When can I go to Thailand again?

[vinapu]

2 hours ago, DivineMadman said:

 

Today's English language press briefing in Thailand gave the astonishing statistic that currently there are about 10,000 people in quarantine in Thailand. 

 

I wonder loudly how many of those will end up positive / hopefully none  / and how many will feel just imprisoned unjustly for 2 weeks, no matter how comfortable prison was ?

[DivineMadman]

1 hour ago, reader said:

Point of clarification:

Source: Royal Thai Embassy, Washington D.C.

Based on its trends analysis, the Ministry of Tourism has forecast that 41.1 million people will visit Thailand in 2019, and they will spend over $70 billion during their stays. Direct receipts from tourism contribute about 12 percent to Thailand’s gross domestic product, and indirect revenues push the figure closer to 20 percent.

 

If 20% makes anyone happier then I think the same analysis goes whether it's 80% non-international tourism GDP or 88%.  

There are reasons why people tend to stick with the hard direct numbers, they're generally verified because the methodology is generally agreed, etc.  One problem with the soft numbers is that the total often ends up to more than 100% GDP because different "people" (parts of the economy) may all lay claim to some of the same "indirect" revenues.  (It's maybe a surprising but at the same time obvious point.  Currently all GDP is 100% accounted for, so if International Tourism says it really is responsible for a greater percentage, that means another group is responsible for less.)  But there are reasons that portion that International Tourism wants to claim is put in someone else's column in the first place.  I think that's the main reason people generally think in terms of the reported GDP numbers.

Of course the ultimate flaw with GDP numbers is that they don't take into account expenses or costs (including environmental) or even just what's best for the country.  All those billions of dollars spent on airports and tourism infrastructure satisfy the monied hotel owners and construction firms, but are there longer term benefits of directing the resources into education, skilled labor jobs, etc.  But that's for another day.

1 hour ago, reader said:

If (according to the report in The Nation today) Thailand has now reached 25 days without a domestic case, and all five the new positive patients were returnees from Saudi Arabia, who could possibly be among the 10,000 still in quarantine?  I agree that's a troubling and seemingly contradictory indicator.

It's not contradictory.  It just reflects the fact that Thailand - like so many, many other countries - is requiring quarantine for all current arrivals.  As I mentioned in another post (I think), the constant drumbeat of new cases from these repatriated Thais can only make the government more cautious. 

Just stepping back, Thailand is still currently repatriating it's own nationals - I believe at 500 per day max (?).  Next in the pipeline are permanent residents & work permit holders and then (as I understand it), with luck people with family members.  Maybe we can expect international students will need to get onto the fast track as well because the schools are opening.  That's a lot of people still be bring back into the country.  And personally I think they justifiably can go back first.

We're at the back of the queue.  

 

 

[DivineMadman]

4 minutes ago, vinapu said:

I wonder loudly how many of those will end up positive / hopefully none  / and how many will feel just imprisoned unjustly for 2 weeks, no matter how comfortable prison was ?

I'm no mindreader, but they are all people returning to the country voluntarily.  Personally I doubt they would feel imprisoned.  Most are Thai nationals and my guess is the Thais are actually quite proud of their nation's success in controlling COVID-19.  Certainly in the press we don't read anything about the repatriated Thais being resentful of the quarantine process.  And it's world wide phenomenon.  

[vinapu]

1 minute ago, DivineMadman said:

I'm no mindreader, but they are all people returning to the country voluntarily.  Personally I doubt they would feel imprisoned.  Most are Thai nationals and my guess is the Thais are actually quite proud of their nation's success in controlling COVID-19.  Certainly in the press we don't read anything about the repatriated Thais being resentful of the quarantine process.  And it's world wide phenomenon.  

correct but that is the rich people's problem.

I wonder what all those stuck in Udon Nowhere who can't return to their livehoods, be it bar, store or even local market  have to say.

It's great to be part of nation which successfully contained greatest health scare in 100 years but will it compensate for drastic drop of income ?

[DivineMadman]

17 minutes ago, vinapu said:

correct but that is the rich people's problem.

I wonder what all those stuck in Udon Nowhere who can't return to their livehoods, be it bar, store or even local market  have to say.

It's great to be part of nation which successfully contained greatest health scare in 100 years but will it compensate for drastic drop of income ?

