COVID 19 GLOBAL

[forcebwithu]

No surprise Thai's love of money trumps screening of arrivals from China. Only a check for vaccination, forgetting the important fact the vaccine doesn't stop the person from carrying the virus and infecting others.

I'm not worried about catching the China plague, but like any disease where there's been a large increase in infections I would expect any govt to take reasonable precautions to protect their citizens.

I'm in agreement with @fforest, make the Chinese wear the moon suits while in Thailand.

China arrivals to skip virus testing

The Covid-19 screening test for arrivals from China at their points of entry might not be necessary for the time being although their vaccination documents will be checked, say communicable disease experts.
...
 

[Glasseye]

4 hours ago, forcebwithu said:

No surprise Thai's love of money trumps screening of arrivals from China. Only a check for vaccination, forgetting the important fact the vaccine doesn't stop the person from carrying the virus and infecting others.

I'm not worried about catching the China plague, but like any disease where there's been a large increase in infections I would expect any govt to take reasonable precautions to protect their citizens.

I'm in agreement with @fforest, make the Chinese wear the moon suits while in Thailand.

China arrivals to skip virus testing

The Covid-19 screening test for arrivals from China at their points of entry might not be necessary for the time being although their vaccination documents will be checked, say communicable disease experts.
...
 

 

I agree with you on this.

 

My observations are many Thai's aren't shy about expressing their dislike for certain folks north of the boarder. 

When the death rate begins to spike again here there will be a lot of enraged people. After certain officials get a taste of that the door will be slammed shut.

Unfortunately they don't seem to be applying a balanced reasonable approach to what is sure to be coming.

[Nightcrawler]

On 12/31/2022 at 9:40 AM, Bazle said:

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2472290/curbs-likely-for-chinese-arrivals

So it looks likely that we are ALL going to have to prove being vaccinated again quite soon.

Thinking back to not so.long ago, many visitors were put in  7 or 10 days quarantine hotels  and released after a negative Covid test. Plus having to show a vaccination pass and Covid insurance

Why can't they do the same for the Chinese? I am sure there would be lots of money to be made out of it, whilst going some way to stop  the virus entering the country in large numbers

What bothers me is arriving at Swampy with queues of infected Chinese tourists at immigration and security, spreading the virus. 

It's all about numbers in the end and if there is a major surge of Covid carrying tourists then it won't take long before another pandemic. 

That of course should apply to all countries.  

It is one thing for the Chinese to Lift lockdown In certain provinces but another to allow travel and for other countries to allow infected travellers to.enter their borders without screening  or vaccination proof. And also, as pointed out earlier, vaccination does not necessarily stop carriers of C19  

As said in this Topic already, as a result, we too could end up facing knock on restrictions again. 

 

 

[Glasseye]

6 minutes ago, Nightcrawler said:

Thinking back to not so.long ago, many visitors were put in  7 or 10 days quarantine hotels  and released after a negative Covid test. Plus having to show a vaccination pass and Covid insurance

Why can't they do the same for the Chinese? I am sure there would be lots of money to be made out of it, whilst going some way to stop  the virus entering the country in large numbers

What bothers me is arriving at Swampy with queues of infected Chinese tourists at immigration and security, spreading the virus. 

It's all about numbers in the end and if there is a major surge of Covid carrying tourists then it won't take long before another pandemic. 

That of course should apply to all countries.  

It is one thing for the Chinese to Lift lockdown In certain provinces but another to allow travel and for other countries to allow infected travellers to.enter their borders without screening  or vaccination. 

As said in this Topic already, as a rest, we too could end up facing knock on restrictions. 

 

 

 

No doubt there will be plenty of unforeseen fallout.

[Nightcrawler]

13 hours ago, Glasseye said:

 

No doubt there will be plenty of unforeseen fallout.

I really hope not, but you are probably right 

The excuse by the Chinese is that they have been kept from seeing family and loved ones living in other countries. Understood, but why can't those family and loved ones visit them in China?  Even with that, they could easily become infected and bring the virus back with them. 

