Ministry official hints you'll need to be vaxxed to do things in public in Thailand

[Gr3g]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

First off, I don't care if you're vaccinated or not. These repeated claims by various parties who claim to support the rights of individuals not to be vaccinated are just shoddy pieces of social engineering. They provide no support to the validity of your arguments. Let's stick to facts and logic.

 

Yes, plenty of people do indulge in such behavior. But as we know, getting people to change their behaviors, whether it's obesity, alcohol abuse, or drug abuse is very difficult  because these are behaviors that get rewarded. with pleasure As far as I'm aware, non-vaccinating is not a behavior that delivers jolts of pleasure via the nervous system. Also, health the system is adapted to people with these behaviors. But right now the system is under threat from frequent surges of this pandemic. 

You obviously care about your self and what's in your interest only. 

Isn't having vaccine that supposedly protect you good enough for you? Why would others that are in low risk group be forced to get vaccinated for yours sake.

Maybe you feel superior to others and think others must do things to please you.

You had your shot, you are protected, be happy and move on. Don't expect others to get vaccinated so you can feel better/safer.

My advise for you is to come to terms that many people will never take any covid vaccine, and for those vaccinated, each and every booster round will see less and less volunteers.

 

Finally, let's agree to disagree.

 

[Toolong]

26 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You should pay attention

You've underlined it, by golly. Wow. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, Toolong said:

You've underlined it, by golly. Wow. 

 

 

Not me, the system underlines links by default. The link takes you to a CDC site filled with actual information. 

[Danderman123]

15 minutes ago, Gr3g said:

You obviously care about your self and what's in your interest only. 

Isn't having vaccine that supposedly protect you good enough for you? Why would others that are in low risk group be forced to get vaccinated for yours sake.

Maybe you feel superior to others and think others must do things to please you.

You had your shot, you are protected, be happy and move on. Don't expect others to get vaccinated so you can feel better/safer.

My advise for you is to come to terms that many people will never take any covid vaccine, and for those vaccinated, each and every booster round will see less and less volunteers.

 

Finally, let's agree to disagree.

 

Actually, not. 

 

What the Ministry is doing is putting the squeeze on deadenders who refuse to vaccinate. The tighter the squeeze, the fewer unvaccinated there will be, and the lower the odds of a new mutation that will defeat the current vaccines. 

 

The meme you are spreading is an old one, it's the "you have your vaccine, why do you worry about me?", which makes sense only to people with no knowledge of immunology. It would be far better for you to stop reading the misinformation you get on Facebook and read instead what the health agencies post. Except maybe the one in Thailand. 

[jvs]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Actually, not. 

 

What the Ministry is doing is putting the squeeze on deadenders who refuse to vaccinate. The tighter the squeeze, the fewer unvaccinated there will be, and the lower the odds of a new mutation that will defeat the current vaccines. 

What i see happening around me is that many Thai people do want to be vaccinated,only with a product of their own choice.

Lots of places now where you can walk in and get the deed done but not with the product people want.

I can sympathize with those people.

They will wait until a vaccine of their choice is available.

 

[Toolong]

34 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Not me, the system underlines links by default. The link takes you to a CDC site filled with actual information. 

I beg your pardon....????

 

I thought they were your own words, intentionally underlined to show some attitude! ????

 

(In my feeble defence....don't links usually have lots of gobbledegook coding in them? ????)

[Blumpie]

You can't even get to Thailand if you're not vaccinated, eventually you won't be able to renew your visa if you're not vaccinated.  So who cares?  Just like Yellow fever vaccination, mandatory.  

 

I really don't care.  

[daveAustin]

1 hour ago, Toolong said:

.don't links usually have lots of gobbledegook coding in them? ????)

No, an address string maybe, though you can put in whatever text blows your hair back, censorship-permitting. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Gr3g said:

You obviously care about your self and what's in your interest only. 