Thailand has certainly done more than most of its neighbors towards some universal income payments in the current crisis, but it’s been woefully and tragically inadequate.  It’s a developing country and does a shit job of taking care of its people.

But the point remains that the workers in the factories and construction matter, and the grandparents back in the village matter.  The 88% of the economy that isn’t international tourism (or 80% if that’s makes anyone happy) matters.  So we can respect the government’s decision to be cautious on COVID-19.  

 

[reader]

2 hours ago, vinapu said:

while I agree about additional cost being reasonable, I can't see any thing convenient will all that testing and waiting for results ( How long  ? where? ) 

Are test results  available immediately ? honest question as as don't  follow covid news much know because I live near airport and I don't see much traffic there and until I do all it's academic for me.

Test results can be had on site (at the airport) within 5 minutes with equipment manufactured by Abbott Labs.  They are in wide use.

The big advantage of testing at point of departure is to ensure that all those on flight are negative. That should provide reassurance and comfort to passengers and flight crews alike.

I can understand why many might find testing before departure from Thailand to be unnecessary, especially if your country will require you to self-quarantine upon return.

 

 

[vinapu]

I did not know  results can be that fast. Then testing before departure is OK. What we need now are actually those departures

[DivineMadman]

10 hours ago, reader said:

Test results can be had on site (at the airport) within 5 minutes with equipment manufactured by Abbott Labs.  They are in wide use.

It's possible that some tests might not be sufficiently accurate for airlines or governments to "bet the farm" on, as it were.  https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-phe-laboratory-evaluations-of-roche-and-abbott-antibody-tests/ (Abbott about 84% accurate - in the bad way, i.e., failed to catch positives).  https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/14/856531970/fda-cautions-about-accuracy-of-widely-used-abbott-coronavirus-test  Abbott itself says 95% accurate.  

which is only to say that this is all complicated stuff, so personally I am reluctant to say that there are easy answers to getting global international travel up and running easily right now, without the sort of precautions we are seeing countries discuss.

[reader]

Unfortunately there are no 100% accurate tests in detecting Covid-19.

In the case of the test cited above (Abbott's "Now"), even if you use the low, 84% figure, that doesn't mean that 16 out of 100 randomly selected people who take the the test actually have Covid but were given a negative result. For that to happen, all 100 would have to have been infected.

The infected rate varies greatly in the general population. Persons living in different cities and different regions can have widely different base infection rates. For example, I live in a community with a base infection rate of 11%.  Assuming a 16% inaccuracy rate, 1.76 persons out of every random 100 in my community tested would get a false result . That's not ideal but as we learn more about the disease, we're being told not to expect 100% effectiveness in any tests, any vaccine or any treatment protocol.

If you're testing patients in a clinical setting (i..e., those who come to a testing site because they have virus symptoms), the base infection rate is going to be significantly higher than if you tested a random group of people such as those you'd be testing before being allowed to board an aircraft.

As much as I agree there are no easy answers in restoring global air travel, I persuaded that waiting for optimum conditions to come along is a bridge too far. For "optimum" conditions to exist, the disease would have to be eradicated by one or more medical or natural outcomes. And that just doesn't seem to be in the cards at the moment. Meanwhile, economies--and the lives that depend upon them--are at risk of being crippled. It seems to me, as more time passes more people are willing to accept increasing risk for financial survival or personal reasons.

If I had to hazard a guess just how global travel gets going again, I think it's likely to be a result of demand. Surely the negotiations we see discussed daily in the news will be part of the process but they will evolve sooner rather than later.

 

[DivineMadman]

1 hour ago, reader said:

Unfortunately there are no 100% accurate tests in detecting Covid-19.

In the case of the test cited above (Abbott's "Now"), even if you use the low, 84% figure, that doesn't mean that 16 out of 100 randomly selected people who take the the test actually have Covid but were given a negative result. For that to happen, all 100 would have to have been infected.

The infected rate varies greatly in the general population. Persons living in different cities and different regions can have widely different base infection rates. For example, I live in a community with a base infection rate of 11%.  Assuming a 16% inaccuracy rate, 1.76 persons out of every random 100 in my community tested would get a false result . That's not ideal but as we learn more about the disease, we're being told not to expect 100% effectiveness in any tests, any vaccine or any treatment protocol.

