Should Pattaya Embrace Segregation?

[MrJ2U]

48 minutes ago, robblok said:

Maybe anti vaxers should just pay for their medical treatment and for those they infected

Thats on the agenda in many countries.

 

Countries that have vaccines easily available that is.

 

Thats not any country in South East Asia except for Singapore.

 

[Ralf001]

3 hours ago, MrJ2U said:

If you choose not to get vaccinated then theres got to be consequences.

 Ive been vaccinated (not by choice), am hoping there is no serious long term consequences of this.

 

[MrJ2U]

1 minute ago, Ralf001 said:

 Ive been vaccinated (not by choice), am hoping there is no serious long term consequences of this.

 

You sound alive.

 

At least your chances of dying or getting hospitalized due to COVID-19 is practically zero now.

 

Good for you.

Edited September 4, 2021 by MrJ2U

[Fairynuff]

1 minute ago, Ralf001 said:

Ive been vaccinated (not by choice),

Who forced you?

[Ralf001]

26 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

 

Unvaccinated people in crowded spaces can lead to outbreaks and putting strain on the health system by their stupid actions.

 

 

 

 

Vaccinated people can still spread the covids so your statement is utter pish.

[Ralf001]

Just now, Fairynuff said:

Who forced you?

Get the jab or fly home to sign up for unemployment benefits.

[Ralf001]

2 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

You sound alive.

 

At least your chances of dying or getting hospitalized is practically zero now.

 

Good for you.

Pretty sure my chances of dying is still at 100%... that will most likely involve hospitalization too !!

[Ralf001]

53 minutes ago, chilly07 said:

Vaccination just protects the vaccinated!.

How ?

[papa al]

20 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

I have been smoking weed, it apparently expands one's intellect. 

 ( Consciousness enlarging ) 

Ahh!

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Vaccinated people can still spread the covids so your statement is utter pish.

Yes they can spread it but not as much as those who are not vaccinated and also vaccinated have a lower chance to get sick.

 

So if you let unvaccinated people get together in large groups they will infect more and put a larger strain on the health system.

 

That means that many people can't get the care they need and operations need to be postponed.

 

But then again anti vaxers just want not to be vaxed and have the same rights. Thankfully in most European countries we segregate already. 

 

So if you dont want to be vaccinated your choice but accept you will be limited. Each and every choice in life has pro's and con's anti vaxers just to have it their way. 

[Fairynuff]

17 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Vaccinated people can still spread the covids so your statement is utter pish.

Actually it’s not. The fact is that vaccinated people are less likely to pass on the virus and less likely suffer severe illness. 

[Fairynuff]

19 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Pretty sure my chances of dying is still at 100%... that will most likely involve hospitalization too !!

Genius

[jacko45k]

40 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

Totally agree with you.. Can’t help wondering why when faced with facts people use laughing or confused emojis.

Because they lack the intellect or resources to rebut a post so resort to infantile cartoons. 

[Ralf001]

22 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes they can spread it

 

Thats all that needed to be posted.

[Ralf001]

20 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

Actually it’s not. The fact is that vaccinated people are less likely to pass on the virus and less likely suffer severe illness. 

So what your saying is, Vaccinated people can still infect others.

[Tanomazu]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Of course people who are not vaccinated should have less rights to certain events then those who are vaccinated. They do that in most countries because it makes sense. Its just the anti vaxers that hate it as they don't want there to be consequences to not being vaccinated.

So YES segregate but only when people had a chance to get vaccines. In the Netherlands there is a big group that does not want to be vaccinated. Too bad I say but that same group does want to go to sports events and stuff. Now one can say that its their life their risk but they by getting sick (unnecessary) and taking up valuable hospital resources. 

 

Maybe anti vaxers should just pay for their medical treatment and for those they infected. Teaches them that every choice has advantages and disadvantages.

This is wrong for many reasons.

