deaths lives 46000 deaths under 55. Check mate on Covid, Not only that but 55+ are much more likely to cooperate. 

[Scrotobike]

7 minutes ago, jazzdog32095 said:

Actually yes, You can minimize new cases OR you can minimize deaths. The absolute best approach is to immunize the 55+ group first (92.5 % of all deaths). In the US since January 1st 560000 of 606000 were in this group. Eliminating these deaths lives 46000 deaths under 55. Check mate on Covid, Not only that but 55+ are much more likely to cooperate. 

So anybody who follows the minimise cases is a murderer as they actively follow a policy of causing or allowing people to die? - So it seems for any decent person there is no option.

[blackcab]

A troll post has been removed.

 

As always, please keep the discussion about the post and not about the poster.

[bkkcanuck8]

4 hours ago, anchadian said:

Bangkok Governor said today that he is confident that 70% of the population of the capital will have received at least one dose of vaccine by the end of this month.

Unfortunately the government (on many many issues) have been 'very confident', then failed and readjusted and were again 'very confident' ad nauseam.  When you are always confident, but rarely if ever match that confidence with results... there is another word for it.... delusional...

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, jazzdog32095 said:

Actually yes, You can minimize new cases OR you can minimize deaths. The absolute best approach is to immunize the 55+ group first (92.5 % of all deaths). In the US since January 1st 560000 of 606000 were in this group. Eliminating these deaths lives 46000 deaths under 55. Check mate on Covid, Not only that but 55+ are much more likely to cooperate. 

That's assuming that the profile of the virus' victims remains the same. There's evidence now that the Delta variant putting more young persons in the hospital. And not just "more" as a percentage, but "more" in actual total numbers.

Edited August 8, 2021 by placeholder

[jazzdog32095]

Just now, placeholder said:

That's assuming that the profile of the virus' victims remains the same. There's evidence now that it's putting more young persons in the hospital. And not just "more" as a percentage, but "more" in actual numbers.

As of July 31, 2021 of 606K dead in the US 560K were 55+ or 92.5%, Under 40 there were 14K dead or 2.5 %. Death in this age group would need to increase 37 times to be equal, never happening. Immunize the 55+ that will likely cooperate, eliminate 90% of the death and covid becomes a typical flu virus. All along this has been foremost an issue for 55+. Take that group away and covid killed 46K over 18 months 85 / day out of 320,000,000

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, jazzdog32095 said:

As of July 31, 2021 of 606K dead in the US 560K were 55+ or 92.5%, Under 40 there were 14K dead or 2.5 %. Death in this age group would need to increase 37 times to be equal, never happening. Immunize the 55+ that will likely cooperate, eliminate 90% of the death and covid becomes a typical flu virus. All along this has been foremost an issue for 55+. Take that group away and covid killed 46K over 18 months 85 / day out of 320,000,000

But the policy has alway been to vaccinate the eldest first. Do you think your proposal is something new?

As for the rate among the younger needing to increase by 37 times...so how many multiples would it take before the increasing death rate among the under 55 would be an issue of concern? 

[jazzdog32095]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But the policy has alway been to vaccinate the eldest first. Do you think your proposal is something new?

As for the rate among the younger needing to increase by 37 times...so how many multiples would it take before the increasing death rate among the under 55 would be an issue of concern? 

Of course it has always been policy. I was posting in response to a comment that jabbing younger groups would head off the spread ???? If you want to kill the beast shoot it in the head. Covid is and always been a virus killing 55+. End that the virus becomes a pesky flu till herd immunity is reached. This virus victims are 92% 0ver 55, why on earth target under 55 which comprises 8% total?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, jazzdog32095 said:

Of course it has always been policy. I was posting in response to a comment that jabbing younger groups would head off the spread ???? If you want to kill the beast shoot it in the head. Covid is and always been a virus killing 55+. End that the virus becomes a pesky flu till herd immunity is reached. This virus victims are 92% 0ver 55, why on earth target under 55 which comprises 8% total?

First off, it's dubious that herd immunity will ever be reached. Second you want to reduce instances of infection as much as is possible to reduce the possibility of harmful mutations arising. As Delta shows, the probability of infections vis a vis age groups can change over time.

[jazzdog32095]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, it's dubious that herd immunity will ever be reached. Second you want to reduce instances of infection as much as is possible to reduce the possibility of harmful mutations arising. As Delta shows, the probability of infections vis a vis age groups can change over time.

I'll make it simple to understand and then you decide. In the US since 01/01/2020 till 07/31/2021.

Covid killed 606000 and of that 560000 were 55+ meaning 46K were less than 55.

