To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that is the question
In my past life, I dealt with cosmetic product testing volunteers. Those volunteers had to be informed in advance in writing about what the trial entailed and what the risks were. The volunteers also had to sign a statement that they were informed of those risks and that they agreed. This is called an “informed consent”.
In practice, this often involved an ointment that was applied to the skin and the risks were therefore often negligible, yet such informed consent was always necessary (prescribed by law). Excellent, of course, because the volunteers need to know where they stand. In addition, the volunteers were compensated for the time they spent on the test plus a little extra depending on the level of the risks. But now in Thailand (and the rest of the world) with vaccines approved only for emergencies? That poison (because that's what it is) is actually injected into your body. Is there good information? If there is any information at all, it is a colored information: “safe!” which is absolutely not true, or “the advantages outweigh the disadvantages” which is also false for large groups of people (apart from the unknown long-term effects). And a signed “informed consent”? No, that only ends the matter and, moreover, many people might change their mind and then the ideal set by the WHO of at least 70% vaccinations might not be achieved.
Am I implying that no one should be vaccinated against COVID? No, it just has to be a well-considered choice and I may be able to help a bit with that. Of course I will not give advice on whether or not to do it because I am not a doctor and moreover it is different for each person.
For starters, a COVID vaccine is not a flu vaccine; the side effects are much more common and also more serious. And that claim is not based on what is just said (there is also a lot of nonsense on the internet of course) but on solid research.
Now to weigh the pros against the cons:
This table shows that the disadvantages of a COVID vaccination outweigh the advantages for people in their twenties. The reverse is true for “everyone” over the age of 30. However, the study was limited to the Astra-Zeneca vaccine (the risks of other vaccines will not be significantly different) and for that vaccine only the risks with blood clots were included in the figures. All other risks are assumed to be negligible and the long-term risks are not included as they are still unknown. Another correction should be that the “potential benefits”, i.e. the benefits (=lower risk of COVID) are exaggerated because as is known, just about everyone who dies with COVID is assumed to have died from COVID, sometimes in the absurd (road fatalities). If we take this biased view into account, the turning point will not be at 30, but close to 40: vaccination only makes sense for people over 40.
The data in the table apply if there is "low exposure risk" which is defined as "coronavirus incidence of 2 per 10,000". In a population of 70 million such as in Thailand, that is 14.000 infected per day. Even now at the current peak (around 9.000) in Thailand, we are not yet there and it is possible that the number will decrease rapidly in the coming weeks and will never come close to 9.000 again. Finally, in a time without vaccines, the Spanish flu had more or less died out after more than a year. Of course, that remains to be seen whether we should rely on the models of experts, who unfortunately have never produced reliable predictions. Because we still have less than “low exposure risk” in Thailand, the tipping point will probably be a bit higher. Say for ′′ everyone ′′ above 45 years old, a vaccination makes sense and below that not. No, not "everyone" because the table assumes an average person who of course does not exist. So some under 45 do benefit from an injection, while there are of course also old people who can do without it.
Your risk is determined by three factors: whether you have built up immunity (by vaccination or by exposure to the virus), how many viruses you come into contact with and what your natural/innate resistance is like.
If you come into contact with few viruses, you will not get sick and will not show any symptoms. If there are many, you can of course become seriously ill. But what is much and what is little? That depends on your resistance and possible immunity. In order to be able to make a good assessment, everyone should ask themselves how likely it is that they will come into contact with many viruses and also how good their resistance is.
You can largely control the amount of viruses you ingest. You ingest a lot during prolonged and intensive contact with a carrier of the virus. And then of course it also matters how many viruses that person is spreading around. As long as he/she keeps his/her mouth shut, the risk of large amounts of viruses is very small. With talking a little more, with talking loudly (“lalling” for example) even more and with singing, shouting, cheering and panting (dancing, sports, sex) more. And of course it matters whether you and the virus carrier use a face mask because face masks stop a lot as long as the saliva droplets are large and sticky. But at a distance of a few meters, the large drops have already fallen to the ground and the others have become even smaller due to dehydration and also less sticky. Face masks no longer help. Examples of intensive and often long-term contacts are in the domestic circle (no face mask), when nursing a sick person, when visiting prostitutes (no doubt no face mask) and meetings with drunkards (no face mask either) where such a drinking party also there is a risk of drinking from each other's glasses. In short, in situations where face masks would work, they are not used.
Another possibility of ingesting many viruses is a prolonged stay in a (sometimes poorly ventilated) room containing one or more virus carriers. Examples are prisons, hospitals, illegal casinos, dance halls, indoor sports facilities and dormitories and workshops, especially for foreign employees. In such a situation, the risk is strongly determined by the number of virus carriers in your area, so the risk is obviously much greater in Bangkok than in Isaan.
As long as the above risks do not apply to you, the risk is very small. Because on the street, in a shop and also in a restaurant (if not too busy and reasonably ventilated) the risk is very small. In the open air during the day there is an additional advantage because the high UV intensity in Thailand inactivates viruses within a few minutes.
The other important factor is your natural resistance. Everyone knows how his resistance is doing, because the number of flu infections and colds that have occurred in the past are a reasonable indication. A healthy life with sufficient vitamin D (sunlight) for the resistance and, for example, a daily zinc tablet naturally also contribute to this. However, some diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure increase the risk and another risk factor is obesity. A study of 7 million Britons found that someone with a BMI (Body Mass Index) of 23 has the lowest chance of being hospitalized with COVID. After that, the risk increases exponentially (see https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(21)00089-9/fulltext):
- Someone with a BMI of 28 has a 20% greater chance
- Someone with a BMI of 33 has a 50% greater chance
- Someone with a BMI of 38 has a 100% greater chance
- Someone with a BMI of 43 has a 180% greater chance.
It is very likely that the effect of being overweight is actually even greater because BMI is not a good indicator of being overweight. For admission to Intensive Care, the increase is even stronger (see the article).
With the above data, it is now possible to estimate whether you run a greater or a smaller risk than your peers. This can help you decide whether or not it makes sense to get vaccinated.
