( Office Space for RENT ) Vorawat Building Silom 285 sqm.Sala Daeng bts
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
4,373
-
3
Report Pattaya's Sanctuary of Truth Claims World Record Crown
Have they stopped using the dual pricing system yet? -
2
Crime Pattaya Couple Shocked by Taxi Scam on Popular App
Yes, some of them are scammers, what a surprise indeed! -
174
Report Covid-19 Resurgence in Thailand: Over 8,000 Cases Reported in a Week
I'm actually going to spend some time putting together a number of pieces of research so everything can be taken in context, rather than just bombard readers with statistics, however I will post one article here to get started. I make the above statement because there are so many cofounders, especially in the recording of the infection fatality rate, and here are 2 examples. 1. How death from/with Covid is measured. As far as I am aware every country that recorded data included death by all cause within a given period where the deceased was seropositive, so a 21 year old who dies in a car crash who was infected but may have shown no symptoms was recorded as a Covid death. 2. Elderly. In the early days, well the first year, because of the massive amount of misinformation, many elderly people in hospitals and care homes were prescribed 'end of life' medication, because it was believed that Covid was terminal. The 'end of life' medication, which was mostly midazolam and morphine, both respiratory depressants, undoubtedly lead to the premature deaths of many. Would these people have died anyway within say a year...probably, however at the time the huge spike in elderly deaths caused by mismanagement skewed the IFR statistics leading the world to believe Covid was far more serious than it was. I'll probably add a third, ICU admissions. Many patients were admitted to ICU when they could have been treated with steroids, however again the medical misinformation was shocking. Unfortunately, unless you are the right age of 60 and normally quite healthy, getting intubated and spending time in ICU is a death sentence, even without COVID. So now I've clarified that, here's a paper that's a few years old but was one of the first to reveal the true figures. It's not a bad paper although the authors claim it uses mixed methodology. I think they are confused as I can see no qualitative analysis, however the quantitative aspect is sound. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9613797/#sec2 I pasted part of the discussion for quick browsing. 4. Discussion In a mixed design synthesis of COVID-19 national seroprevalence studies and mortality data aimed at estimating the IFR of COVID-19 among non-elderly populations, we found that the IFR in the pre-vaccination era is substantially lower than previously calculated (Levin et al., 2020; O’Driscoll et al., 2021; Brazeau et al., 2020; Ioannidis, 2021b; Axfors and Ioannidis, 2022; COVID-19 Forecasting Team, 2022), especially in the younger age strata. Median IFRs show a clear age-gradient with approximately 3-4-fold increase for each decade but it starts from as low as 0.0003% among children and adolescents and it reaches 0.5% in the 60–69 years old age group. Sensitivity analyses considering all 38 countries with seroprevalence data that were identified in our systematic search showed that median IFR might be up to a third lower than the estimates produced by our main analysis, e.g. approximately 0.03% in the 0–59 years age group and 0.06–0.08% in the 0–69 years old group. Consistent with these estimates, meta-regressions suggest IFR estimates in that range for the global population where 87% of the 0–59 years old people are <50 years old and 80% of the 0–69 years old people are <50 years old. Our IFR estimates tend to be modestly to markedly lower than several previous calculations (Levin et al., 2020; O’Driscoll et al., 2021; Brazeau et al., 2020; Ioannidis, 2021b; Axfors and Ioannidis, 2022; COVID-19 Forecasting Team, 2022). The most comprehensive prior evaluation of COVID-19 IFR in the pre-vaccination era (COVID-19 Forecasting Team, 2022) suggested a trough IFR at the age of 7 years (0.0023%, 95% uncertainty interval 0.0015–0.0039) and increasing exponentially through 30 years (0.0573%, 0.0418–0.0870), 60 years (1.0035%, 0.7002–1.5727) and older ages. Conversely, our median IFR estimates are roughly 10-fold lower than these previous calculations among children and young adults and 3-6-fold lower among adults 40–69 years old. If