 

1. Health is private matter in law. It is your body and your right alone to deal with health matters that affect your body. The right to abortion for women is an example. Many countries have it written into law that health is a private matter. If you start to move away from that and declare health of an individual is now a public matter then things like smoking, eating too many calories, BDSM where people agree to be injured, high risk sports, all these things could and should become illegal, because according to your logic, they can increase the cost on the health system. The net result would be greatly reduced freedom for all.

 

2. The state is only allowed to treat unvaccinated differently if there is a concrete and specific reason for this. Moreover essential services, like education, that are funded by the taxes of all, have to be available to all, the same with cultural institutions provided by tax funding.

 

In other words any state measures that would treat the unvaccinated differently would have to be urgently necessary and proportionate. Is the benefit of those measures so large that it justifies the limitation of freedom.

 

The science at this point is still unclear and changing. If you look at recent studies these show that double vaccination has led those vaccinated to be 49% less likely to be infected with the Delta variant. So 51% of the vaccinated still got infected with the Delta variant.

 

"One in 26. That’s the chance of being infected with the delta variant of Covid-19 if you’re in contact with an infected individual and fully vaccinated, the researchers found. This is compared to a one in 13 chance for the unvaccinated."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=3e551c18281c

 

It is hard to construe an urgent, pressing and necessary measure based on such numbers.

 

Whilst it is true that the vaccinated present less of a burden to the health system, in many countries the burden of Covid patients is surprisingly small, the numbers of severe cases being treated so small that a large number of intensive care beds remain available.

 

Nevertheless, based on the existing figures it would be ludicrous to ask the unvaccinated to be asked to pay for their treatment, just as we don't ask smokers, Sado-maso practitioners, Judo, Karate, Muay Thai, Footballers, or other practitioners of sport where injuries are more likely, or those who consume large amounts of calories, to pay for their treatment. If anyone were to go down that route, it would dramatically decrease freedom for all. Everyone would have to pay who does anything risky.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Tanomazu

[gearbox]

23 hours ago, ezzra said:

Aussie states are run by mini dictators whom in order to preserve their legacy and reputation are subjecting the citizens or archaic rules of hard rolling knockdowns with complete disregards to human's rights of freedom, so much so that a mate of mine who live in Thailand went to Oz for a few months vacation and now want to cut it short and come back saying Better we weather the Covid in Thailand with all it's infections and casualties rather than live in that big prison called Australia...

But wait..there is more! If you read the "reopening" plan,  the government is still hinting that we may need to do 14 days home quarantine when going interstate or coming from overseas, even when 80% of the population is vaccinated. Risk aversion and nanny state to the extreme.

[robblok]

48 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

This is wrong for many reasons.

 

1. Health is private matter in law. It is your body and your right alone to deal with health matters that affect your body. The right to abortion for women is an example. Many countries have it written into law that health is a private matter. If you start to move away from that and declare health of an individual is now a public matter then things like smoking, eating too many calories, BDSM where people agree to be injured, high risk sports, all these things could and should become illegal, because according to your logic, they can increase the cost on the health system. The net result would be greatly reduced freedom for all.

 

2. The state is only allowed to treat unvaccinated differently if there is a concrete and specific reason for this. Moreover essential services, like education, that are funded by the taxes of all, have to be available to all, the same with cultural institutions provided by tax funding.

 

In other words any state measures that would treat the unvaccinated differently would have to be urgently necessary and proportionate. Is the benefit of those measures so large that it justifies the limitation of freedom.

 

The science at this point is still unclear and changing. If you look at recent studies these show that double vaccination has led those vaccinated to be 49% less likely to be infected with the Delta variant. So 51% of the vaccinated still got infected with the Delta variant.

 

"One in 26. That’s the chance of being infected with the delta variant of Covid-19 if you’re in contact with an infected individual and fully vaccinated, the researchers found. This is compared to a one in 13 chance for the unvaccinated."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=3e551c18281c

 

It is hard to construe an urgent, pressing and necessary measure based on such numbers.