Until now, the long-term risks have not been included in the decision whether or not to vaccinate. If you decide to get vaccinated based on the above, it is still good to ask yourself whether the benefits of vaccination justify the long-term risks. After all, the vaccines are only approved for emergency situations. Do you have an emergency situation? And then it is useful to look at the actual risk with COVID. For example, in Thailand, after a year and a half of the pandemic, there are more than 2000 COVID deaths. Another 2000 may be added, of which a rough estimate is 1600 over the age of 65. Thailand currently has 8 million people over the age of 65, so of those 8 million, 1600 could still succumb to COVID. That amounts to 0.2 promille. The chance of serious complications for people over 65 will of course be somewhat higher than that 0.2 promille. For the average person over 65, however, there does not really seem to be an emergency situation. Of course, other considerations can also be made. For example, my elderly sister in the Netherlands finally dares to shop again because she has been vaccinated: she has her freedom back. And potential travelers will also often opt for a vaccination. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves, of course.
Of course there are also people who take a vaccine to contribute to herd immunity. You also contribute to this by living a healthy life (eg losing weight) and taking few risks. Moreover, there is already herd immunity in large parts of Thailand because R (the reproduction factor) is less than 1 there and then there is by definition herd immunity. Here in Ubon, for example, there has been herd immunity for a long time and that is because people often live outdoors, are overflowing with vitamin D, live in maximally ventilated houses, have been exposed to viruses from livestock all their lives, are on average less fat than people in Bangkok and also have little trouble with air pollution. Here are flu and common cold unknown symptoms.
Of course there is also COVID in Ubon, often imported from Bangkok, but those cases often do not lead to large numbers of people infected: it dies out on its own. Of course, a local hearth can also arise here (there are also houses of pleasure here), but fortunately we can rule out a large-scale COVID explosion here. Yet they also want to vaccinate 70% of the people in Ubon with a vaccine only approved for emergency situations, while vaccinating some high-risk cases should be more than enough. Only when the 70% has been reached are foreign tourists allowed to enter Ubon again…
As unvaccinated we must also have a thick skin because it is suggested that we are sources of new variants. So there is an attempt to make us feel guilty. However, renowned experts such as virologist Geert Vanden Bossche claim the opposite: because vaccinated people selectively attack the original virus, they give new variants a chance.
How could it have come to the point that people worldwide are being urged to get vaccinated, regardless of whether it makes sense. The pharmaceutical industry is most likely behind this. They have invested heavily in the development of vaccines and want to recoup those investments and on top of that earn gold money for the bonuses of the top. And there is quite something to be said for the fact that they want to recoup those investments, but not at the expense of the world's population of course.
In order to make those profits, the competitors had to be eliminated. A competitor such as Ivermectin, for example, had to believe it because a course of Ivermectin only costs 50 euro cents and you only have to treat the people who have become ill due to a COVID infection. So roughly 1% of the world's population. With the vaccines they want to vaccinate 70% of the world's population 2-3 times a year at a much, much higher price. Checkout. And how did they achieve that? By first putting the WHO on their side and that was no problem at all. The WHO is heavily dependent on the pharmaceutical industry. In the first place because that industry has the expertise. For example, I had a colleague who was an expert in a certain field and he was also often asked to give courses and those courses were mainly civil servants. And even after the course they came to ask him for advice now and then. Those same officials also had to draw up laws and carry out checks at our company… Something similar is undoubtedly also the case at the WHO.
The WHO also depends on the pharmaceutical industry for providing subsidies and for developing medicines and vaccines. And they are sensitive to the argument that that industry has to earn back the investments. And to top it off, the WHO has also turned out to be a very corrupt organization, which needs no explanation.
It took a long time for the WHO to understand the seriousness of the pandemic (it was only months later that it was declared a pandemic and closing borders was out of the question) when the first vaccines came into view, the WHO turned around like a leaf on the tree: 70% of the world's population had to be vaccinated and that had to be achieved by instilling fear in the population. The lockdowns also came in very handy because without 70% there would be no end to the need for a lockdown (so that is probably the real background of the lockdowns because there are more intelligent ways to master the pandemic than a total lockdown , lockdowns that also make people fatter and less healthy).
Once the WHO was up and running, it was a small trick to get the medical experts on board, helped here and there with some brown envelopes. And those experts advise the governments that nowhere in the world seem to use common sense. Even liars like Fauci still advise the US government. A man with kilos of butter on his head. Wonderful.
For those who still have great faith in big industry and government agencies, two recent examples:
Two Boeing 737-Max have fallen from the sky. Why? At the top of the company there are no longer technicians who love the company, but managers who only seem to have an eye for their bonus. And the American regulator that declared the planes airworthy? He turned a blind eye.
A month ago, the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) approved a Biogen drug for Alzheimer's despite all members of its advisory committee voting against it. Some members of that committee have therefore resigned and yesterday it was announced that an investigation will be carried out into how the drug could still be approved. To lift a corner of the veil: the drug must yield 56 thousand dollars per year per patient….
Am I implying that we can no longer trust anything and anyone? No, but if a lot of money is involved, you have to be careful!
The main reason in the Netherlands to get vaccinated against Covid-19 is to prevent overloading of healthcare and hospitals. So because the Dutch government has cut back on healthcare for years, everyone (and even children) should be vaccinated with an experimental vaccine that is only approved for emergencies. Doesn't that at least raise questions?
Also read this book: https://www.bol.com/be/nl/p/dodelijke-medicijnen-en-georganiseerde-misdaad/9200000046075523/
Medications are the second leading cause of death after cancer and cardiovascular disease. That should prompt a national health alert and a parliamentary inquiry into the government's handing over citizens' health to the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, ministry officials are "putting their feet up" with industry representatives. Ministers sign contracts in which they promise to keep the agreements on the prices of new medicines secret. The Danish doctor and researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who himself worked for many years in the pharmaceutical industry, shows that this industry fools not only patients, but also doctors with fraudulent practices. “It takes a lot of courage to become a whistleblower,” says Gøtzsche.
With a foreword by Bert Keizer
Peter Gøtzsche's book has been awarded the British Medical Association's Book Award. Bert Keizer has written the foreword to the Dutch translation. He says: 'No one has presented the problem of Big Pharma so irrefutably, systematically and ruthlessly as the Danish professor Peter Gøtzsche. The pharmaceutical industry is guilty of criminal practices on a systematic scale. The big pharmaceutical companies obscure research results, conceal side effects, bribe doctors, infiltrate continuing education, corrupt patient organizations, place false advertisements and deceive magazine editors through ghostwriters. They make billions with their dubious pills by lying about the costs of development and production.'