Isn't having vaccine that supposedly protect you good enough for you? Why would others that are in low risk group be forced to get vaccinated for yours sake.

Maybe you feel superior to others and think others must do things to please you.

You had your shot, you are protected, be happy and move on. Don't expect others to get vaccinated so you can feel better/safer.

My advise for you is to come to terms that many people will never take any covid vaccine, and for those vaccinated, each and every booster round will see less and less volunteers.

 

Finally, let's agree to disagree.

 

Once again you resort to personal attacks because you've got nothing.

Because I support a policy that will ease the stress on the public health system and save lives, therefore I'm only thinking about myself? . Stop with the mindreading. Your allegation is obviously an empty one. As is your reading of what my character may be.

And you just repeat your sentiments in different words.

Well, let's just hope that those who refuse to take the virus ultimately come to their senses or at least go to get vaccinated.

And to close you make predictions. Another kind of allegation devoid of evidence.

Let's agree that you've got nothing but evidence-free attacks on character and motivation. Nothing you wrote challenged in a logical or evidence-based way anything I wrote. What you wrote, essentially, constituted ranting. Which is a practice some resort to when their arguments have been repeatedly refuted. Try logic and objectively determined evidence for a change.

[sungod]

2 hours ago, Guitar God said:

What country would want a bunch of unvaccinated foreigners in it? Anti-vaxers are most likely to be anti-maskers, anti-hand washers, virus deniers and the most likely to engage in behavior most likely to spread the disease. Their country, their rules. Don’t like it, leave. Expats are allowed to live her at the government’s discretion. 

Define anti vaxer? Someone who will not take any vaccine? someone who may take the vaccine at some point but wants more information? someone who has taken 2 shots of the vaccine but likes to ask questions about the whole vaccination process?

[Toolong]

18 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

No, an address string maybe, though you can put in whatever text blows your hair back, censorship-permitting. 

Thanks, Dave. ????

 

(PS: I actually assumed it was an - as u call it - 'address string'. No, no....please don't attempt to explain it to me, for heaven's sake.....I'm too old for that stuff! ????????)

[adexgh]

After 6 years seems like is finally time to leave. Good luck to all.

[Neeranam]

46 minutes ago, sungod said:

Define anti vaxer? Someone who will not take any vaccine? someone who may take the vaccine at some point but wants more information? someone who has taken 2 shots of the vaccine but likes to ask questions about the whole vaccination process?

Someone who is against forced vaccinations. It is not a bad word. 

[sungod]

8 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Someone who is against forced vaccinations. It is not a bad word. 

Freedom of choice

[placeholder]

57 minutes ago, sungod said:

Define anti vaxer? Someone who will not take any vaccine? someone who may take the vaccine at some point but wants more information? someone who has taken 2 shots of the vaccine but likes to ask questions about the whole vaccination process?

Someone who spreads falsehoods our unsupported assertions and speculations about the vaccines in order to denigrate and/or discourage their use.

[sungod]

Just now, placeholder said:

Someone who spreads falsehoods our unsupported assertions and speculations about the vaccines in order to denigrate and/or discourage their use.

Not me then, thanks

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, sungod said:

Not me then, thanks

Good to hear that you haven't speculated about possible latent effects of the vaccines and that you haven't repeatedly ignored that fact that many viruses do.

[sungod]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Good to hear that you haven't speculated about possible latent effects of the vaccines and that you haven't repeatedly ignored that fact that many viruses do.

Not speculated at all, just stated we cant predict the future. Next question?

 

[placeholder]

Just now, sungod said:

Not speculated at all, just stated we cant predict the future. Next question?

 

Just ignored evidence that no vaccine ever has resulted in latent effects and that viruses demonstrably can. And did ever acknowledge the difference in  the odds of coming down with long term covid vs coming down with long term illness from vaccinations?

[sungod]

Just now, placeholder said:

Just ignored evidence that no vaccine ever has resulted in latent effects and that viruses demonstrably can. And did ever acknowledge the difference in  the odds of coming down with long term covid vs coming down with long term illness from vaccinations?

