5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Your negative opinions of teachers are just that. Yours. Teachers are educators and want to teach. They also know what damage was done due to the closure of schools.

Do a little mind experiment for yourself and ask maybe 10,000 people if they want a month or two off work while being paid. Let me know your results. 

53 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

I 100% guruntee you if one of those deaths for example was a person on his last legs dying of lung cancer or something, and he had covid, they’d categorize it as a covid death. But… it wouldn’t be now would it

 

The Thai MoPH admitted early in the pandemic that a portion of their reported COVID deaths in that early period were died "with" COVID types...  They then (several years ago) changed / tightened their definition of what they would count as a COVID death to be a pretty narrow one.

 

From March 2022:

 

"Kiattiphum said the death report would be rewritten to separate patients with lung inflammation from those who did not have lung inflammation, and the reports would also state the main cause of death....

 

Kiattiphum unveiled the plan to review the report on Covid-19 fatalities after Deputy Prime Minister and Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul told reporters earlier in the day that he had consulted with senior officials of the ministry about daily reports on Covid-19 fatalities.

...

Anutin said the daily reports seemed to show that Covid-19 fatalities had increased but, he said, people, who died due to other causes or diseases should be separated from the Covid-19 fatality reports.

 

Anutin said the meeting discussed that when patients died while they were on a ventilator and died of lung inflammation caused by Covid-19 virus, they could be classified as Covid-19 deaths.

 

https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/40013255

 

So the notion that officially reported COVID deaths reported by MoPH these days (two years later) aren't really COVID deaths isn't supported by any facts.

 

Edited May 27, 20242 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

On 5/14/2024 at 8:46 PM, frank83628 said:

not sure i remember hearing it quite like that.

safe and effective. was what were were told, adverse effects never mentioned on msm whatsoever, anyone that did suggest that was shot down, attacked and banned from social media, dont remember any politicians warning of adverse effects either

 

That's because you probably didn't actually read any "MSM", preferring whatever fed your confirmation bias.

 

Quote

 

April 8, 2021
LONDON (AP) — British authorities recommended Wednesday that the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine not be given to adults under 30 where possible because of strengthening evidence that the shot may be linked to rare blood clots.
https://apnews.com/article/eu-rare-blood-clots-possibly-linked-astrazeneca-vaccine-1ec87a9b7f14f98e29962e9d055d27ed

 

 

2 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

Do a little mind experiment for yourself and ask maybe 10,000 people if they want a month or two off work while being paid. Let me know your results. 

I'm a qualified teacher that teaches in a Thai school. I think my knowledge of teachers attitutes to school closures are somewhat more informed than yours.

1 hour ago, Robert Paulson said:

you didn’t notice it because you were parroting pharma talking points

 

Even the goofy language of these conspiracy theorists remains unchanged.These are the people that swore by the useless horse medicine Ivermection.

 

Having said that there are some real questions about the Covid time,notably the whole question of lockdown's efficacy.

24 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

Even the goofy language of these conspiracy theorists remains unchanged.These are the people that swore by the useless horse medicine Ivermection.

 

Having said that there are some real questions about the Covid time,notably the whole question of lockdown's efficacy.

The lockdown efficacy was purely to slow the transmission and reduce the total volume of people in the hospital system and it worked unequivocally. 
 

I can understand questioning of the flow on effects of children and schools and general social issues. 
 

 

15 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The original COVID vaccines were never clinical trialed or approved on the basis of being able to limit/reduce transmission. That was never part of the original expectation or basis for approval, although it did in fact occur in the early going of the pandemic with the early versions of the COVID virus.

 

The vaccines were trialed and approved on the basis of being able to limit/reduce symptomatic COVID illness, which in fact they did, and continue to do...although these days, after multiple variants, the effectiveness is more toward limiting/preventing hospitalization and death from COVID, and that certainly ought to be people's highest priority and expectation.

 

The false claim of the COVID vaccines being approved or originally promised to prevent transmission is a common anti-vaxer falsehood.

 

Fact Check: Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants

By Reuters Fact Check

February 13, 2024

 

"To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time."

,,,

At the time governments were negotiating advance purchases of vaccine in 2020, the European Medicines Agency had already laid out requirements for an application for conditional marketing authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine, clinical trials were underway, and tests to show the vaccine prevented onward transmission were not required of any vaccine maker.

...

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration laid out similar expectations for vaccine trials in June of 2020, and did not require data regarding the effect on virus transmission."

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/

 

You really don't remember the ads for vaccines??? They clearly stated that the vaccines would prevent infection and transmission.  Even during Omicron after the 3rd shot.