 

Whilst it is true that the vaccinated present less of a burden to the health system, in many countries the burden of Covid patients is surprisingly small, the numbers of severe cases being treated so small that a large number of intensive care beds remain available.

 

Nevertheless, based on the existing figures it would be ludicrous to ask the unvaccinated to be asked to pay for their treatment, just as we don't ask smokers, Sado-maso practitioners, Judo, Karate, Muay Thai, Footballers, or other practitioners of sport where injuries are more likely, or those who consume large amounts of calories, to pay for their treatment. If anyone were to go down that route, it would dramatically decrease freedom for all. Everyone would have to pay who does anything risky.

 

 

First of my main point is that Covid has put a strain on the public health system (cannot deny that). So to lessen that as people who are unvaccinated should not be in crowds. It would read to rapid spread and taking up many beds that could be used for others like heart patients waiting for operation. So while your right that health is a private issue (and I agree) this case is different. As we seen in Thailand people dying because of lack of hospital beds.

 

So the selfish antivaxers want to go on doing high risk activities and by doing so risk others like heart patients and the like for having to wait longer for operations (every country has this problem so you cannot deny it)

 

So by that right the government can do such things as its for the common good. 

[Rimmer]

Off topic posts removed

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Tanomazu said:

This is wrong for many reasons.

 

1. Health is private matter in law. It is your body and your right alone to deal with health matters that affect your body. The right to abortion for women is an example. Many countries have it written into law that health is a private matter. If you start to move away from that and declare health of an individual is now a public matter then things like smoking, eating too many calories, BDSM where people agree to be injured, high risk sports, all these things could and should become illegal, because according to your logic, they can increase the cost on the health system. The net result would be greatly reduced freedom for all.

 

2. The state is only allowed to treat unvaccinated differently if there is a concrete and specific reason for this. Moreover essential services, like education, that are funded by the taxes of all, have to be available to all, the same with cultural institutions provided by tax funding.

 

In other words any state measures that would treat the unvaccinated differently would have to be urgently necessary and proportionate. Is the benefit of those measures so large that it justifies the limitation of freedom.

 

The science at this point is still unclear and changing. If you look at recent studies these show that double vaccination has led those vaccinated to be 49% less likely to be infected with the Delta variant. So 51% of the vaccinated still got infected with the Delta variant.

 

"One in 26. That’s the chance of being infected with the delta variant of Covid-19 if you’re in contact with an infected individual and fully vaccinated, the researchers found. This is compared to a one in 13 chance for the unvaccinated."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=3e551c18281c

 

It is hard to construe an urgent, pressing and necessary measure based on such numbers.

 

Whilst it is true that the vaccinated present less of a burden to the health system, in many countries the burden of Covid patients is surprisingly small, the numbers of severe cases being treated so small that a large number of intensive care beds remain available.

 

Nevertheless, based on the existing figures it would be ludicrous to ask the unvaccinated to be asked to pay for their treatment, just as we don't ask smokers, Sado-maso practitioners, Judo, Karate, Muay Thai, Footballers, or other practitioners of sport where injuries are more likely, or those who consume large amounts of calories, to pay for their treatment. If anyone were to go down that route, it would dramatically decrease freedom for all. Everyone would have to pay who does anything risky.

 

 

And your post is very wrong for just as many reasons. 
The rights of the few can never be at the expense of the many and we have plenty of laws that back that up. You might think you have the “right” to drink and drive or not wear your seat belt but the good of the many overrides your right, hence why we have very specific laws that cover this. 
Public health is no different and as much as you may try and argue that “health is a private matter in law, when that “private matter” starts affecting others (as is clearly the case with Covid) then your decisions are no longer private and the good of the many takes precedence over the individual right of the few. 
You also say “the state is only allowed to treat unvaccinated people differently if there is a concrete and specific reason for this” well how about as well as doing harm to themselves, unvaccinated people put a disproportionate strain on health services meaning other ill people can’t get treatment? There are plenty of stories of people not getting a bed because hospitals are full of unvaccinated Covid patients (see USA for a prime example) which also negates your statement saying “the burden of Covid patients is surprisingly small”. ANY burden is a burden too many. 
And lastly, the science isn’t “unclear”. Vaccinated people are less likely to catch Covid (although still can) but VERY importantly, are far less likely to die or have serious problems with the disease. Most importantly, they are much less likely to be hospitalized, allowing hospitals to treat other patients. This fact alone is the key and if the unvaccinated continue to insist on being unvaccinated with all the overwhelming scientific evidence to the benefits of being vaccinated then they are choosing to be a detriment to society and therefore cannot expect to also be a part of said society. 

[Tanomazu]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

First of my main point is that Covid has put a strain on the public health system (cannot deny that). So to lessen that as people who are unvaccinated should not be in crowds. It would read to rapid spread and taking up many beds that could be used for others like heart patients waiting for operation. So while your right that health is a private issue (and I agree) this case is different. As we seen in Thailand people dying because of lack of hospital beds.

 

So the selfish antivaxers want to go on doing high risk activities and by doing so risk others like heart patients and the like for having to wait longer for operations (every country has this problem so you cannot deny it)

 

So by that right the government can do such things as its for the common good. 

I don't think anti-vaxxers want lockdowns or hospitals to concentrate on Covid patients. It is the people who want vaccinations, governments, who want hospitals to concentrate on Covid, lockdowns etc. Most anti-vaxxers would probably say they are against lockdowns and hospitals focusing on Covid.

 

Whilst initial studies show that vaccinated are 49% protected from being infected with the Delta variant the science is still changing, these studies are not peer reviewed. If you look at Israel, the first country to be vaccinated to a meaningful degree, they have recently seen new record high number of cases, despite one of the highest number of vaccinations in the world.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/israel-doubles-down-on-covid-booster-shots-as-breakthrough-cases-rise.html

 

Treating people unequally is a serious matter. Governments can not do it just "for the common good". There are clear legal hurdless for such regulations that would treat people unequally.

 

In Thailand in particular where many can not afford vaccination even if it were available I think it would be a mistake.

 

Whilst in the very short term hospital beds could be scarce, we saw this in the UK, in the longer term those issues are resolved.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Tanomazu

[Tanomazu]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

And your post is very wrong for just as many reasons. 
The rights of the few can never be at the expense of the many and we have plenty of laws that back that up. You might think you have the “right” to drink and drive or not wear your seat belt but the good of the many overrides your right, hence why we have very specific laws that cover this. 
Public health is no different and as much as you may try and argue that “health is a private matter in law, when that “private matter” starts affecting others (as is clearly the case with Covid) then your decisions are no longer private and the good of the many takes precedence over the individual right of the few. 
You also say “the state is only allowed to treat unvaccinated people differently if there is a concrete and specific reason for this” well how about as well as doing harm to themselves, unvaccinated people put a disproportionate strain on health services meaning other ill people can’t get treatment? There are plenty of stories of people not getting a bed because hospitals are full of unvaccinated Covid patients (see USA for a prime example) which also negates your statement saying “the burden of Covid patients is surprisingly small”. ANY burden is a burden too many. 
And lastly, the science isn’t “unclear”. Vaccinated people are less likely to catch Covid (although still can) but VERY importantly, are far less likely to die or have serious problems with the disease. Most importantly, they are much less likely to be hospitalized, allowing hospitals to treat other patients. This fact alone is the key and if the unvaccinated continue to insist on being unvaccinated with all the overwhelming scientific evidence to the benefits of being vaccinated then they are choosing to be a detriment to society and therefore cannot expect to also be a part of said society. 

Well, no, you are wrong, Johnnybangkok. The good of the many does not automatically take precedence over the few. That's the kind of logic that saw the Nazis kill all disabled people.