Thanks Peter, this is at least a solid foundation for my not optimally substantiated suspicion of the role of the pharmaceutical industry in this whole history.
And then we dare to say that Thailand is corrupt! What is remarkable to me is that we as Dutch say and believe that Thailand is corrupt, but the 'dealings' of the pharmaceutical industry. who are a bit worse in terms of corruption, are accepted.
Quote:
'The big pharmaceutical companies obscure research results, conceal side effects, bribe doctors, infiltrate continuing education, corrupt patient organizations, place false advertisements and deceive magazine editors through ghostwriters. They make billions with their dubious pills by lying about the costs of development and production.'
I think this is largely true. But I have a few comments. Ultimately, it's the doctors who prescribe the pills, they should know better. In addition, there are quite good pharmaceutical companies that make good medicines and are honest about it.
I don't believe drug side effects are the third leading cause of death. I can't find that anywhere in the literature.
The main reason is that the population is being blackmailed into taking the vaccine.
Professional drivers appear to be immune, as do construction workers and cashiers.
It's 1 big lie to create total controll via the corona app
First push through the QA status for the so-called virus and then suddenly explode the so-called infections to get them right, I say goodbye to that NWO
This is now a "straightforward" article.
Of course, this is an orchestrated scare tactic starring the pharmaceutical industry. Even a blind person can see this. You don't have to be a scientist for that.
I'm definitely not jumping for getting my shot. The rubbish they administer in Thailand appears to be only 60% effective - even the people working in the medical sector are now demanding that they can get a different brand of vaccine.
What absolutely disgusts me is that if you choose not to be vaccinated, you will be restricted from all sides. The vaccination passport is a good example of this.
The fear of the Corona virus in Thailand is great, but the fear of the vaccine that the government administers here is also great. There is a lot of anxiety among the population, so much so that many don't even want an injection anymore.
I would also say, live a healthy life, do some sport, limit alcohol consumption and … indeed, all those dirty medicines that are prescribed here on the assembly line sometimes do more harm than good! Thanks to the money hunger of the pharmaceutical industry.
Fairly good story, would be nice if you also put the following next to it in which everything is explained well in a humorous way, so easy to read.
https://www.janbhommel.com/post/de-dolgedraaide-vaccinatiestaat
the IFR, the infection fatality rate, so the chance that you will die if you are infected with corona. See the link.
Another point is: What is the effectiveness of the different vaccinations? These are not as high as suggested, partly because the studies have been limited (After all, we are still in an experimental phase.) Partly also due to interpretation, reasoning towards an objective.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554
conclusions
All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.
Which is also so incomprehensible to me that there are long queues in Bangkok of I think healthy people who get tested. It is not necessary, but most of them here on Thailandblog do not know that the WHO changed its rules for asymptomatic people on June 25; Here's the text:
Widespread screening of asymptomatic individuals is not currently recommended strategy due to the significant costs associated with it and the lack of data on its operational effectiveness.
Quote: If you come into contact with few viruses, you will not get sick and will not show any symptoms.
Of course, coming into contact with a lot or little virus depends on how many people get vaccinated.
If you are in a room with three infected people, the chance of becoming very ill, or even dying, is greater than if you are in a room with a single infected person.
You don't just vaccinate for yourself, but especially for others.
You suggest that when you are vaccinated you cannot get a virus, cannot be a carrier and cannot get sick. That is NOT true.
Prof. Dr. Jan Grandjean heart surgeon thinks differently. You really vaccinate for yourself. People who say I also do it for others do not understand anything about vaccinations (Watch BLCKBX). Same for masks: he says I don't wear a mask to protect the patient but to avoid getting blood splattered in my face!!! It is no longer about the virus but about control.
Then the latest report from the Public Health authority in the UK (July 9): The delta variant is at least 10x less dangerous than the previous variants. It is more harmless than any flu. Report with statistics not made up but real data from Public health.
Viruses are getting weaker (predicted in the laws of evolution, Charles Darwin)
You do it for someone else?
Like you, even though men also take the pill so that women don't get pregnant?
Incidentally, it is now known, I hope, that vaccinated people can also infect others and, despite their vaccination, can still get bemset.
The vaccine protects. No, it does not protect, you can infect and become infected, but if you are vaccinated, the consequences of infection are less serious. Yes of course.
Just get a booster shot every year because….
Hans,
Quote:
'Finally, in a time without vaccines, the Spanish flu had more or less died out after more than a year.'
No. There were 4 waves of Spanish flu, the later ones being more deadly. This pandemic lasted from February 1918 to April 1920, over two years. Then there were also face masks and lockdowns and the same discussions as now.
I am now writing an article in which a comparison is also made between the results of whether or not lockdowns are in American cities. Lockdowns turned out to be beneficial for the number of sick and dead, but also, surprisingly, for the economy.
“During the time of the Spanish Flu, there were also lockdowns and face masks.”
That's right, what nonsense is being sold here again. Fortunately, there was no internet and social media back then to scare the people.
The comparison with the Spanish flu is also not well chosen. It is better to compare it with the Hong Kong flu of 1968 and the A flu of 1957.
At that time, however, much less was registered and also only sick people and not the number of positives in a test that is completely unsuitable for this, because it does not show a virus, but only parts of a virus, or something else.
i prefer reliable info.
https://www.lareb.nl/pages/update-van-bijwerkingen
This is only reliable if cerebral haemorrhages, death, etc. are actually passed on to Lareb, by the general practitioner or other physicians. That is not the case now, several stories of people's experiences can be read and listened to outside the MSM. The explanation why it is not passed on to Lareb is that it cannot be due to the vaccination. While people have been vaccinated 1 or 2 weeks before. Reliable information is hard to find these days.
Reliable information is hard to find these days.
That certainly applies to Facebook where all non-medical people express their opinion.
If I had a vaccine against measles 2 weeks ago and today I have a headache, is it the vaccine or maybe it's because of yesterday's 10 beers or my wife's nagging.
There must be a causal connection and that also applies to the experiential stories.
Now I have little problem with incorrect or questionable information, except when it costs lives and paralyzes the economy.
There are now 17 million vaccines in the Netherlands.