If you're testing patients in a clinical setting (i..e., those who come to a testing site because they have virus symptoms), the base infection rate is going to be significantly higher than if you tested a random group of people such as those you'd be testing before being allowed to board an aircraft.

As much as I agree there are no easy answers in restoring global air travel, I persuaded that waiting for optimum conditions to come along is a bridge too far. For "optimum" conditions to exist, the disease would have to be eradicated by one or more medical or natural outcomes. And that just doesn't seem to be in the cards at the moment. Meanwhile, economies--and the lives that depend upon them--are at risk of being crippled. It seems to me, as more time passes more people are willing to accept increasing risk for financial survival or personal reasons.

If I had to hazard a guess just how global travel gets going again, I think it's likely to be a result of demand. Surely the negotiations we see discussed daily in the news will be part of the process but they will evolve sooner rather than later.

 

No doubt.  I was just making the point that it’s complicated, and policy makers are making difficult and complicated judgments of risk, and simply recognizing that fact - which doesn’t seem controversial to me - helps me be a little more patient and less critical of the governments that have actually been successful in controlling COVID-19.

[Londoner]

Recent news from Pattaya suggests that the distribution of free meals to the unemployed is facing the problem that the givers are struggling to maintain their generosity. I doubt whether the government will be able, or willing, to step-in make up the short-fall. Over the centuries and all over the world, extreme shortages of food have led to social unrest and Thailand has a long history of dissatisfaction with military and right-wing governments.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, DivineMadman said:

It's possible that some tests might not be sufficiently accurate for airlines or governments to "bet the farm" on, as it were.  https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-phe-laboratory-evaluations-of-roche-and-abbott-antibody-tests/ (Abbott about 84% accurate - in the bad way, i.e., failed to catch positives).  https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/14/856531970/fda-cautions-about-accuracy-of-widely-used-abbott-coronavirus-test  Abbott itself says 95% accurate.  

which is only to say that this is all complicated stuff

It's certainly complicated.    My understanding, is as follows (but I'm not expert):

If testing people about to take a flight, all you really need is an antigen test, not an antibody test.    [The antigen test confirms whether you have it currently & the antibody test confirms if you have had it AND have developed antibodies]

There are antigen tests with SENSITIVITY of at least 98%.  So they detect 98% of cases.

So if we have a 777 with 300 passengers and an infection rate of 0.05%, we would expect 0.15 passengers to have Covid on average.  I am using a recent estimate of the UK current infection rate.    Or roughly 1 in 7 flights would have an infected person.   Then assume a 1 in 50 chance of the test not catching this, then we have 1 in 350 flights that might have an infected person.

This doesn't seem like an excessive risk, particularly if all the passengers wear masks on board.      Of course, the risk might go up if the test procedure is not followed properly.

The other matter is SPECIFICITY, ie rate of false positives.   I understand there are antigen tests with 100% specificity, which is just as well, as less that 100% would presumably mean people who have paid for the ticket are not permitted to board.

 

As for the antibody tests, quite a few of them had poor specificity.   So say that's 98% and say 4% of the population have actually had Covid, then 1 in 3 antibody tests would be a false positive (approximately).  So that's why some healthcare providers were waiting for a test with better specificity.    I believe Roche have a good antibody test.

 

 

[vinapu]

46 minutes ago, DivineMadman said:

 simply recognizing that fact - which doesn’t seem controversial to me - helps me be a little more patient and less critical of the governments that have actually been successful in controlling COVID-19.

in those tough times every decision may be contested if only because  nobody really knows what to do and how to react, governments and their populaces can only try.

But success in controlling  disease can't be only measure. Stopping people from dying should stop them form living ( and earning that living ) only to a certain extend.

Otherwise poor countries are taking risk of starving their populations and rich  may ruin their economies by paying people to be locked at home.

As per last The Economist quite  a high percentage of unemployed Americans are receiving more in benefits now because of an additional payments than than  were earning . Where those people return to work if their workplaces will disappear in meantime?

[DivineMadman]

10 minutes ago, vinapu said:

in those tough times every decision may be contested if only because  nobody really knows what to do and how to react, governments and their populaces can only try.

But success in controlling  disease can't be only measure. Stopping people from dying should stop them form living ( and earning that living ) only to a certain extend.

Otherwise poor countries are taking risk of starving their populations and rich  may ruin their economies by paying people to be locked at home.

As per last The Economist quite  a high percentage of unemployed Americans are receiving more in benefits now because of an additional payments than than  were earning . Where those people return to work if their workplaces will disappear in meantime?

If the objective is to get people back to work and keep the economy going, even if that means COVID-19 spreads, there is a clear quantifiable cost in human lives of the workers and their families put at risk and the people they infect and so on.  Plus of course the greater potential for another broader shutdown of the economy and all of the costs associated with that.  And the people not at risk are the rich owners of the businesses who benefit but are still working from home or safely socially distant in their offices.

So the "let's get people back to work" argument is hardly a clear winner, to say the least.

Personally, I think these issues aren't lost on the governments that have taken a strong view towards controlling COVID-19, including Australia, New Zealand, the SE Asian countries, etc.  

 

[ggobkk]

At one moment in the past 100 days, I was considering a trip to Beijing.  It was a time when there were flights and the governments were speaking civility to one another.  I was told I'd need a negative antigen test before departing, that when I arrived I'd take another at the airport and wait at the airport for the result - possibly a 12 hour turn around.  Then I'd need to self quarantine for an unspecified period of up to two weeks - quarantine could be at a family/friend's home or an approved hotel.

I didn't follow up on this, but I mention it as there are work arounds possible that should become more viable as more is learned/discovered/understood about covid-19.  

 

[DivineMadman]

1 hour ago, ggobkk said:

At one moment in the past 100 days, I was considering a trip to Beijing.  It was a time when there were flights and the governments were speaking civility to one another.  I was told I'd need a negative antigen test before departing, that when I arrived I'd take another at the airport and wait at the airport for the result - possibly a 12 hour turn around.  Then I'd need to self quarantine for an unspecified period of up to two weeks - quarantine could be at a family/friend's home or an approved hotel.

I didn't follow up on this, but I mention it as there are work arounds possible that should become more viable as more is learned/discovered/understood about covid-19.  

 

Hong Kong currently tests everyone on arrival and you have to wait for the test results.  The reports are it takes about 8 to up 12 hours to get the results.  There is a mandatory 14 day quarantine.  They tell you where you can quarantine based on how they assess your risk (and obvs if the test is positive).    Because of the distancing and safety issues in collecting the sample for testing, the number of people who can come in is severely limited.  "Tourists" of course can't travel there now anyway, so it really affects returning nationals and special cases.

https://multimedia.scmp.com/infographics/news/hong-kong/article/3082266/hong-kong-inbound-travellers-restrictions/index.html

 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, DivineMadman said:

Hong Kong currently tests everyone on arrival and you have to wait for the test results.  The reports are it takes about 8 to up 12 hours to get the results.  There is a mandatory 14 day quarantine. 

Assuming a reasonable holiday duration, being tested upon arrival and waiting 8~12 hours for the results would be tolerable.   Particularly if you're allowed to check into a nearby hotel and sleep during that time.    That just waste's one night of the holiday, which isn't a disaster if the holiday lasts several weeks.

The 14 day quarantine would be more of a problem.

 

[reader]

From Bloomberg News

Thailand Aims to Turn Away From Mass Tourism and Target the Wealthy

Thailand’s tourism-revival strategy is to target big spenders seeking privacy and social distancing in the Covid-19 era, rather than try to attract a large number of visitors.

Source: Ministry of Tourism and Sports, Thailand

The pandemic provides an opportunity to reset the sector, which had become reliant on Chinese groups and backpackers. Once the country’s borders are reopened and so-called travel bubbles are agreed upon, marketing efforts will be geared toward wealthier individuals who want holidays with minimal risks, Tourism Minister Phiphat Ratchakitprakarn said in an interview.

The government will initially allow a small number of arrivals, such as some business executives and medical tourists. It is also working with the travel industry to identify and invite individuals in target demographics, which will probably include previous visitors to luxury resorts in the islands of Phuket, Samui, Phangan and Phi Phi, the minister said. Phuket is “a prototype” because it has all the needed facilities.

People may be required to pass Covid-19 screenings before traveling and upon arriving, choose a single resort island and remain for a minimum period of time.