If it was Big Foot ready to kill you are you going shoot it in the arm or head? Over 55 has affected 12:1 over 55 and under. Immunizing that group first is a no-brainer. Do the math , you have 100 jabs.

Give 50 to each group, the 50 to the under 55 group saves 1.25 lives, the 50 you give to 55+ saves 46.25 lives. A combined 47.5 lives. Give all 100 to the 55+ and 92 lives are saved. Point is to save the lives first and work your way to the least affected. Your implying an unfathomable change in infections that more than likely affect both groups. Spending limited jabs on the 8% and not the 92% is plain foolish. 

[Trip Hop]

7 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

The local temple was backed up so they burned one body in a field. No different to burning a dead animal. Disgusting.

I take it that you’ve never been to Varanasi or similar in India then? The size of the pile of wood they have to burn the body depends on how much money the family has? For the poorer ones, they burn the middle first before folding the ends in. All dignified though!

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, jazzdog32095 said:

I'll make it simple to understand and then you decide. In the US since 01/01/2020 till 07/31/2021.

Covid killed 606000 and of that 560000 were 55+ meaning 46K were less than 55.

If it was Big Foot ready to kill you are you going shoot it in the arm or head? Over 55 has affected 12:1 over 55 and under. Immunizing that group first is a no-brainer. Do the math , you have 100 jabs.

Give 50 to each group, the 50 to the under 55 group saves 1.25 lives, the 50 you give to 55+ saves 46.25 lives. A combined 47.5 lives. Give all 100 to the 55+ and 92 lives are saved. Point is to save the lives first and work your way to the least affected. Your implying an unfathomable change in infections that more than likely affect both groups. Spending limited jabs on the 8% and not the 92% is plain foolish. 

But the most vulnerable have been the ones favored for vaccination. That would be the old, the immunocompromised, and health care workers. Also, as I repeatedly pointed out in this latest phase of the Delta virus hospitals are admitting more young people. So if you want to arrive at a more accurate appraisal of whom the virus is affecting now, you don't start with day zero. That statistic may well be outdated. And what are your grounds for doubting that the virus can mutate to affect more young people? Apart from the fact that it doesn't jibe with your model?

[Bkk Brian]

Phuket big rise today. 81 new local cases and 4 sandbox. No deaths.

https://www.facebook.com/109168820738303/posts/361956985459484/

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, jazzdog32095 said:

I'll make it simple to understand and then you decide. In the US since 01/01/2020 till 07/31/2021.

Covid killed 606000 and of that 560000 were 55+ meaning 46K were less than 55.

If it was Big Foot ready to kill you are you going shoot it in the arm or head? Over 55 has affected 12:1 over 55 and under. Immunizing that group first is a no-brainer. Do the math , you have 100 jabs.

Give 50 to each group, the 50 to the under 55 group saves 1.25 lives, the 50 you give to 55+ saves 46.25 lives. A combined 47.5 lives. Give all 100 to the 55+ and 92 lives are saved. Point is to save the lives first and work your way to the least affected. Your implying an unfathomable change in infections that more than likely affect both groups. Spending limited jabs on the 8% and not the 92% is plain foolish. 

Younger People in US Getting Hit Hard by Delta Variant

The Delta variant is burning through areas in the country where many people are unvaccinated and seems to be targeting younger Americans aged 50 and under and, says one ER physician, they’re “more intensive to care for.”

The iteration of COVID-19 that had the United States health care system reeling this time last year—D614G, the so-called wild type—burned through nursing homes and mostly targeted people older than 65. Now, public health care officials deal with the Delta variant, B.1.617.2, which is burning through areas in the country where many people are unvaccinated and seems to be targeting younger Americans, those age 50 and under, more than did its predecessor, according to Inci Yildirim, MD, PhD, a Yale Medicine pediatric infectious diseases specialist and a vaccinologist.

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/younger-people-in-us-getting-hit-hard-by-delta-variant

[jazzdog32095]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But the most vulnerable have been the ones favored for vaccination. That would be the old, the immunocompromised, and health care workers. Also, as I repeatedly pointed out in this latest phase of the Delta virus hospitals are admitting more young people. So if you want to arrive at a more accurate appraisal of whom the virus is affecting now, you don't start with day zero. That statistic may well be outdated. And what are your grounds for doubting that the virus can mutate to affect more young people? Apart from the fact that it doesn't jibe with your model?