Sure, lockdown is tough on any nation as we all have experienced, but I believe that it is madness to allow large volumes of Chinese citizens into any other countries, with the current levels of Covid recorded in China, and we probably don't know the real figures. 

The virus came from China and should end in China. Just my opinion 

[maipenrai]

And now Canada has jumped on the bandwagon as well:

https://globalnews.ca/news/9380748/canada-china-travel-rules-covid/

Supposedly, these "temporary" measures will be reassessed after 30 days but I'm willing to bet that they'll still be in place when I have to fly home through HK in early March...

[Glasseye]

Time to stock up on the Tylenol....

 

 

 

[lazarus]

[bob lt]

Many nations have already or will in the near future impose restrictions for Chinese travellers.

As of yesterday, USA, UK, France, Australia, India, Canada, Japan, India, Spain, Malaysia, Taiwan, S Korea, and Qatar require either test before travel, test on arrivals, Morocco has a complete ban on travel from China as of today.

[forcebwithu]

Perhaps this belongs in the funnies topic. The idea the vaccine confers immunity was long ago discredited. Hard to believe this guy is a Minister of Public Heath.

Thai Public Health Minister Assures There Will be no Lockdown when China Re-opens Borders

The minister went on to say that, “The vaccines available in Thailand can still create immunity. I encourage Thai people to get a booster jab against Covid to have immunity.”

[At least he's honest what the real driving force is to opening the borders to a country with an out of control infection rate.]
Gen Prayut told the press that, “People should not panic because Thailand’s preventive measures and healthcare system are top-notch. Also, Chinese arrivals will bring lots of income to the country.”

[lazarus]

29 minutes ago, forcebwithu said:

Also, Chinese arrivals will bring lots of income to the country.

BINGO...!

[Bazle]

Now we discover that

.... the data reveals the greater number of mRNA doses, the greater the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/large-studys-disturbing-results-questionable-bivalent-booster-performance-the-greater-the-previous-mrna-doses-the-greater-the-risk-for-infection-b468bbce

[lazarus]

19 minutes ago, Bazle said:

Now we discover that

.... the data reveals the greater number of mRNA doses, the greater the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/large-studys-disturbing-results-questionable-bivalent-booster-performance-the-greater-the-previous-mrna-doses-the-greater-the-risk-for-infection-b468bbce

^ Always consider the source.

"Essentially, they are promoting anti-vaccine propaganda."

from:  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/trialsite-news/

Edited January 5, 2023 by lazarus

[forcebwithu]

19 minutes ago, Bazle said:

Now we discover that

.... the data reveals the greater number of mRNA doses, the greater the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/large-studys-disturbing-results-questionable-bivalent-booster-performance-the-greater-the-previous-mrna-doses-the-greater-the-risk-for-infection-b468bbce

I suspect the author of the article has drawn an incorrection conclusion from the study data cited. The study's focus and title is "Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine". The study wasn't designed to look at the correlation between vaccine doses and incidence of infection. There are quite a few other possible causations for infection the study would have to look into to draw such a conclusion the author has reached. The author would have been better served to search for and find such as study. Perhaps you can come up with such a study?

The correct conclusion from the study is the one cited in its summary.

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine.

 

[john luke]

12 minutes ago, lazarus said:

^ Always consider the source.

"Essentially, they are promoting anti-vaccine propaganda."

from:  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/trialsite-news/

 Excellent post.

[Bazle]

23 minutes ago, lazarus said:

^ Always consider the source.

"Essentially, they are promoting anti-vaccine propaganda."

from:  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/trialsite-news/

So you think that anything that queries the vaccines is pseudo-science. I regard that as not only narrow-minded but dangerous.

[Bazle]

11 minutes ago, john luke said:

 Excellent post.

How do you support that assertion, please?

[Bazle]

13 minutes ago, forcebwithu said:

I suspect the author of the article has drawn an incorrection conclusion from the study data cited. The study's focus and title is "Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine". The study wasn't designed to look at the correlation between vaccine doses and incidence of infection. There are quite a few other possible causations for infection the study would have to look into to draw such a conclusion the author has reached. The author would have been better served to search for and find such as study. Perhaps you can come up with such a study?