The 17000 unvaccinated dead by covid seem to have been forgotten
No, the vaccine will kill you or at least side effects after a number of years.
Put all your own righteousness aside and look at the real numbers; This shows that without vaccinations there are/were more and more hospital admissions and deaths. Now that there has been/is being vaccinated en masse in the Netherlands, admissions are disappearing like snow in the sun and deaths are disappearing as well. And as another writer noted a few days ago, we are finally allowed to return to our normal lives without restrictions after 15 months. Or do they want to muddle through for another ten years? Because without vaccinations the end would be lost, as far as illnesses, deaths, the economy and more are concerned.
Indeed,
quite right.
Also the text in the article
(But now in Thailand (and the rest of the world) with vaccines approved only for emergency situations) as other claims are not true.
see fact check: https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/6123842/nucheckt-goedgekeurde-coronavaccins-zitten-niet-tot-2023-in-de-testfase.html
Nu.nl does not seem to me to be as reliable for a fact check, nor are Facebook and Twitter. Let me take the WHO this time for information: “WHO has also listed the Pfizer/BioNTech, Astrazeneca-SK Bio, Serum Institute of India, Janssen and Moderna vaccines for emergency use”.
https://www.who.int/news/item/07-05-2021-who-lists-additional-covid-19-vaccine-for-emergency-use-and-issues-interim-policy-recommendations.
Clear language.
Hans, correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge it is the EMA that regulates the authorization of the vaccines in the EU and not the WHO. I have also not been able to find any untruths in the piece on Nu.nl, as far as I am concerned it is a solid piece of journalism.
Yes Erik2, you are of course right about EMA. But why does nu.nl not refer to what the WHO states? That is being concealed and that does not fit in a solid piece of journalism. The WHO is committed to getting as many people as possible to the vaccine. If they then state that it is only for emergencies, then that is not for nothing.
A lot of quoted words, all of which have already passed in recent times. Please get vaccinated. It has long been shown that the risk of not vaccinating is greater than vaccinating. Moreover, the only means to contain the pandemic. Of course there may occasionally be medical reasons not to do it, but vaccinating is actually a social duty for both yourself and your fellow man.
I am in favor of vaccination, is it not for myself or not to infect others, but I read that the first vaccines given are almost exhausted, in other words every year there must be a new vaccination, also because more aggressive viruses are coming. Like most, I have been vaccinated against smallpox, this is a one-off and not like this virus. I know you can't compare, but getting another shot every year (like with the flu which I don't take), I'm not waiting for that either. Pfizer is now working on a booster, which is nice, but as long as the virus is not under control, we have to have a booster injected every year, which I don't like.
Hans Pronk, your 'Do I mean to say that we can no longer trust anything and anyone? No, but when there is a lot of money involved, you have to be careful!' I take to heart.
You sort of nuance the statements of Peter (formerly Khun) and Paul who brandish the blunt ax and seem to disapprove of every pill, potion and ointment.
But what I miss in your story is how I, as an ordinary citizen, should put that 'careful' into practice. Then refuse everything and go back to Klazien uut Zalk's herbal tea?
Here, too, the truth may lie somewhere in the middle.
Unfortunately Erik, it is indeed difficult to judge what is good and what is bad. But there are of course plenty of medicines and vaccines that have proven themselves. I myself try to live a healthy life and try to avoid hospitals as much as possible.
People are free to do whatever they want. There is no vaccination obligation.
So give your (un)founded opinion.
Just like Thierry Baudet…..it's nothing more than a flu. What nonsense! Look at what has happened in the hospitals in the past year and open your eyes.
Of course, the pharmaceutical industry is not exactly poorer from this, on the contrary. But don't pretend that it's all just nonsense and vaccination is just to fill the industry's coffers.
Above all, one should use common sense and do what one thinks is right.
“Medicines are the biggest cause of death after….” A little more nuance would be in order. And if not, then blindly follow that Danish doctor because his opinion should also be read in a more nuanced way. He doesn't just have wisdom in his hand either. It's just 1 opinion.
But the sale of this book does bring in money!
All great arguments, and everyone has the choice whether or not to vaccinate, but as Ruud indicates, you do it not only for yourself but also for the vulnerable among us.
What I would like to know from the refusers, suppose you become infected and the complaints are such that you need medical help, will you still appeal to health care?
I've been through too much in the past year regarding corona, I only ask one thing from everyone, please get your information from reliable sources and not from Facebook and Wappie sites.
Dear GeertP, why do you use the term 'refusers'? I suspect that there are many doubters among those who have not (yet) been vaccinated, but to qualify all these people as refusers I do not find it shows respect for the fellow man who weighs and weighs and does not immediately succumb to political pressure, even blackmail that is exercised by politicians and MSM. At the moment, it appears that vaccinated people still infect others. A vaccination is therefore only taken for oneself and not to protect others. I have my information from scientific sources mainly from USA, Germany, Austria and UK. I also fully agree with you that it is difficult to distinguish between objective information and politically or commercially fueled information. If a site also lists its sources (studies/reports), you can verify that yourself. I'm leaning towards not vaccinating at the moment. If I get complaints, medical costs are for my own account anyway, I will initially ask the doctor for treatment with medicines, which are already widely available and have already amply proven their usefulness. I wish everyone who has not yet decided a lot of wisdom.
I wouldn't call myself a refusal, that's too principled. I have come to the conclusion that the disadvantages for me most likely outweigh the advantages. If I do get sick with COVID, I have ivermectin ready in the medicine cabinet. And if that doesn't help, I will indeed look for a hospital. By the way, calling on health care is of course not only related to whether or not you get COVID. People who live a healthy life and are not too fat make much less use of health care on average. That is much more effective than a COVID vaccination. I won't let myself be made to feel guilty, that's nonsensical.
It's a nice article, but there are worse things that humanity just allows to happen. Earning money has gained the upper hand in how a life is arranged and society pays a price for it left or right. The worst part is that many after us have the deluge mentality but have the luxury to continue their lives undisturbed. Afraid of an injection … don't make me laugh. Did they know better 60 years ago with the youth vaccinations and think about softenon?
Tomorrow we will just pick up our sleeping pills and blood pressure lowers as usual…. Clowns we are together.