Last time man, In the US death is dealt 92.5% to 55+ and 2,5% to 40 and under. It's not a model it is what happened. How do you explain how delta or any variant is going to suddenly choose to attack younger, vital 40 and under and not a effect 55+ who are far more vulnerable? Possibly greater exposure risk. But we are talking death not new cases. I am certain the 40 and under crowd has a far higher % of new cases but they only die 2.5%. The delta indeed is transmitted double the rate but is not case by case more deadly. Read this it may help you understand that this is an old man disease.  Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Sex and Age | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov)

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, jazzdog32095 said:

Last time man, In the US death is dealt 92.5% to 55+ and 2,5% to 40 and under. It's not a model it is what happened. How do you explain how delta or any variant is going to suddenly choose to attack younger, vital 40 and under and not a effect 55+ who are far more vulnerable? Possibly greater exposure risk. But we are talking death not new cases. I am certain the 40 and under crowd has a far higher % of new cases but they only die 2.5%. The delta indeed is transmitted double the rate but is not case by case more deadly. Read this it may help you understand that this is an old man disease.  Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Sex and Age | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov)

See post immediately preceding yours.  

And there's this. Why do you think statistics taken from a time when different variants were predominant are predictive of what is happening now and what will happen.

[jazzdog32095]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Younger People in US Getting Hit Hard by Delta Variant

The Delta variant is burning through areas in the country where many people are unvaccinated and seems to be targeting younger Americans aged 50 and under and, says one ER physician, they’re “more intensive to care for.”

The iteration of COVID-19 that had the United States health care system reeling this time last year—D614G, the so-called wild type—burned through nursing homes and mostly targeted people older than 65. Now, public health care officials deal with the Delta variant, B.1.617.2, which is burning through areas in the country where many people are unvaccinated and seems to be targeting younger Americans, those age 50 and under, more than did its predecessor, according to Inci Yildirim, MD, PhD, a Yale Medicine pediatric infectious diseases specialist and a vaccinologist.

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/younger-people-in-us-getting-hit-hard-by-delta-variant

Dude, For Christ sakes thats exactly a result of 60+ being 95% vaccinated while young and dumb refused or forgot, whatever. No excuse you can get tabbed at any walgreens for months. You truly think things would be better if the 60+ refused to get jabbed. What you are talking about is attempting to fix stupid, No vaccine for that pal.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, jazzdog32095 said:

Dude, For Christ sakes thats exactly a result of 60+ being 95% vaccinated while young and dumb refused or forgot, whatever. No excuse you can get tabbed at any walgreens for months. You truly think things would be better if the 60+ refused to get jabbed. What you are talking about is attempting to fix stupid, No vaccine for that pal.

No, it's not. As I pointed out earlier, the absolute number of young people being affected is rising. So no, not a matter of percentage.

EDIT  To be clearer, I am referring to the number of young people in hospital at any particular moment and not to the total number. Obviously, that latter figure can only rise over time.
 

Edited August 8, 2021 by placeholder

[jazzdog32095]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

See post immediately preceding yours.  

And there's this. Why do you think statistics taken from a time when different variants were predominant are predictive of what is happening now and what will happen.

What has changed is delta transmission is close to that of ebola, twice the Beta. But that transmission is 98% between morons who have willingly decided against vaccination. Older wiser folks are 95+ immunized. There lies the difference, Until these fools either get tabbed or die off things will not change. This is not about priority, anyone wanting to get jabbed with JJ, Pfizer or Moderna has been hounded to do so for months. You are comparing oranges to sheetrock. That won't likely be the case in LOS. Our Gov has issues but telling people not to immunize is not one of them. Do you not understand you are talking about a totally different issue? Peace, lets leave it at that

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, jazzdog32095 said:

What has changed is delta transmission is close to that of ebola, twice the Beta. But that transmission is 98% between morons who have willingly decided against vaccination. Older wiser folks are 95+ immunized. There lies the difference, Until these fools either get tabbed or die off things will not change. This is not about priority, anyone wanting to get jabbed with JJ, Pfizer or Moderna has been hounded to do so for months. You are comparing oranges to sheetrock. That won't likely be the case in LOS. Our Gov has issues but telling people not to immunize is not one of them. Do you not understand you are talking about a totally different issue? Peace, lets leave it at that

On the one hand you've claiming that it's not important to get young people vaccinated and now you're claiming that it is? That they're morons if they don't? 

And actually Ebola isn't all that contagious.

 Epidemiologists now believe that Delta is as contagious as chickenpox.

[jazzdog32095]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No, it's not. As I pointed out earlier, the absolute number of young people being affected is rising. So no, not a matter of percentage.

EDIT  To be clearer, I am referring to the number of young people in hospital at any particular moment and not to the total number. Obviously, that latter figure can only rise over time.
 

Of course, they refuse to get jabbed. Those with good sense got jabbed and life is getting back to normal. Would the situation be better today if 60+ were not the priority in the beginning. Of course not, instead of 92% they would be 98%, certainly not less. Simple, young people don't jab>more transmission>more sick beds>more death. It is actually a national disgrace  whats happening.