The correct conclusion from the study is the one cited in its summary.

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf

The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. 

 

However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (>45% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risktaking behavior. 

 

Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses. This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. A large study found that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving three doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving two doses of vaccine [21]. Another study found that receipt of two or three doses of a mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose [7]. 

[john luke]

9 minutes ago, Bazle said:

How do you support that assertion, please?

Because it echoed exactly what I was thinking about media bias.  

[Bazle]

18 minutes ago, john luke said:

Because it echoed exactly what I was thinking about media bias.  

And what media do you have in mind?

The media bias I see is totally in the opposite direction. I believe the only major media outlet to have reported the Cleveland study is the WSJ.

[forcebwithu]

19 minutes ago, Bazle said:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf

The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. 

 

However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (>45% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risktaking behavior. 

 

Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses. This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. A large study found that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving three doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving two doses of vaccine [21]. Another study found that receipt of two or three doses of a mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose [7]. 

Yes the authors of the study noted an anomaly in the data, and the authors of the other two studies cited noted a similar type of anomaly. But none of the studies explored the anomaly as it was outside the scope of their own studies.

What was noted is interesting and worthy of a study to look at that specific aspect, but one can not draw a conclusion as the TrialSite author did based solely on data anomalies.

[lazarus]

2 hours ago, Bazle said:

So you think that anything that queries the vaccines is pseudo-science. I regard that as not only narrow-minded but dangerous.

No, I think one should always consider the source of information prior to accepting it as even potentially valid.

I think the same about "mediabiasfactcheck.com" -- as it is not considered totally objective.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check 

Edited January 5, 2023 by lazarus

[Bazle]

3 hours ago, lazarus said:

No, I think one should always consider the source of information prior to accepting it as even potentially valid.

This is where we disagree.

If you were sat at home and some guy you really disliked came knocking on your window to say your house was on fire, by your reasoning. you would ignore him, without even checking that he might be right.

[lazarus]

18 minutes ago, Bazle said:

This is where we disagree.

If you were sat at home and some guy you really disliked came knocking on your window to say your house was on fire, by your reasoning. you would ignore him, without even checking that he might be right.

Is he from "www.trialsitenews.com" ..?

[Nightcrawler]

I see nothing wrong with any individual conducting research via the Media as to whether they should recieve a particular or general Covid vaccine/booster. Then it's a personal choice based on whatever evidence there is available and whether you consider it to be valid. 

Personally speaking , it's too late, either way. I have already recieved my fourth jab in October 2022  

Whether I believe it was worth it or not, or whether there were risks associated with it, makes no difference. There are not any other options. 

Whatever I believe, I would not wish to influence anyone else as to watch choice they make because I might be wrong  

That said, it is difficult to argue, that vaccines have not saved millions of lived worldwide. Of course I am.also aware, like with most vaccines generally, that there can be side effects in a small percentage of recipients. However, with a Pandemic such as Covid, research and development had to be carried out overall shorter period.

As far as I am aware, it has never been the case that Covid vaccination stops you contracting the virus, rather than it helps the body fight against the symptoms.

At the end if the day, we can blame Big Pharma for profits,government contracts etc or thank them for the vaccines which could only be manufactured by large scale companies in the speed and quantities needed. 

 No doubt when or if we are finally over Covid and its mutations, that there will be more research and of course major enquiries, reports and recommendations but in my opinion, it is still too early. 

However, the key is measurement, and thus far only a relatively small samples of people are being used by researchers such as the report shown here recently. 

To my knowledge, I have not experienced any side effects from the 4 doses of Covid vaccine that I have recieved, from either Astra Zenica or Pfizer. Therefore, although vaccination may not be entirely bullet proof, it is better than what we had before, which was nothing. 

Perhaps if during the Spanish Flu pandemic at the end of WW1, there had been a vaccine or treatment available,the number of deaths and serious illness may have been greatly reduced. 

We are, where we are. Sorry for my rambling post and don't expect everyone to read it.

My biggest concern is whether China are going to f*ck us all over again with Covid.