Thank you for this informative article, the 1st in this field. The choice of whether or not to vaccinate should be based on whether there is a sufficient chance of preventing a disease. The more information I gathered, the more I doubted these studies, because that's what they are. Why people all over the world are not better informed is beyond me. In any case, fear is a bad counselor.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/24/zorguitgaven-stegen-in-2019-met-5-2-procent
costs only increase growth has only slowed down peter khum
I would like the facts
Lareb also participates in the game.
“Due to the holiday period, the next update will be on August 3, 2021.”
I think that unvaccinated people will think twice if the sick and dead populate the streets, such as in India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc. They probably do not know Covid patients up close.
The fact that the number of infections rose so spectacularly in the Netherlands shortly after the rules were relaxed indicates that a lot of suffering can be prevented with simple measures.
An average pandemic lasts 4-5 years, I heard someone say in a radio program last year. I don't think that will be much different with Covid. Ultimately it stops when everyone has come into contact with it. Those vaccinated are less likely to become (seriously) ill. But of course it is not excluded.
Good article Hans.
What I would like to add is that the whole 'pandemic' is based on the PCR test.
Now this test actually turns out to be pretty useless for detecting infections.
A very clear link about this from November last year, in which, among other things. Marion Koopmans also has her say. https://www.blckbx.tv/videos/breaking-pcr-test-van-de-baan?rq=pcr
So if you want to put it bluntly, you can consider the entire pandemic (whether real or not) as a big circus.
All 'figures' about infections are therefore seen in a slightly different light.
Didn't people die?
Yes, and every victim was one too many.
However, many patients have died WITH covid (according to the test), but not necessarily BY covid.
As a result, the so-called 'excess mortality figures' also take on a completely different meaning.
Is there nothing wrong then?
The coronavirus is indeed real.
But we have encountered many coronaviruses in the past and survived without significant problems, but never has there been such a hype created as it is now. And now that vaccination is also being pushed like never before.
Is there perhaps another agenda at play here? Who knows. But that is fodder for another discussion.
I therefore advise everyone, if you want to get vaccinated, go for it.
But first think about it carefully, inform yourself and weigh the pros and cons.
And let each decide for himself.
Then all that remains for me is to wish everyone, vaccinated or not, a long and happy life…
Frenchie
Dear Hans Pronk,
If I understand your story correctly, there is nothing to worry about, it's nice that someone is finally trying to reassure me.
That you state that it all has to do with a corrupt pharmaceutical industry reassures me completely.
At least I now know that all those governments have put hundreds of billions in the brown envelopes to curtail our freedoms.
I understand that you live in Thailand, a country that always has everything under control, a country free of corruption, a country where the government does everything to make it as bearable as possible for its inhabitants, and a country that uses responsible medicine very highly. is of paramount importance, and does not receive antibiotics for every runny nose.
Thanks for your contribution and dream on!!!
regards Rob
No dear Rob, you have misunderstood the story.
Big Pharma goes for profit maximization and “no liability” and some (Pfizer) go for an experiment.
Inge
Dear Hans,
You put the Thailandblog reader on the wrong foot with your information by only showing the picture of “low risk” and letting go of your calculations. You correctly report that it was about the risk of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (lack of platelets) in relation to vaccination with AstraZenica (Adinovirus) vaccine. The mRNA vaccines also have side effects in inflammation of heart muscles and their packaging. You equate it with AstraZenica while the risks differ. What is good in Thailand is the correct vaccination technique to prevent a blood vessel being punctured. The danger of intravenous injection with Adinovirus vaccines was already warned about the risk of testing on mice around 2000.
The overview, including other risk groups, is as follows.
Age group risk of serious side effect of ICU admission per risk group Per 10^5
Per 10^5 Low medium high
20-29 1.1 0.8 2.2 6.9
30-39 0.8 2.7 8.0 24.9
40-49 0.5 5.7 16.7 51.5
50-59 0.2 10.5 31 95.6
60-69 0.2 14.1 41.3 127.7
70 and older: data omitted approx. 30 approx. 80 approx. 250
Risk of Corona per 10.000 in UK February 2 6 20
Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/976877/CovidStats_07-04-21-final.pdf
At the end of February, there were 0.08 daily new Corona cases per inhabitant in the UK. On July 10, that rose to 445 per million inhabitants. Another factor is that in the UK the vaccination rate for 18+ is about 80%. Such an exponential development certainly occurs in Thailand given the low vaccination rate and the more contagious Delta variant. Thailand is currently at 1.4 cases per 10.000 or 0.014 per million. The estimate of 14.000 infections per day may be nicely calculated with your assumption, but the practice is much more unruly. A good prognosis is not possible without an exponential model that takes into account the correct R factor. But what we do know is that a large unvaccinated potential is ideal for a rapid rise in infections.
Sorry for the formatting in the table. It is mixed up by the app. The link refers to the presentation of the UK government in which the picture shown in the article appears.
In February 2020, there were 0.08 Covid cases per day per million inhabitants in the UK. At the end of February 2021 it was 129 and on 10 July 445 per day per million inhabitants. My apologies for the mistake.
Yes Rembrandt, it is of course true that vaccination reduces the number of infections. But in Thailand you have fireplaces where R is undoubtedly much larger than 1 and there are of course reasons for this. Vaccinating there is of course useful and that is already happening (although probably too slowly). But vaccinating someone who runs little risk and who will not quickly infect someone else if accidentally infected themselves, that makes little sense. A foreign worker in Thailand who is in a dormitory with many others cannot limit his risk much. But a retired farang, he can reduce his risk almost to zero. But if you are going to have pub crawls with old and often stout buddies, then it is indeed better to get vaccinated. For yourself and for your buddies.
Could you perhaps tell us a little more about the risk of intravenous injections? Does something like this happen often? Is that also (partly) the cause of the side effects? And is it conceivable that when testing the vaccines that risk was smaller than it is now in practice, where injections are sometimes made by people without much training?
