Jump to content

Stop buying Sinovac, medical expert tells government


Thaiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

And who's indulging in conspiracy theories now?

Whatever the situation you care to name, I can give you a reason why someone may be biased. Of course that does mean they are biased. Best of all, I don't even need to believe my own allegations.

This is reminiscent of the situation where a mother gives alibi evidence for her son in court, and the lawyer says to her. "But of course you would say that because you are his mother"

The fact that someone MAY be biased does not automatically prove that they are lying. As I implied, it is easy to claim bias, but it is a lot harder to prove dishonesty. Who's to say you are not employed by the Chinese gov on a damage limitation PR job?

As far as Time is concerned, it is a respected publication of long standing  with a record of publishing corrections in the next edition when these are brought to their attention. They value journalistic integrity.

I think that the evidence is, that it is you who is indulging in CT's

Ah the accusation. It wasn't long in coming.

Good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dimitri said:

News in Mandarin is, considering the "freedom of press" in China, probably not the most reliable news source.

From reliable sources, different sources, from different countries, we learned that Chinese vaccines do not work. It's with almost everything from China. You open the box and it looks nice. A week later it is broken. With vaccines it is the same. It looked nice in the beginning, but they do not work.

Oh a Mandarin reader eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stuhan said:

At last someone makes sense:

Watcharapong goes on to say Thailand is in the process of obtaining many different types of vaccines, but they can’t all be delivered when needed and that it’s best to have as wide a choice as possible.

“It is best to have as many vaccines as possible. Waiting for the one that we like may not help us fight the spread.”

Already know they will not have enough again

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcambl61 said:

Limbaugh was great. Never feared the lunacy of the liberal progressive hive. 

Obviously, you are a leftist, so you're not making any sense or dealing with reality that the majority of the mainstream media is staffed, owned and run by leftists. They love the status quo as do their wall street backers. 

And of course, as all leftists do, you throw in the standard virtue signaling self praise that you are somehow better, because you have a "conscience" 

Pure drivel. 

The left has ruined practically everything they touch. The largesse of the bloated unaccountable governments on both sides of pond is the result.  But then, massive taxes are a great thing, in your world, because you have a "conscience" 

Whereas Psychopaths lack conscience. Thanks for that enlightening post.

Regarding my political leanings, as I implied, those who invoke the term "leftist" will invariably use it to describe those who they disagree with.

"Virtue signalling" . Any more buzzwords you want to add? My reasons for wishing to see a fairer society are far from altruistic. I take the view that an intelligent person will recognise that it is not in the public interest to have to live in a society which is infested with, the sick, the homeless, the uneducated, the hungry. the unemployed etc. I need to see educated people who can be wealth creators and offer protection, healthcare etc. I need people to contribute to my pension as I have contributed to others. As I age, I will increasingly need healthcare in decent standard facilities. I need to see people earning a reasonable wage so that they have no reason to steal from me. Does that sound like virtue signalling to you?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Poolie said:

Ah the accusation. It wasn't long in coming.

Good night.

You can dish it out (wrongly), but you can't take it. 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

Who was it that was suggesting that I was subscribing to CT's? Pot? Kettle ....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Poolie said:

There's no problem with Sinovac in China and there are over 2bn doses been delivered.

I think (note humbly said) that the problem lies with the administration of the populace. 

No problem that you know of because China  is not transparent in its reporting.

Also, China has closed its borders to  travel. You cannot enter without testing and quarantine. The delta variant is not  running wild in China because the  restrictions have  kept it out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AlexPTY said:

10% protection is better than none, Sinovac saved billion of lives so far, you cannot just disregard it and wait for something better to come and let people die until then. pretty stupid declaration by so called medical expert. i bet he's got 2 jabs and a booster too

Rubbish. Sinovac has distributed about 300 million  doses globally. That's  about 150 million vaccinated patients (ignoring the expected 10% waste). If we use 10%, that's 15 million people.  Yes, better than nothing  when it was partially effective against the original variant. now it is somewhat useless.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Poolie said:

Oh a Mandarin reader eh?

 

Why do I need to know Mandarin to know about freedom of press in China?  We all know what happens there. They are just disgusting murderers, liars with no respect for human rights. Dirty country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Whereas Psychopaths lack conscience. Thanks for that enlightening post.

Regarding my political leanings, as I implied, those who invoke the term "leftist" will invariably use it to describe those who they disagree with.

"Virtue signalling" . Any more buzzwords you want to add? My reasons for wishing to see a fairer society are far from altruistic. I take the view that an intelligent person will recognise that it is not in the public interest to have to live in a society which is infested with, the sick, the homeless, the uneducated, the hungry. the unemployed etc. I need to see educated people who can be wealth creators and offer protection, healthcare etc. I need people to contribute to my pension as I have contributed to others. As I age, I will increasingly need healthcare in decent standard facilities. I need to see people earning a reasonable wage so that they have no reason to steal from me. Does that sound like virtue signalling to you?

There it is again, 

 

Virtue signaling and then the standard moral preening from a leftist. 

 

You speak about fairness and deciding that other people need to pay massive taxes on income and fuel, gst, vat, etc. .... to support your ideology for the greater benefits of society. The great utopian dream of the left, hence the constant need to announce your virtue and morals are better than those who disagree with your opinions.

 

A massive central government doling out the "benefits" that you have decided are necessary. The result of this is a weak society assuming they are entitled to not earn their own way through their entire life. But not to worry, you'll get your council flat and all the basics so you don't have to worry about earning your way through life while waiting for your next choice of drugs or booze. 

 

I don't oppose safety nets for short term relief. But everyone is responsible for their own actions, or they should be. Not in your leftist world though. 

 

Life isn't fair. Work hard, don't be an idiot by wasting all of your money. It's called Personal responsibility. 

 

We are way off topic, but I hope you have all the government has decided that you need while they take half of your fellow citizens money to feed your ideology. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 11:20 AM, AlexPTY said:

10% protection is better than none, Sinovac saved billion of lives so far

Sinovac has not saved anywhere near a billion lives. If there were no vaccines there would still be nowhere near a billion dead. A ridiculous statement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/23/2021 at 3:53 PM, riclag said:

Just the WHO wanted to come to investigate the origin of the virus in Wuhun ! Did you see the uproar it caused ! The CCP got their  made in china panties all bunched up !

Someone should give that communist pig Ji Jing Ping a super wedgie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, OneAngryJew said:

Someone should give that communist pig Ji Jing Ping a super wedgie.

Yes, and the us build up a massive island in the pacific shipping lanes by dredging and installing the world's most massive offensive weapons systems ever made. 

 

And we'll call it a rescue center. 

Edited by mcambl61
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 11:20 AM, AlexPTY said:

10% protection is better than none, Sinovac saved billion of lives so far, you cannot just disregard it and wait for something better to come and let people die until then. pretty stupid declaration by so called medical expert. i bet he's got 2 jabs and a booster too

10 percent at what cost?  Do you think any of these vaccines are 100 percent safe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 11:20 AM, AlexPTY said:

10% protection is better than none, Sinovac saved billion of lives so far, you cannot just disregard it and wait for something better to come and let people die until then. pretty stupid declaration by so called medical expert. i bet he's got 2 jabs and a booster too

Billions of lives maybe exaggerating jut a bit lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/23/2021 at 11:03 PM, mcambl61 said:

There it is again, 

Virtue signaling and then the standard moral preening from a leftist. 

You speak about fairness and deciding that other people need to pay massive taxes on income and fuel, gst, vat, etc. .... to support your ideology for the greater benefits of society. The great utopian dream of the left, hence the constant need to announce your virtue and morals are better than those who disagree with your opinions.

A massive central government doling out the "benefits" that you have decided are necessary. The result of this is a weak society assuming they are entitled to not earn their own way through their entire life. But not to worry, you'll get your council flat and all the basics so you don't have to worry about earning your way through life while waiting for your next choice of drugs or booze. 

I don't oppose safety nets for short term relief. But everyone is responsible for their own actions, or they should be. Not in your leftist world though. 

Life isn't fair. Work hard, don't be an idiot by wasting all of your money. It's called Personal responsibility. 

We are way off topic, but I hope you have all the government has decided that you need while they take half of your fellow citizens money to feed your ideology. 

I find it difficult to think of a more vacuous term than "leftist". To me, it usually is said by hard-line conservatives and means "anyone that fails to entirely agree with my right wing views. In the US, that means all DEMS are leftists in my opinion". 

You are good with the buzzwords, and though I've clearly explained myself that my opinions are not based on altruism, but self-interest, you still accuse me of "virtue signalling". How does anyone who admits being self-interested, get labelled as being a virtue signaller? I don't want to give my money away unnecessarily, but I don't see how it is in my interests to have the streets full of sick, unemployed, homeless, uneducated etc.

I am originally from the UK where the two main parties are the Conservatives and Labour. In recent history, there was a need to form a coalition gov, with The Liberals. I can well imagine you considering any such Liberal as a "leftist". To so many who invoke the word leftist, a liberal is seen as a leftist. But what do these liberals believe in? They believe in free trade, and property ownership rights. How leftist is that. They also believe that the game should not be rigged in favour of the rich. These liberals are not leftist, but conservatives with consciences. Or at worst, they are like me and realise that rigging the game in their favour will eventually come back to haunt them.

Take a look at Scandinavia which has had a number of Socialist govs over the years. These have not imploded because of Socialists have come to power. In the human development index according to Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index the Scandi countries occupy 5 of the top 11 positions. The US rates 17th, even though it is by far the richest country.

Take a look at standards of living: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country Again, the 5 Scandi countries occupy the top 13 places. US comes in at 15th. 

When the Socialists lose power in these countries, the Conservatives who replace them do not attempt to undo the gains that were made under the previous govs. The Conservatives in these countries are more akin to British Liberals. Now that you are aware of this, no doubt you will consider all Scandi govs leftists, which goes back to my point about the vacuity of the term. But my experience in dealing with people who use that term, is that generally, in spite of showing that even countries who elect Socialist govs have a better quality of life and score better on the human development index than the US, leftists can never be right. Could that be because your definition of a leftist, is something that is uniquely American to a certain type of narrow mind?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I find it difficult to think of a more vacuous term than "leftist". To me, it usually is said by hard-line conservatives and means "anyone that fails to entirely agree with my right wing views. In the US, that means all DEMS are leftists in my opinion". 

You are good with the buzzwords, and though I've clearly explained myself that my opinions are not based on altruism, but self-interest, you still accuse me of "virtue signalling". How does anyone who admits being self-interested, get labelled as being a virtue signaller? I don't want to give my money away unnecessarily, but I don't see how it is in my interests to have the streets full of sick, unemployed, homeless, uneducated etc.

I am originally from the UK where the two main parties are the Conservatives and Labour. In recent history, there was a need to form a coalition gov, with The Liberals. I can well imagine you considering any such Liberal as a "leftist". To so many who invoke the word leftist, a liberal is seen as a leftist. But what do these liberals believe in? They believe in free trade, and property ownership rights. How leftist is that. They also believe that the game should not be rigged in favour of the rich. These liberals are not leftist, but conservatives with consciences. Or at worst, they are like me and realise that rigging the game in their favour will eventually come back to haunt them.

Take a look at Scandinavia which has had a number of Socialist govs over the years. These have not imploded because of Socialists have come to power. In the human development index according to Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index the Scandi countries occupy 5 of the top 11 positions. The US rates 17th, even though it is by far the richest country.

Take a look at standards of living: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country Again, the 5 Scandi countries occupy the top 13 places. US comes in at 15th. 

When the Socialists lose power in these countries, the Conservatives who replace them do not attempt to undo the gains that were made under the previous govs. The Conservatives in these countries are more akin to British Liberals. Now that you are aware of this, no doubt you will consider all Scandi govs leftists, which goes back to my point about the vacuity of the term. But my experience in dealing with people who use that term, is that generally, in spite of showing that even countries who elect Socialist govs have a better quality of life and score better on the human development index than the US, leftists can never be right. Could that be because your definition of a leftist, is something that is uniquely American to a certain type of narrow mind?

Well now, quality of life for your mind means massive taxes and costs of everyday items so you can get "free" stuff from the government. 

Triple the fuel costs, massive costs for houses, and on and on it goes. 

 

I understand that Europe and much of Britain have adopted the nanny state mentality and think they have it figured out. 

You can keep that nonsense.

 

High levels of public spending naturally require high levels of taxation. In 2019, Denmark's tax-to-GDP ratio was at 46.3 percent, Norway's at 39.9 percent, and Sweden's at 42.8 percent. This compares to a ratio of 24.5 percent in the United States

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use