Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Pubs and bars in Thailand opening today - Ekkamai club shows off the New Normal

Recommended Posts

Let’s take the high road and hope the re opening works for everyone.. better than locked in a box..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 5633572526 said:

How do you cause a runaway infection rate in a country that claims it has no infections??

Latest showing on worldometers says Thailand still has 56 active cases, 1 critical.

The claim relates to new domestic infections (only imported stuff).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy and safe drinking 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Enoon said:

 

No.

 

And neither are they.

 

They're Totalitarian Capitalists.

 

 

So, maybe you can decode what CCP stands for!

 

Hello, this is Houston, come in space shuttle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SuwadeeS said:

Very strange how ignorant people are.

 

I do not see anybody here who calls out, who is responsible for all this

"NEW NORMAL"

 

China and the CCP cover up the story for 3 month!!!!!

And now we have all to live with the consequences.

 

Why nobody blames the CCP???? Are you all communists?

Well apart from the Chinese themselves , and their pet nations of course , pretty much everybody knows who was at fault.

But what good would Trump style ranting do , should we start World war 3 do you think ?

The will in time be a reckoning but most of us are preoccupied with rather more pressing problems at the current time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's nice to know there are people on TV that are more authoritative than the Lancet.

And of course you are going to link the Lancet article that claims face shields (by themselves) are effective at preventing someone from inhaling infected droplets ?

Like this one ? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
(Originally published on 1 June and then again on 29 June).

"Face coverings and masks might protect both healthcare workers and the general public against infection with COVID-19, and protective eye covering may also provide additional benefit--although the certainty of the evidence is low for both forms of protection."

(They define protective eye coverings as goggles and face shields "and others". Face coverings and masks are defined as respirators, surgical masks, N95 face masks "and others".)

Note the words "might" "and" and "may". In other words, if you wear face coverings/masks AND protective eye covering, you MAY gain additional protection.

"Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields). "

There's that word "and" again ! It's almost like they are suggesting that a face shield by itself it useless, unless used in conjunction with a mask and "social distancing", which, combined, may lower the risk of being infected.

And they note that "1 meter" lowers the risk, but 2 meters is better.


So, in other words, what I posted earlier about face shields being useless stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

And of course you are going to link the Lancet article that claims face shields (by themselves) are effective at preventing someone from inhaling infected droplets ?

Like this one ? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
(Originally published on 1 June and then again on 29 June).

"Face coverings and masks might protect both healthcare workers and the general public against infection with COVID-19, and protective eye covering may also provide additional benefit--although the certainty of the evidence is low for both forms of protection."

(They define protective eye coverings as goggles and face shields "and others". Face coverings and masks are defined as respirators, surgical masks, N95 face masks "and others".)

Note the words "might" "and" and "may". In other words, if you wear face coverings/masks AND protective eye covering, you MAY gain additional protection.

"Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields). "

There's that word "and" again ! It's almost like they are suggesting that a face shield by itself it useless, unless used in conjunction with a mask and "social distancing", which, combined, may lower the risk of being infected.

And they note that "1 meter" lowers the risk, but 2 meters is better.


So, in other words, what I posted earlier about face shields being useless stands.

Refer post #34.

Science is not absolutes, although anti-science advocates like to cast it in that light.

Let me put it this way. You are in a theatre, awaiting surgery. Would you be happy if the surgeon and his operating theatre staff did not wear surgical masks?

Edited by Lacessit
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Smell is related to molecules, not viruses. Hydrogen sulphide (H2S ) is what most people emit when they fart. And what people smell.

The diameter of the H2S molecule is 133 picometers. The diameter of the coronavirus is 125 nanometers, i.e. 1000 times larger.

Saying masks are ineffective because one can smell through them is a completely spurious argument.

 


You are confusing masks with shields. smedly (and I) were referencing the guy in the OP (and others) who think that a face shield, by itself, is an effective method of preventing being infected.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Refer post #34.

Science is not absolutes, although anti-science advocates like to cast it in that light.

Let me put it this way. You are in a theatre, awaiting surgery. Would you be happy if the surgeon and his operating theatre staff did not wear surgical masks?


Post 34 is mostly a pic of one of those containment devices scientists use when handling dangerous substances.
Maybe some other posts were deleted prior to the one you were referencing ?

Post 34 - 

 

Edited by Kerryd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RANGER55 said:

So, maybe you can decode what CCP stands for!

 

Hello, this is Houston, come in space shuttle.

So a bit like 7-11 then.

What are their times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kerryd said:


You are confusing masks with shields. smedly (and I) were referencing the guy in the OP (and others) who think that a face shield, by itself, is an effective method of preventing being infected.
 

My mistake, I thought you were referring to masks. Which the latest medical information suggests is effective in preventing an infected person infecting others, less so in acquiring infection from someone who is. No idea on face shields.

I don't like masks myself, PITA; however, I wear one as a courtesy to others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kerryd said:


Post 34 is mostly a pic of one of those containment devices scientists use when handling dangerous substances.
Maybe some other posts were deleted prior to the one you were referencing ?

Post 34 - 

 

You've succeeded in confusing me. My post was on the relative size of the H2S molecule and coronavirus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Refer post #34.

Science is not absolutes, although anti-science advocates like to cast it in that light.

Let me put it this way. You are in a theatre, awaiting surgery. Would you be happy if the surgeon and his operating theatre staff did not wear surgical masks?

 

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

You've succeeded in confusing me. My post was on the relative size of the H2S molecule and coronavirus.


Ah you said "post #34" but actually meant post #45.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

With drinking causing reduced judgement and reasoning plus the effects alcohol has on a healthy persons immune systems you can see now the effects of boozing in bars in the US. Unless you have complete crowd control (in a bar? impossible) all the plastic walls in the world won't prevent transmission. People don't drink through masks so the whole concept of 'safe bars' is based on filling the cash register, not preventing disease. I understand the businesses are hurting but causing a runaway infection rate is not the way to restart the economy - as proven in those states that are now shutting in the bars. People spent a lot of money getting their bars going again only to lose it all, again. How many times do you need to be kicked in the head to begin to realize you can't wish this away..

Yes, in a country with close to 50,000 infections a day opening bars may not be too bright, but opening bars in a country with zero infections a day makes economic and social sense. We will soon know the results and a medical system with no current C-19 patients should be able to handle the few that pop up. That was the goal of social distancing and masks in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fun times ahead for the Thai economy -  NOT

Edited by fraggleRock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...