Dear Hans,
Research on intravenous injection in monkeys was conducted in 2003. It shows a very strong link between blood clotting and platelet reduction with intravenous injection: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04719.x
The injection site for intramuscular vaccine injection is the Deltoid muscle at the top of the arm. In Europe (with the exception of Denmark) and the USA, you insert the needle and print. If the plunger were to be pulled back, it would be possible to check whether a blood vessel has been hit. But because that is not done, there is also little insight into it. That chance is extremely small, but that also applies to this thrombocytopenia complicate. There is a blood vessel at the back of the muscle, but I am not a doctor and I rely on reading literature and medical programs. A favorite source is Dr. John Campbell with daily YouTube videos about the Covid situation. https://youtu.be/md8pJFbMVnk
Finally, I would like to note that making statements about a peak in an epidemic in Thailand based on one point on a contagion line in England produces an opinion with little foundation. After all, an epidemiological model looks at the current number of infections, at the probability of infection (R value) and at the population to be infected (which decreases due to vaccination and resistance due to previous infection). A forecast based on one point in time and other circumstances yields very little in my opinion.
What a biased article this is. Rarely seen so much non-professional nonsense and unfounded conclusions.
Ultimately, only a globally sufficient level of vaccination will be able to contain the pandemic.
And that will certainly work with Pfizer and Moderna. AstraZenica and Jansen are less effective. The Chinese vaccines are probably even insufficiently effective.
Calling vaccines poison is pure demagoguery.
There are no long-term effects with vaccines, other than good protection. Possible adverse side effects occur shortly after vaccination. These are now sufficiently known and a responsible vaccination policy also anticipates them.
Dear Raymond,
Your comment “there are no long-term effects with vaccines” is also tendentious in my humble opinion.!!
Can you back up your comment with evidence?
I am still on the side of not taking a vaccination.
The above reactions from everyone also make it increasingly difficult to make a conscious, well-considered decision in this regard… one says you should take it while the other advises against it.
You can't see the wood for the trees…I find it very difficult to make a good decision.
Everyone good luck and strength with his or her choice.
Dear Jan
My remark is not tendentious, at most somewhat oversimplified because I formulate it rather absolutely. After all, (almost) nothing is absolute. Flying is safe, but the plane you're on can still crash. Driving is safe, yet people die every day behind the wheel. Vaccines approved in the Netherlands fall into the same category of safety.
For a substantiation of the correctness of my statement, see, among other things, the article entitled "Should we watch out for the long-term effects of corona vaccines?" van Keulemans in the science section of de Volkskrant of 28 June 2021.
And if you don't want to get vaccinated for yourself, do it for your fellow man. And of course especially to contain the pandemic so that we can finally get rid of all restrictions!
People used to study medicine, now they study medicine.
This says a lot, if not everything.
And the name “studying medicine” really didn't come out of the blue by accident, in other words for those who still haven't figured it out, during the study it's certainly not always about getting you healthy again. Many people will feel surprised by this statement. I myself underwent the same experience, but it made me think more and more critically.
Many general practitioners also practice using protocols (apps in a computer), checking or unchecking certain health expressions to determine which disease you have. The general practitioner himself has relatively little knowledge of medicine to determine this for himself. That is why there are often cases where the GP (or the app) does not know. The fact is that the disease is not included in the app and the doctor has insufficient knowledge to determine this himself.
The vast majority of time while studying medicine is therefore taken up with the “study of medicine”, because this is subsidized by Pharma.
And this in itself does not have to be bad at all, provided that it is mainly aimed at making the patient healthy. Unfortunately, the development of medicines is mainly aimed at treating symptoms. You will then remain dependent on this “medicine” for the rest of your life. “Follow the Money” is a good tool and starting point to solve many whys.
Practically all practicing physicians will of course deny or at least downplay the foregoing, as I personally would probably do too. And to be clear, I am not a doctor, I have not studied to be one, I come from a completely different industry, I have been retired for many years, but by coincidence I have some retired doctors in my circle of friends who sometimes share their ideas. give free rein.
In terms of study, these doctors have a Western background and have completed a typical Western medical-medical study. This statement does not necessarily apply in non-Western countries. One of the reasons is of course that the non-Western market is not very interesting financially.
It is not my intention to portray people in healthcare in a bad light. People will probably start their studies with many ideals. However, the current system forces students to follow a path from which a return is unlikely.
Nor is it intended to keep you away from Western medicine. But be critical and especially with medicines and google until you know where you start.
Being able to continue to give a critical look is a great thing, so bravo to the writer.
Because whoever dares to stick his head above the mowing field these days…
Since day 1 I have been of the opinion that something is not right with this virus and the approach. This is not a natural virus. Impossible. Or they tell us things.
And on the basis of what knowledge and skills do you believe that this is impossible?
That 'renowned' virologist Vanden Bossche's claims are considered quite doubtful (his claims are only theoretical !! he has not done any research). https://medika.life/fact-checking-geert-vanden-bossche-cashing-in-on-covid-misinformation/
For the time being, one thing is very clear: vaccination protects against serious illness and death:
those states in the USA with the lowest vaccination coverage currently have the most deaths (sorry for the long link, but otherwise you won't get directly to the NY Times article):
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?abVariantId=1&campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20210707&instance_id=34704&nl=the-morning&productCode=NN®i_id=3433434&segment_id=62758&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2F57cf981f-22c5-5f45-8c8f-ee56d74bdfbb&user_id=98d47023a853d9b1723d60730fc6d133
And Norwegian research has shown that half of the younger women (otherwise healthy!) who have become ill due to Corona STILL have complaints after 6 months or more!!!
https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/juist-gezonde-jonge-vrouwen-kampen-met-long-covid-klachten-laat-je-vaccineren-ook-als-je-jong-bent/
There has never been as much fake news as there has been about the vaccinations. I have a simple answer with vaccination far fewer deaths than without vaccination. Those who are against vaccination have probably not yet lost family members and friends to infection. And comparing it with the Spanish flu also makes no sense, approximately 19 million deaths in Europe at that time. Rather compare with Brazil and India now talking about death numbers and think
You also have to stay sober with the number of deaths in certain countries. Whether there are 10.000 deaths in India and “only” 1000 in Thailand, that is much less than Thailand in percentage terms. Only sounds a lot more and sells better. Both is, of course, terrible.
“People (now) are suffering more from poverty than from getting infected”, said a beautiful, intelligent Thai lady no less than 24 hours ago in Phuket. I think, I am even convinced that this lady speaks or spoke the truth and a large part of the Thai population shares her opinion (unlike those 1700 at random a few weeks ago).
To be clear, I sincerely hope that with her statement “infected” she meant “after vaccination” and not just “infected” (meaning without vaccination) because this would be a heartbreaking cry for help.