The “high-end visitors” will be able to travel freely while they’re on the island and be allowed to leave for home or other destinations in Thailand once the minimum 14 days have passed. The country plans to court such visitors, possibly during the winter months of November-February when European and American travelers seek out warmer climates, Phiphat said.

“One person can easily spend as much as five by staying at the finest hotels,” he said, adding that full and free travel should become a “thing of the past.”

Thailand isn’t the only country grappling with the question of how and when to reopen for visitors. Across Southeast Asia -- one of the most tourism-reliant regions in the world -- hotels and travel businesses are slowly kicking into gear as countries that have succeeded in flattening their virus curves ease lockdown restrictions.

Thailand’s first few travel-bubble pacts, with nations such as Japan and Australia, probably won’t be ready until at least August, Phiphat said. Thailand also is mulling a program to allow visitors from specific Chinese cities and provinces, he said.

The goal is for Thailand to have 10 million foreign arrivals this year -- one-quarter of the 2019 tally -- Phiphat said. Total tourism revenue is forecast at 1.23 trillion baht ($39.6 billion) this year, down 59% from last year.

Phiphat said Thailand sees the crisis as an opportunity to address problems that existed before the pandemic, including over-crowding at some beaches and temples and environmental destruction.

In the quiet months without foreign travelers, sea turtles have returned to lay eggs on Thai beaches, pink dolphins have been seen frolicking with fishermen and manatees swam to shore to snack on sea grass, Phiphat said.

“If we don’t use this chance to create the most benefit for the industry, Thailand will lose out,” he said. “This is an opportunity to reset the entire tourism system.”

[anddy]

4 hours ago, reader said:

From Bloomberg News

Thailand Aims to Turn Away From Mass Tourism and Target the Wealthy

That's EXACTLY the same article as the one from I think the BKK Post that you already posted. Good job of copy & paste on the part of Bloomberg news LOL

[reader]

Thanks for catching that. It seems that it was actually Bloomberg that was the original source but I picked it up first on the Post which credited Bloomberg in its article:

"The pandemic provides an opportunity to reset the sector, which had become reliant on Chinese groups and backpackers, he said in an interview with Bloomberg News."

[spoon]

Seven groups of foreigners expected to be allowed entry

 

The government plans to allow seven groups of foreigners to enter the country, Dr Taweesin Visanuyothin, the spokesman of the government’s Centre for Covid-19 Situation Administration, announced today (June 22). The committee has divided these into two main groups.

The first group may not include those under the so-called “travel bubble” international pact as they may be required to undertake state quarantine on entry:

1. Businessman and investors (around 700 have registered to enter).

2. Skilled labourers and exporters who need to inspect factories or for specific business purposes (around 22,000 have registered).

3. Foreigners married to Thais, or permanent residents of Thailand (around 2,000 have registered).

4. Medical and wellness tourists (around 30,000 have registered).

The other group comprises travellers who won’t need to go into quarantine on entry:

1. Businessman on short-duration stays, including those coming into the country for business discussions. This group might need a specific area and intense screening both before travel and at arrival at airports. Considered a “power group”, these are entrepreneurs who will visit the country to sign business contracts or inspect sites or factories, which is essential to the economy.

2. Government guests who are invited for ceremonies or specific seminars.

3. Tourists under the travel bubble. Dr Taweesin said that the target countries are China, Japan and South Korea, which are presently trying to contain the virus.

The CCSA aims to discuss the issue in depth with the Cabinet after finalising the details.

Nation Thailand

 

Sadly im not amongst the 7 group yet.

[captainmick]

3 hours ago, spoon said:

Sadly I’m not amongst the 7 group yet.

........but surely if you committed to having a massage everyday, you would qualify under Category 4 as a Wellness Tourist?

[spoon]

1 hour ago, captainmick said:

........but surely if you committed to having a massage everyday, you would qualify under Category 4 as a Wellness Tourist?

If wellness tourist includes sexual wellness..... Lol

[vinapu]

1 hour ago, spoon said:

If wellness tourist includes sexual wellness..... Lol

of course it does, it';s why whoring was invented by our ancestors and viagra by our contemporaries

[10tazione]

7 hours ago, captainmick said:

........but surely if you committed to having a massage everyday, you would qualify under Category 4 as a Wellness Tourist?

Unfortunately you still have to quarantine as a wellness tourist. But if you get a massage evey day you may also qualify as a "businessman essential to the economy".