Not ignoring vaccines that have been around for years. And you know all this after a vaccine that's been around for about a year. Got it!

 

Can you share your crystal ball, need some lottery numbers.

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, sungod said:

Not ignoring vaccines that have been around for years. And you know all this after a vaccine that's been around for about a year. Got it!

 

Can you share your crystal ball, need some lottery numbers.

Some of us understand that modern science is based on probability. No one can predict the future with 100% likelihood. But we can use present evidence to project possibilities.

[sungod]

Just now, placeholder said:

Some of us understand that modern science is based on probability. No one can predict the future with 100% likelihood. But we can use present evidence to project possibilities.

Thanks for clearing that up, you dont know. If you cant predict 100% and its based on probability then I cant be wrong.

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed. 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, sungod said:

Thanks for clearing that up, you dont know. If you cant predict 100% and its based on probability then I cant be wrong.

This is like saying that it makes sense for someone to invest all their saving in the lottery because you can't prove they will fail.

[sungod]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This is like saying that it makes sense for someone to invest all their saving in the lottery because you can't prove they will fail.

Dont think anyone would agree with that, but holds as much weight as most of your arguments.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, sungod said:

Dont think anyone would agree with that, but holds as much weight as most of your arguments.

Do you have a crystal ball to show that such a person definitely wouldn't win the lottery? The laws of probablity say it's unlikely but not impossible. And what is known about vaccines and how they affect the immune system makes it extremely unlikely that there will be latent effects. Certainly a lot less likely than a disease vector might. Since the latter has been the case repeatedly.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, sungod said:

Dont think anyone would agree with that, but holds as much weight as most of your arguments.

I've explained why this comment of yours is ridiculous:

Thanks for clearing that up, you don't know. If you cant predict 100% and its based on probability then I cant be wrong.

 

All you offered to critique my comment was this:

"Thanks for clearing that up, you dont know. If you cant predict 100% and its based on probability then I cant be wrong."

Basically an appeal to a unanimity of alleged unnamed parties and a general unsupported characterization of my previous arguments. Not much evidence or rationality in such comments.

[sungod]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Do you have a crystal ball to show that such a person definitely wouldn't win the lottery? The laws of probablity say it's unlikely but not impossible. And what is known about vaccines and how they affect the immune system makes it extremely unlikely that there will be latent effects. Certainly a lot less likely than a disease vector might. Since the latter has been the case repeatedly.

So, you have no evidence that the longterm effects of vaccines will have no detrimental effect on our health, only probability.

 

You are chasing your tail, justifying your arguments with nonsense. I have no more information than you, dont claim to, but i am not saying I am right, just wish to wait and see more evidence to better serve my judgement.

 

Good night.

 

 

[sungod]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I've explained why this comment of yours is ridiculous:

Thanks for clearing that up, you don't know. If you cant predict 100% and its based on probability then I cant be wrong.

 

All you offered to critique my comment was this:

"Thanks for clearing that up, you dont know. If you cant predict 100% and its based on probability then I cant be wrong."

Basically an appeal to a unanimity of alleged unnamed parties and a general unsupported characterization of my previous arguments. Not much evidence or rationality in such comments.

You are the one who is claiming they are right, I am not, just waiting for more information, its all about choice and you cant force your opinion on me.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, sungod said:

So, you have no evidence that the longterm effects of vaccines will have no detrimental effect on our health, only probability.

 

You are chasing your tail, justifying your arguments with nonsense. I have no more information than you, dont claim to, but i am not saying I am right, just wish to wait and see more evidence to better serve my judgement.

 

Good night.

 

 

Just as I have no evidence that some particular individual won't win the lottery. And all I have to go on is "only probability". Science uses current knowledge to project possible outcomes. Now if  current scientific knowledge has no value in predicting future outcomes, you would have a good point. But that obviously isn't the case, so you don't.