 

That is why in civilized societies and democracies we have fundamental rights. One of those principles is that health is a private matter and nobody can be forced to be vaccinated. You will notice that no single nation in the world is forcing everyone to be vaccinated. Even though, according to you, such forced vaccination for everyone would be for the common good. It is not done, because there are fundamental rights and legal principles that prohibit even the most fanatic pro-vac person to force everyone to be vaccinated. They can't do it, even though they want to do it.

 

In order for countries to pass laws that treat its own citizens unequally it would have to show there is a concrete and specific reason for this, and any measure has to be urgently necessary and proportionate.

 

In the case of seatbelts we have seen clear studies which all concur that wearing seatbelts increases safety. However, the science on Covid is still evolving. Recent studies show only 49% of vaccinated are protected from the Delta strain, 51% are liable to be infected. Firstly it is very unclear if 49% would be a sufficient number to warrant urgent and specific measures to treat the unvaccinated unequally. Secondly those studies are not peer reviewed and the science is still evolving. Israel for instance, one of the first countries to achieve large scale vaccination has recently seen record numbers of infections.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=3e551c18281c

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/israel-doubles-down-on-covid-booster-shots-as-breakthrough-cases-rise.html

 

The argument that health services will be overwhelmed has proved to be false one on the whole. Whilst short term emergencies were seen in several countries like the UK, Spain, on the whole in countries that are not part of the third world those short term shortages were soon overcome and in fact now there is a surplus of intensive care beds. Yes, in countries like India and Thailand there have been severe shortages of beds, but that is more an indication of poor planning, underfunding of health services and general issues with the local health service. One can see by comparison to developed countries that this need not be the case, even with Covid. Rather than the selfishness of the unvaccinated, the poor planning in some countries is to blame.

 

Finally the unvaccinated are not a detriment to society, they pay taxes to society like anybody else, many no doubt pay a lot more than you do. Even if some were a detriment to society, however, on the whole they have a right to be a part of society, or are you suggesting that the disabled, the infertile should not be part of society?

Edited September 4, 2021 by Tanomazu

[MrJ2U]

3 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

Pretty sure my chances of dying is still at 100%... that will most likely involve hospitalization too !!

Why rush it? 

[jak2002003]

5 hours ago, Fairynuff said:

Actually it’s not. The fact is that vaccinated people are less likely to pass on the virus and less likely suffer severe illness. 

Can you please provide a link for that statement? 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Tanomazu said:

Well, no, you are wrong, Johnnybangkok. The good of the many does not automatically take precedence over the few. That's the kind of logic that saw the Nazis kill all disabled people.

 

That is why in civilized societies and democracies we have fundamental rights. One of those principles is that health is a private matter and nobody can be forced to be vaccinated. You will notice that no single nation in the world is forcing everyone to be vaccinated. Even though, according to you, such forced vaccination for everyone would be for the common good. It is not done, because there are fundamental rights and legal principles that prohibit even the most fanatic pro-vac person to force everyone to be vaccinated. They can't do it, even though they want to do it.

 

In order for countries to pass laws that treat its own citizens unequally it would have to show there is a concrete and specific reason for this, and any measure has to be urgently necessary and proportionate.

 

In the case of seatbelts we have seen clear studies which all concur that wearing seatbelts increases safety. However, the science on Covid is still evolving. Recent studies show only 49% of vaccinated are protected from the Delta strain, 51% are liable to be infected. Firstly it is very unclear if 49% would be a sufficient number to warrant urgent and specific measures to treat the unvaccinated unequally. Secondly those studies are not peer reviewed and the science is still evolving. Israel for instance, one of the first countries to achieve large scale vaccination has recently seen record numbers of infections.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=3e551c18281c

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/30/israel-doubles-down-on-covid-booster-shots-as-breakthrough-cases-rise.html

 

The argument that health services will be overwhelmed has proved to be false one on the whole. Whilst short term emergencies were seen in several countries like the UK, Spain, on the whole in countries that are not part of the third world those short term shortages were soon overcome and in fact now there is a surplus of intensive care beds. Yes, in countries like India and Thailand there have been severe shortages of beds, but that is more an indication of poor planning, underfunding of health services and general issues with the local health service. One can see by comparison to developed countries that this need not be the case, even with Covid. Rather than the selfishness of the unvaccinated, the poor planning in some countries is to blame.