we exclude study data from age bins with 0 deaths in our calculations (a justifiable choice, since these estimates of 0% IFR are clearly underestimates), our age-stratified IFR are still approximately 2-5-fold lower than those of (COVID-19 Forecasting Team, 2022) across the entire age range. The previous IFR calculations (Levin et al., 2020; O’Driscoll et al., 2021; Brazeau et al., 2020; Ioannidis, 2021b; Axfors and Ioannidis, 2022; COVID-19 Forecasting Team, 2022) were based on more limited national representative studies' data and also included data from non-national samples with potentially larger bias. They also probably included mostly hard hit countries that may tend to have the highest IFR estimates. While much of the diversity in IFR across countries is explained by differences in age structure (COVID-19 Forecasting Team, 2022), additional substantial differences are possible. Another major reason for the discrepancy versus prior calculations is due to the fact that some previous calculations (e.g. ref. 59) have substantially increased their initial IFR estimates by multiplying them for a factor of under-ascertainment of COVID-19 deaths. Aligning evaluations in terms of this methodological difference would bring the estimates closer, but divergence would still be present with our estimates remaining lower. Some other estimates for pre-vaccination IFR agree more with our estimates overall, e.g. 0.107% across all ages combined (Ayoub et al., 2021). -
23
THAILAND LIVE Thailand Live Tuesday 13 May 2025
Vietnamese National Caught in Attempted Illegal Border Crossing Aboard Laos Bus in Nong Khai Picture courtesy of Workpoint. Immigration officers in Nong Khai have arrested the driver and a staff member of a cross-border bus service operating between Vientiane and Nong Khai for smuggling a Vietnamese national across the Thai-Laos border. Full story:https://aseannow.com/topic/1360496-vietnamese-national-caught-in-attempted-illegal-border-crossing-aboard-laos-bus-in-nong-khai/ -
0
Crime Vietnamese National Caught in Attempted Illegal Border Crossing Aboard Laos Bus in Nong Khai
Picture courtesy of Workpoint. Immigration officers in Nong Khai have arrested the driver and a staff member of a cross-border bus service operating between Vientiane and Nong Khai for smuggling a Vietnamese national across the Thai-Laos border. The arrest followed a tip-off received by the Nong Khai Immigration Investigation Unit, under the direction of Pol. Col. Noppadol Rakchat, Superintendent of Nong Khai Immigration, along with senior officers Pol. Lt. Col. Thanoosil Duangkaewngam and Pol. Lt. Col. Thiyaphat Rangsiphramakun. Officials were informed that a bus from the Lao People’s Democratic Republic was regularly transporting Vietnamese nationals illegally through the Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge checkpoint. Officers stationed at the checkpoint observed the targeted bus after it departed from the Nong Khai bus terminal. As passengers disembarked to undergo standard immigration procedures, officers searched the vehicle and discovered a Vietnamese man hiding in a passenger seat, attempting to avoid immigration inspection. The man was identified as Mr Cong Khue Truong, 64, holding Vietnamese passport. Records showed that he was previously deported from Thailand for working illegally and had been blacklisted, making his presence in the country unlawful. Immigration officers detained both the driver, Mr Vongphaseang, and the bus attendant, Ms Pudsana, both citizens of Laos,for questioning. During the investigation, both admitted to picking up Mr Truong from the Nong Khai terminal and attempting to smuggle him back into Laos, each receiving a promised payment of 2,000 baht. Mr Truong claimed he had paid an agent 15,000 baht to arrange the illegal passage, aware that he was barred from entering or leaving Thailand through official channels. The driver and attendant have been charged under Section 64 of Thailand’s Immigration Act for “harbouring and concealing an alien.” Mr Truong has been charged with “illegal entry.” All three individuals, along with the bus, were handed over to Muang Nong Khai Police Station for legal proceedings. Authorities say they will continue to crack down on cross-border smuggling operations and have urged transport operators to strictly comply with immigration laws. Adapted by Asean Now from Workpoint 2025-05-13.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
Recommended Posts