Has people been naive in Thailand? Is or was the “wait and see” strategy wrong? Who can say and who am I to judge about this … it is now becoming apparent that “plan B” was not provided or was not provided or was insufficiently supported / taken into account. Now people are checking the facts a bit, only now are they seeing the seriousness of the situation, only now are really unpopular / negative economic measures being taken… Hopefully Thailand will be able to vaccinate everyone as soon as possible so that the country can go back to the way it was before” prosperity” and if someone is “infected” … then this, like a “classic cold”, is transient, so no hospitalization nor serious illness complications … as is the case with us now with those who have been vaccinated (at least in 98% of cases)..
perhaps something for those (not medically savvy) who are in doubt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8ZBfTwP5g
This video is not to be taken seriously!
Falsehoods (the protein produced by the body is synthetic!), half-truths (he fails to mention lung covid in young people), comparing apples and oranges (is outraged that vitamins should not be claimed as a cure for covid and as a bouncer to support dubious scientists name, such as:
Yeadon, who has not worked for Pfizer since 2011 and who is head of an allergy department, has been disbanded due to lack of success! He made statements in 2020 that are not correct. For example, he claimed that the vaccine would make women infertile:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/toch-eens-checken-is-de-coronaprik-echt-niet-schadelijk-voor-de-vruchtbaarheid~bbaa9073/
Schetters, who quoted a fraudulent scientist, and is being faked here:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/youtube-hit-de-hoogleraar-die-coronavaccins-fileert-zes-uitspraken-beoordeeld~bce73b37/.
Geert Vanden Bossche, whom I have already 'unmasked' elsewhere on this page.
Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technique, totally frustrated because he didn't get recognition. But he himself DID take the Moderna vaccine (also mRNA). His statements about the dangers have so far not been proven anywhere.
Dolores Cahill, from Ireland, who also claimed all sorts of things in 2020, which also turned out to be wrong.
https://www.thejournal.ie/debunked-dolores-cahill-covid-19-video-masks-lockdown-vaccines-5315519-Jan2021/
Vernon Coleman is probably the most unbelievable in the list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Coleman
Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is an English conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist, AIDS denialist, blogger and novelist who writes on topics related to human health, politics and animal issues. Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific. He was formerly a newspaper columnist and general practitioner (GP).
Finally, research into mRNA vaccines has been going on for decades.
But multiple studies of other mRNA vaccines in humans have already taken place over the last few years.
Vaccines for rabies, Zika and influenza were tested in humans, and despite not being licensed, none of those who participated in the studies showed any long-term adverse effects (although there were some moderate cases of inflammation).
In short, antivaxers are so incredibly good at selectively selecting "evidence," usually from unreliable sources.
Thanks for the very clear and interesting video.
This proves once again that taking an MNRA vaccination in particular is very debatable..!!!
I'm not going to put my good health at risk.
This video was made by a medical expert…I value that much more than the stories on the internet.
The entire article is more of a creed than a statement of fact! And with a confession of faith you can shop selectively in all sensible and nonsensical sources. And that's what happens here. And just like with any faith, a sauce of science is served over it for credibility.
fortunately, there is also science that does not allow such a course of action.
I hope that most people will stick to that info, although it doesn't make it any easier for them to publish these kinds of articles. Too bad so many demagogues!
And do your “wise words” have more value than the article? I do not think so.
You only talk about whether or not to vaccinate, flu or covid and you lose each other.
The fact is that there has been NO pandemic in the Netherlands since May 2020.
That should make you think. What agenda is being played out here.
Here's the included proof
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sOlqEtA8nes
"Evidence" is way too strong a word here, KhunTak. Many scientists are extremely critical of the statements made by the man in question. For example, read the 'fact check' in the Science section of De Volkskrant: 'The professor who fillets coronana vaccines. Six judgments assessed.'
https://www.volkskrant.nl/tag/theo-schetters
Hans indicates in his article that the main risk factors for getting Covid and becoming (very) ill from Covid are: overweight, a weak immune system, unhealthy life, underlying diseases, living/living together with many people and/ or work. Basically the factors that make you vulnerable to many diseases (besides hereditary diseases). I could add gender to that because there seems to be an important difference between men and women in both contracting the virus and the vaccine.
I therefore do not understand why we still use the age criterion as apparently the most important criterion for contracting Covid and the possible sequelae of the disease. It seems completely irrelevant. I am quite sure that the correlation between age and Covid is explained in large part by the factors Hans mentions. In short: we are looking at the wrong side. FORGET AGE.
Two examples of it: In the past month, a baby in Thailand has died of Covid. Outrage, sadness and fear everywhere: even babies can get it and even die from it. They forget to read that this baby had a congenital heart defect.
In the Netherlands, the recent increase in the number of infections is mainly due to young people. Weak immune system? No. Underlying diseases? No. Going out again in full pubs and screaming and singing? Yes. Nothing with age but with behavior. If I still went to the disco every weekend in the Netherlands, I would also be more likely to contract it.
I might have to do it anyway because I'm overweight...(wink)
Chirs, good story, mostly agree with you. I am entitled to state pension, but I exercise every day, I am reasonably slim and I eat healthy. Don't worry, despite age. (But let me get vaccinated with preferably the Moderna vaccine, as soon as it comes here in Thailand.)
But don't forget that as a young person you can also have long-term complaints:
https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/juist-gezonde-jonge-vrouwen-kampen-met-long-covid-klachten-laat-je-vaccineren-ook-als-je-jong-bent/
In addition, the latest reports are that protein clumps have been found in the brains of test monkeys with covid, similar to what is seen in demented elderly people. Covid is not as harmless as many think.
I couldn't find that article quickly.
Well this, that the virus can cause damage in the brain:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201217154046.htm
It is already disastrous enough that NL has 17 million football coaches. Now we have 17 million virologists, quasi medical experts. Even worse is that the internet now allows you to spout the biggest nonsense without any knowledge of the matter; based on gut feelings, eternal distrust, envy, attention seeking and so on. A victim of an unforeseen side effect is already screaming bloody murder; “You see, the pharmaceutical industry makes poison and its pickpockets… Do you know, for example, how many women die every year because of the contraceptive pill? Tens. Should the pill be banned with the risk of overcrowding and unnecessary abortions? It is a matter of weighing the pros and cons.