 

Finally the unvaccinated are not a detriment to society, they pay taxes to society like anybody else, many no doubt pay a lot more than you do. Even if some were a detriment to society, however, on the whole they have a right to be a part of society, or are you suggesting that the disabled, the infertile should not be part of society?

Wow, where to start.

 

Firstly, no one is talking about forcing vacinations on anyone. Please do not try and put words into my mouth. If someone is stupid enough to risk Covid over the miniscule chance of the side-effects of a vaccine (the only reason I hear coming from anti-vaxxers) then have at it. Just don't expect the rest of us to be happy about the cosequences of your decision and be sympathetic when you start to get ostracised. The good of the many absolutely should take precedence over the few when you are talking about big stuff like a worldwide pandemic that has so far cost 4.5 million lives, crippled economies, destroyed businesses and evicted people from their homes. The only way we ALL get out of this mess is when herd immunity is reached (75-85%) and that of course is nigh on impossible when so many are buying into every conspracy theory going or are just simply too selfish to understand that to be a part of a civilised society, you have to occassionally sacrifice for the common good. But yeah, keep banging on about your 'fundamental rights', the slight on your personal freedoms or the supposed erosion on your civil liberties. Whilst you're screeming 'where's my unvaccinated rights' from the comfort of the upper deck, the rest of us are desperately trying to right the sinking ship and get it back on course. 

   

Secondly, you state with far too much confidence and very little reasoning; 'the argument that health services will be overwhelmed has proved to be false one on the whole'. This is completely spurios and demostratably false as the ONLY reason health services have not been overwhelmed is down to the lockdown measures taken. If you remember, the UK started on a misguided and ill thought out 'herd immunity' path until extrapolated numbers clearly showed the expected number of deaths (huge) and the quick overwhelming of the NHS. A quick u-turn, lockdowns, work from home and other measures reversed the trend but there were still times when the strain really showed. It still is showing in many other countries like Brazil, India and even in some US states. People like yourself back up your arguments with a 'it wasn't that bad after all' type argument, whilst conveniently ignoring the reasons WHY it wasn't that bad. We have well informed experts and scientific professionals to thank for that, but of course they are now being ignored and down right villified when it comes to vaccines.

 

And finally can we give the false equivalencies a rest please? If you're going to debate a topic in a civilised manner please at least try and and do so without bringing up frankly absurd comparisons that only work on the feeble-minded and easily led.  Nazis killing disabled people! Disabled and infertile not being part of society? It's ridiculous histronics like this that lower the prospect of any sensible debate and do little for your credibility. 

[Fairynuff]

5 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

So what your saying is, Vaccinated people can still infect others.

My goodness you’re a sharp one aren’t you.

[Fairynuff]

38 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Can you please provide a link for that statement? 

Oh for goodness sake! This has been reported a million times in a million places and you’re asking for a link????????????

[LongTimeLurker]

9 hours ago, jacko45k said:

But they are likely to be shedding virus for less time than unvaccinated people. 

 

But not all unvaccinated people have Covid.

[jak2002003]

59 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

Oh for goodness sake! This has been reported a million times in a million places and you’re asking for a link????????????

So you can't then? I guessed that would be your answer. 

[Fairynuff]

31 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

So you can't then? I guessed that would be your answer. 

Where’ve you been that you’ve missed the most basic of information that’s been around for so many months? And then you ask someone else for a link ????. And then just to dig yourself in deeper.... classic deflection. I think you ought to move on before it gets any worse for you.