[jazzdog32095]

51 minutes ago, placeholder said:

On the one hand you've claiming that it's not important to get young people vaccinated and now you're claiming that it is? That they're morons if they don't? 

And actually Ebola isn't all that contagious.

 Epidemiologists now believe that Delta is as contagious as chickenpox.

 

You've way off topic but please copy/paste that I stated it's not important to get young people vaccinated. The discussion was priority, you are resorting to twisting words which is a sign of a weak argument. You are welcome to read this and gain the insight I was unable to deliver into your brain. You then drifted into the US situation where vaccines flow like water making priority a mute point?????

 

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/immunization/sage/covid/sage-prioritization-roadmap-covid19-

[placeholder]

 

1 hour ago, jazzdog32095 said:

 

You've way off topic but please copy/paste that I stated it's not important to get young people vaccinated. The discussion was priority, you are resorting to twisting words which is a sign of a weak argument. You are welcome to read this and gain the insight I was unable to deliver into your brain. You then drifted into the US situation where vaccines flow like water making priority a mute point?????

 

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/immunization/sage/covid/sage-prioritization-roadmap-covid19-

What that link you sent to me is not saying, is that it's unimportant ultimately to get everyone vaccinated. Which is what you claimed. Just that the priority should be given to those most vulnerable. And it actually doesn't prioritize on age so much as on vulnerability. For instance special attetion should be paid to the econoically disadgantaged. And those who have to work in close proximity ot the general population. So while it really doesn't at all agree with your model, I think it's very sensible..

 

In relation to vulnerability your argument was that what's past is prologue. That it's quite unimportant to vaccinate young people based on past mortality statistics. Here's what you wrote:

 

" How do you explain how delta or any variant is going to suddenly choose to attack younger, vital 40 and under and not a effect 55+ who are far more vulnerable?"

 

And you got that exactly wrong. The experts are now saying that the  virus is now more dangerous to young people than it was back then. And of course the explanation for that is simple and obvious: mutations.

 

In fact, even though young people are getting vaccinated at a lower rate than older groups, the fact is that they are getting vaccinated. Which obviously wasn't happening for a long time back when. Despite which, in absolute numbers, more are now being hospitalized than there were back then when vaccination wasn't an option. This is obviously very strong evidence that the virus is now more dangerous to young people than it was back then.

 

And as I pointed out earlier, it's precisely because of the threat posed by mutations, that it's important to get the infection rate down, and the severity of infections down. The less infections that there are, and the less severe they are, the lower the less the opportunities for further mutations to occur.

Fauci: Allowing virus to replicate could make 'worse variant' that 'could impact the vaccinated'

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci has warned that allowing the coronavirus delta variant to circulate freely among unvaccinated individuals could lead to a more potent variant that could harm even vaccinated individuals. 

The delta variant has already given rise to a small variant known as "delta plus" variant that has a spike protein mutation that may cause it to spread faster. So far, the variant has appeared in only a few cases in several countries, but the original delta variant rapidly spread through the United States and became the dominant strain after only a few months. 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-virus-replicate-worse-variant-impact-vaccinated

Edited August 8, 2021 by placeholder

[bkkcanuck8]

4 hours ago, jazzdog32095 said:

I'll make it simple to understand and then you decide. In the US since 01/01/2020 till 07/31/2021.

Covid killed 606000 and of that 560000 were 55+ meaning 46K were less than 55.

If it was Big Foot ready to kill you are you going shoot it in the arm or head? Over 55 has affected 12:1 over 55 and under. Immunizing that group first is a no-brainer. Do the math , you have 100 jabs.

Give 50 to each group, the 50 to the under 55 group saves 1.25 lives, the 50 you give to 55+ saves 46.25 lives. A combined 47.5 lives. Give all 100 to the 55+ and 92 lives are saved. Point is to save the lives first and work your way to the least affected. Your implying an unfathomable change in infections that more than likely affect both groups. Spending limited jabs on the 8% and not the 92% is plain foolish. 

If you are going to silly math then maybe you should calculate the number of years saved ????  Average life expectancy (both sexes) in Thailand is a little less than 78, so if the person is 75 then you are saving only 30 years for that ten individuals.  Hmmm... I am sure there are some young people of lets say 30 years that if you saved one for those 10, you have saved more life years...   Math can be abused.  (I won't even get into weighting it by average productivity / contribution to society - which takes place for most people before 65; with the exceptions that take an active interest in charitable activities in their retirement). 

 

Vaccination is as much about trying to get to the point of herd immunity, and having society return to some level of normalcy (for economic reasons) as it is about protecting those that are at risk. 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by bkkcanuck8