The fact that people are getting older is, in addition to hygiene and better nutrition, partly due to medicines and vaccines. Or do we want polio back? Scrap all medicines and within 10 years we will end up in the Middle Ages… Sometimes suggestive conspiracy theorists are more deadly than the side effects of vaccines…
Even doctors and politicians agree that Big Pharma is only concerned with profit optimization for bonuses and to keep shareholders happy. They go quite far in this and the interests of the patient are not always paramount. Selling your soul and salvation to the Big Pharma does not seem wise to me. So I am happy with cross thinkers and critics. Rather 17 million critical people than 17 million apathetic gullibles. Just blindly following someone leads to a bad outcome, look at history.
I am also happy with cross-thinkers and critics, because they keep us sharp, force us to keep thinking, but we also have to look critically at that category – they are not right in advance either.
That's right. Einstein, for example, was first ridiculed and laughed at by his colleagues for his theories.
Quote:
'….Big Pharma is just profit optimizing for bonuses and to keep shareholders happy.'
A little exaggerated, Peter. I prefer to look at individual cases rather than make such a general judgment. What does Big Pharma do well and what not?
I also have the feeling that many people blindly and uncritically follow cross-thinkers, it often looks like a cult and cult event.
Dear Tino, you believe in the good sides of people, but that can sometimes be disappointing for you. I believe in the less good sides of people, for me that can only be better than expected. Already read this? https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/07/08/sjoemelen-met-wetenschap-komt-vaak-voor-in-nederland-blijkt-uit-integriteitsenquete-a4050423
We don't blindly follow "someone"!
We don't sell our soul and salvation to big Pharma: FDA and EMA are in between.
In the end, every commercial company is all about profit, that applies to both the baker on the corner and the multinational.
On the other hand, everyone is free not to buy medicines or bread.
But is that wise...
Furthermore, there are few people in the Netherlands who really know about Corona and the rest only believe something, usually what they WANT to believe.
Peter (formerly Khun):
You say, “Even doctors and politicians agree that Big Pharma is just optimizing profits for bonuses and to keep shareholders happy.”
I think “just” is an exaggeration. Their priority is to develop a good medicine/vaccine. They employ 1000 people who do research, and - with the motto "most people are good" - I assume that most researchers do their best conscientiously so that a product comes onto the market that works and not something that is true. people will die en masse. A bad product ultimately hurts their own wallets. (A lawsuit was recently filed against Allergan due to harmful substances in breast implants.)
What is of course the case is that pharmaceutical companies then use their influence (not power, as some people say) to 'market' their product (man = mainly doctor) and are not afraid to 'slide' money around. . There are also questions about whether they pay enough tax and the sometimes disastrously high prices.
You assume the good of people, fine. I'm a bit more critical: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/07/08/sjoemelen-met-wetenschap-komt-vaak-voor-in-nederland-blijkt-uit-integriteitsenquete-a4050423
Rembrandt van Duijvenbode may have touched on an important point in his response, namely that intravenous injection is a risk factor.
I can well imagine that intravenous injections were less common during the testing of the vaccines than they are now in practice. I know from experience that you can influence (manipulate) the result with the chosen test design. Possibly this was also used (or, if you like, abused) when testing the vaccines. This could have consequences for the side effects in practice (which unfortunately are not well recorded) and possibly also for the long-term effects. However, it is impossible for me to judge that and that is why I have asked Rembrandt for an explanation. However, Rembrandt has not yet responded and has not really had the time to do so; however, I'm afraid the comment option won't stay open for much longer. Who can say anything meaningful about that?
Thanks for all the responses. Many commenters disagreed with what I said, but that was to be expected. I have tried not to provoke too much and that is why I have not, for example, described the side effects and the possible long-term effects. It is not my intention to frighten people, others are already doing that. In my story I focused more on the possibilities of preventing infection. What I am against, however, is the aim to vaccinate at least 70% of people, regardless of whether that makes sense. Our Minister of Health even goes so far as to recently claim the following: “Two choices in the long term: either you get vaccinated or you get sick”. I can't understand how he could say such a thing. Really incomprehensible. Even Anutin can suck a point on that.
What I miss – in Thailand and in the Netherlands – is good information on how to prevent infection. They have not come much further than keeping a distance of one and a half meters and wearing face masks and even those advice are by no means generally valid. They apparently assume that the population can only understand such a thing. What I also miss are the alternatives such as ivermectin that are not used. The government measures are probably also open to criticism; I think that can be done much, much more intelligently (but I am not going to venture into that as an amateur).
But now more concretely: for example, does it make sense to vaccinate me? No absolutely not. I live in Ubon where there is virtually no COVID, and in the countryside with neighbors who live at least 150 meters away. I see the people I speak almost exclusively outside, and then during the day, when UV light inactivates the few viruses within a few minutes. Moreover, my BMI is optimal, I get enough zinc and vitamin D and I exercise. My chance of getting COVID is lower than that of a vaccinated person in Bangkok. And the chance of me infecting someone else is negligible.
On the other side of the spectrum is a farang who goes out every night with pub buddies. Pub buddies who are also of age, suffer from overweight and some other things. And after the pub visit, that farang then goes on a prostitute visit. That farang would of course have to get vaccinated, so as not to get sick himself and to protect his pub mates and the prostitute. But the average retired farang in Thailand has enough options to greatly reduce risk and I assume they do.
The Thai is a different story. Some live/work in hot spots and have few options to limit the risk. Then vaccination is wise and that is also done by the Thai government, but unfortunately a bit on the slow side.
I hope this has clarified some things.
You write that if the R-factor is below 1, there is by definition herd immunity.
Hopefully you know that a cow is an animal, but that an animal is not always a cow.
If there is herd immunity, the R-factor is less than 1. Conversely, that is not always true.
And there is only herd immunity if a very large part of the population has antibodies. By either having had the disease or being vaccinated. So your statement that herd immunity has existed for a long time in large parts of Thailand is really sheer nonsense.
Whether it is due to antibodies or something else, of course, does not matter. It's about whether the virus has a chance to spread. Of course you know that too.
Thanks for your information Hans.
You can add comments if you want, which I don't want, but otherwise I think you presented everything nicely and balanced. Thanks for your efforts and time.