Expats believe Thailand is correct to keep its borders closed to foreign tourists

[Myran]

27 minutes ago, DirtyHarry55 said:

Of course there are two sides otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation to start with

that doesn't mean well offs who deny the poor a chance to earn a living aren't selfish though.

And again you demonstrate that you clearly don't understand the meaning of "there are two sides" in this context. You still believe that those two sides are "my side" and "the wrong side". I'm given you counterpoints to try to make you understand what it actually means, so here we go again.

 

Replace your second line with this:

 

"That doesn't mean that people who want to enter Thailand and thus potentially expose millions to a virus that are especially deadly for the older generation aren't selfish, though."

 

You're still trying to kid yourself into believing that you and everyone who wants the borders to open are somehow better and have higher morals than the people who don't want to open the borders – that they are "selfish" and that you are not. This is NOT the case. They have just as valid and morally sound reasons for wanting the borders to remain closed as you have to opening them, and neither are more valid than the other. You want them open because you fear for people's economy, and they want them closed because they fear for people's lives.

 

You are not on a moral high-ground here and you have no basis for calling people selfish just because they don't happen to agree with you.

[Myran]

38 minutes ago, micmichd said:

What's wrong with being selfish? 

I have no idea. If you want to start a conversation, respond to something I actually wrote instead of making stuff up and putting words in my mouth – especially if what you're about to infer I've said is the exact opposite of what I've been writing.

[Buri utd]

40 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

It is totally beyond the word of cruel. My

kids are 25, 19 and 17. I would be hurt and furious in the same time since they have opened up for married. I really thought it was for family as well. Do you mean because your kids are adults and on their own is why you are denied?

Exactly what they said in the embassy, grown-up daughters with kids are old enough to take care of them selves. End of chat they didn't want to know anymore. 

[Buri utd]

15 minutes ago, Myran said:

I have no idea. If you want to start a conversation, respond to something I actually wrote instead of making stuff up and putting words in my mouth – especially if what you're about to infer I've said is the exact opposite of what I've been writing.

Nothing wrong, my mother used to sell-fish. 

[holy cow cm]

16 minutes ago, Buri utd said:

Exactly what they said in the embassy, grown-up daughters with kids are old enough to take care of them selves. End of chat they didn't want to know anymore. 

What A oles . 

[rabang]

Keep it closed as long as possible. I don't know exactly how long time it takes before the pressure becomes unbearable but I am not in a hurry to get back. When the country does open up there should be great bargains and opportunities. I also want to see how this zero virus policy plays out if/when they realize it can't be eradicated completely.

[elliss]

Keep foreigners out of the Kingdom .

  Self preservation ..

[DirtyHarry55]

2 hours ago, Myran said:

And again you demonstrate that you clearly don't understand the meaning of "there are two sides" in this context. You still believe that those two sides are "my side" and "the wrong side". I'm given you counterpoints to try to make you understand what it actually means, so here we go again.

 

Replace your second line with this:

 

"That doesn't mean that people who want to enter Thailand and thus potentially expose millions to a virus that are especially deadly for the older generation aren't selfish, though."

 

You're still trying to kid yourself into believing that you and everyone who wants the borders to open are somehow better and have higher morals than the people who don't want to open the borders – that they are "selfish" and that you are not. This is NOT the case. They have just as valid and morally sound reasons for wanting the borders to remain closed as you have to opening them, and neither are more valid than the other. You want them open because you fear for people's economy, and they want them closed because they fear for people's lives.

 

You are not on a moral high-ground here and you have no basis for calling people selfish just because they don't happen to agree with you.

OK in that context I would be in agreement if we meet half way and partly open the borders lets say 50% what do you think?
If we're in agreement then neither of us is selfish as we have made a compromise yes?
But I have a feeling you won't be in agreement and don't want to meet in the middle.
p.s so many accusations in such a small space well done!

Edited August 4, 2020 by DirtyHarry55

[Aussie Col]

17 hours ago, mlmcleod said:

Thailand has been very fortunate, to date!  Until there is a widely available vaccine, there should not be any tourism anywhere in the world.  Asking Thais to give up their grandparents for the sake of tourism is not really an option.  My children in Texas (USA) are in fear every day!

Never forget that money is king over here and they will let back tourists back just before the country goes belly up no matter what the farangs think over here

[Aussie Col]

18 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Seeing as it's most likely going to be hordes of Chinese that come once the borders are open, I vote to keep them shut too. The last thing we need is tourists bringing in C19 and another lockdown.

 

Besides, tourism is only 12% of GDP so it won't really be missed ????. 

Nobody of intelligence believes the countries tourism is only 12% of GDP.

[bkk_bwana]

So, you choose an island, like Samui. Does that mean that the tourists have to remain on the island? What about the locals and Thai people, are they then free to come and go? If a local gets infected, and travels, what happens then?

[digibum]

On 8/4/2020 at 5:49 PM, Buri utd said:

Everyone's situation is different, my Thai wife passed away in February, i have 2 grow up daughters and 3 grandchildren, thai Embassy said im not eligible to come back yet as im not married to a Thai anymore, maybe now you get my drift. 

Condolences. 

 

But, you would not have been able to come back on a marriage visa anyway, right?  If your spouse dies, you would have to switch to another type of visa regardless of COVID. 

 

You're still eligible to come back, you're just not being given priority over those with a wife or underage children. 

 

Are you saying you should be given priority?   

If this were normal conditions, I would probably empathize with you a bit more.  But, the fact of the matter is that Thailand can only handle so many people in quarantine at a time so they have to prioritize who can come in. 

 

But, these are not normal conditions.  These are once in a lifetime (hopefully) type of conditions.

 

You have two children who are of legal age.  You have no spouse living in Thailand (again, my condolences). 

 

Explain why you think your return to Thailand should take priority. 

[digibum]

On 8/4/2020 at 9:01 PM, Myran said:

You're still trying to kid yourself into believing that you and everyone who wants the borders to open are somehow better and have higher morals than the people who don't want to open the borders – that they are "selfish" and that you are not.

I would love it if everyone engaged in this debate had to declare:

 

a)  Whether or not they were in Thailand

 

b)  Their visa status (retirement, marriage, tourist, business, etc)

 

c)  Where they live. 

 

I have a feeling, that people outside of Thailand think Thailand should open their borders by an overwhelming majority vs those that are already inside the country. 

 

I also believe that people on retirement, marriage, and business visas are less likely to want the borders to open up. They're here, they're safe, they don't want more lock downs, alcohol bans, etc. 

 

Given that 95% of Thai people recently polled agree, I don't think you can write it off as 100% selfish as much as you can say that it's pragmatic for those who either don't need to get into the country or don't work in tourism. 

 

And lastly, I think people that live in places heavily dominated by tourism, see an entirely different picture than those who don't.  If you're in Pattaya, you probably see financial disaster.  But, if you live in Issan, you probably don't even notice that the borders are closed. 

 

This is a difficult issue to balance out.  Although I think the 20% of GDP number is grossly inflated, tourism is a significant part of the Thai economy. 

 

At the same time, it's **only** 20%.  The other 80% would rather not have their livelihoods be put on hold again just so somebody with a restaurant on Samui can have 1/3 their regular customers. 

 

There's no easy answer.  Allowing tourists in, puts the rest of the economy at risk.  Not allowing tourists in, means hundreds of thousands of people will be financially devastated.

 

Or will they?

 

Thailand, prior to COVID, had an official unemployment rate of 0%.  They import Burmese, Cambodians, and Laotians to do work because they're aren;t enough Thais to either want to or able to do the work. 

 

If a large percentage of the tourism jobs disappeared, like they have, there are plenty of jobs still available. 

 

Do they pay as well?  No. 

 

Are they harder jobs?  Yes. 

 

But, few people are starving if they have to go back to the village and pick rice in the fields, or work in local restaurants, or have to help the family out next harvest, rather than serving beers to a bunch of farangs. 

 

They just earn less.  That means less money gets sent back home. 

 

But, people don't starve. 

 

[digibum]

On 8/4/2020 at 9:33 PM, holy cow cm said:

What A oles . 

 

Why?  They're doing something called triage. It's a medically accepted practice going back to WWI. 

 

You only have so many quarantine beds available.  You sort people into groups based on need. 

 

At some point, they have to make a decision between:

 

Farangs with adult-age children living in Thailand

 

Farangs with a spouse living in Thailand

[digibum]

On 8/6/2020 at 11:53 AM, bkk_bwana said:

So, you choose an island, like Samui. Does that mean that the tourists have to remain on the island? What about the locals and Thai people, are they then free to come and go? If a local gets infected, and travels, what happens then?

 

Good question and there's a good example. 

 

Koh Chang, from speaking with a few locals (one was a hotel owner), they collectively decided to lock down the island.  Supplies from the mainland were ok, but no new people were allowed in from the mainland, especially tourists.  And, anybody was free to leave, but could not return. 

 

They decided to eat the business losses rather than potentially expose their families to the virus.