I am NOT talking about approval requirements,  but what the ads and media told us the vaccines would do. "Crush the virus" and "saving your grandparents" comes to mind.

In the USA they at least admit that politicians and medical experts told the public things which were not true as the public could not handle the truth (according to New York Times).

BTW, if you want to be technical, the vaccines were given on an Emergency Use basis - not even a full approval. 

 

Again, in the USA and in Europe people stopped taking boosters / new vaccines, wearing masks and the world is not coming to an end. Covid is not even mentioned much, if at all. 

 

22 minutes ago, Miami007 said:

You really don't remember the ads for vaccines??? They clearly stated that the vaccines would prevent infection and transmission. 

Where do you get this nonsense? Fox newz or similar I would bet. The reputable news sources were stating that the vaccines would reduce the impact of the infection if you caught it. You got some links to back up your assertion?

1 hour ago, Miami007 said:

You really don't remember the ads for vaccines??? They clearly stated that the vaccines would prevent infection and transmission.  Even during Omicron after the 3rd shot.

 

I am NOT talking about approval requirements,  but what the ads and media told us the vaccines would do. "Crush the virus" and "saving your grandparents" comes to mind.

 

In the USA they at least admit that politicians and medical experts told the public things which were not true as the public could not handle the truth (according to New York Times).

BTW, if you want to be technical, the vaccines were given on an Emergency Use basis - not even a full approval. 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what supposed ads you're talking about, and you don't' provide any sources for your various claims above. If there were any such ads that talked about preventing transmission, it only would have been because that's what the credible research showed during a period of time early in the pandemic (2021 after the vaccines were first deployed), as the reports below confirm:

 

Fact Check: Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants

"Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time."

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/

 

Fact check: Vaccines protect against contracting, spreading COVID-19

Nov. 17, 2021

...

"Yes, it is true that vaccinated individuals can also be infected by and spread SARS-CoV-2 to others," Shweta Bansal, an associate professor of biology at Georgetown University, said in an email. "However, the evidence is crystal clear that risk of transmission for a vaccinated individual is significantly lower than for an unvaccinated individual."

 

Bansal pointed to data from the United Kingdom, which shows the COVID-19 vaccines reduce the chances of getting infected by 50%-75%. A preprint study, also conducted in the U.K., found that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine are 80% effective against preventing all infections with the delta coronavirus variant.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/17/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-protect-against-infection-transmission/6403678001/

 

What do we know about COVID-19 vaccines and transmission?

Reuters Fact Check

November 19, 2021

...

VERDICT

Vaccines help reduce transmission by preventing infection in the first place, as well as reducing how infectious a person becomes once infected. Research into the latter is still ongoing; however, current studies show that while vaccinated people transmit the virus less than people who are not, this effect is reduced against the Delta variant.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-vaccines-idUSL1N2SA1FZ/

 

 

 

And as for your other unsourced and unsubstantiated claims, among them:

 

--The COVID vaccines in the U.S. were originally given emergency use authorization approval, but that was later followed by by formal, regular approvals from the US FDA for both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines, including for the most recent XBB version vaccines. So they ARE fully and formally approved.

FDA Takes Action on Updated mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines to Better Protect Against Currently Circulating Variants

September 11, 2023

...

Specifically, today’s actions include:

• Approval of Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) to include the 2023-2024 formula, and a change to a single dose for individuals 12 years of age and older. Comirnaty was previously approved as a two-dose series for individuals 12 years of age and older. 
• Approval of Spikevax (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) to include the 2023-2024 formula, a change to a single dose for individuals 18 years of age and older, and approval of a single dose for individuals 12 through 17 years of age. Spikevax was previously approved as a two-dose series for individuals 18 years of age and older. 

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-updated-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-better-protect-against-currently-circulating

 

 

As for "saving grandma," indeed they did in large numbers. Per Reuters from earlier this year:

 

"The vaccines are still very effective at preventing serious illness, even if they do not block infection, experts said.

A recent study in the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal from the Karolinska Institutet and Danderyd Hospital in Sweden found the updated vaccine, which targets the XBB.1.5 coronavirus variant, reduced the risk of COVID hospitalization by 76.1% in people affected by more recent variants, based on public health records from adults over 65 years old.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/who-sees-incredibly-low-covid-flu-vaccination-rates-cases-surge-2024-01-12/

 

PS - as the pandemic wore on and multiple variant ensued, generally becoming more vaccine evasive, the rates of reducing transmission dropped significantly, though not entirely, and protections waned more quickly, even in more recent times.

 

 

Edited May 27, 20242 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK