The numbers in bkk will slow down because of the restrictions,but the problem is the other provinces, the numbers will continue to rise because of less restrictions,only seems logical what the next step should be. Also the number of test are so slow in Thailand, 8 million done 60+ million to go.I am beginning to question if the Thai goverment is to fully blame for the lack of vaccines,i am reading so many reports of vaccine companies being to blame for not delivering the vaccines as they promised ,now i feel to be fair i don't want to put all the the blame on them,in saying that they have still not handled the restrictions nationwide enough sooner and delayed opening Thailand which i think they should never had contemplated until it was safer to do so.
I guess i am just tired of all this B.S like everyone else and wish to get back to normality again.
higher number, of infected and dead people, in any countries
= more people not believe anymore, what news, youtubers, etc. say.
finally, governments and all they, do something good.
take way any trust of people and
make sure, most people are and know,
be infected of not wanted restrictions. :)
same for climate topic. more rain, or to same time in world,
= less people believe, i am guilty by co2.
Have a life and A level in US history, when they were far more difficult. The CSA had every right to leave the Union and were no more 'traitors' than were the 13 states leaving the rule of the British Crown. Lincoln has been whitewashed by the American school system, he was no hero.
Are you pretending to be stupid or what? The meta-analysis that you were boasting about is largely based on on an Egyptian medical trial, which has been proven to be a hoax. After this fake Egyptian data is removed from the sources for your precious meta-analysis, the remaining data shows that Ivermectin offers zero benefit against covid.
Alright, I admit that my initial response was not 100 % clear on the details. Let me have another go at it.
I gave you two links previously: one to latimes.com and another to theguardian.com.
The article on LA Times was talking about the meta-analysis that you are promoting here. According to the experts quoted in that article, the overall meta-study is worthless after the exclusion of this Egyptian scam. However, this article doesn't clearly state which "Egyptian trial" they are referring to.
The second article by The Guardian is exclusively about the "Egyptian trial" in question. In there it is mentioned that the author of the Egyptian study was authored by Dr Ahmed Elgazzar from Benha University in Egypt, and was published on Research Square in November. (Relevant to the second half of my post, see below.)
Actually I only see one link from you, but I can indeed find both of the two on my own.
The first link is to a literature review, shared by you in the lead post to this thread. The second link is to the actual meta-analysis which you are boasting about. I believe that one is also the meta-analysis that LA Times was talking about.
Anyways, both of these articles mention Dr Ahmed Elgazzar multiple times and include his debunked, fake medical experiment on Research Square in the sources.