Bob

What remains puzzling to me is the failure of almost all articles on the subject to discuss the background rate of blood clots in the general population.  In every article I've read, the background blood clot rate (the number of blood clot issues expected to be experienced by any population) far exceeds the rate experienced by the vaccinated population.  If one believes those numbers, then one could conclude that there is far less likelihood that one would experience a clotting issue if one was vaccinated than not vaccinated!
To simplify my comments, so far the US has experienced 8 serious blood clotting issues within the population of 7 million people who have been vaccinated with the questioned vaccine. According to the medical literature, the lowest number of blood clot issues expected (US history) would be 1 to 3 cases per year of 1000 people within the general population.  Using the lowest number there (1 serious blood clot issue per year within a general population of 1000 people),  then one would expect 7000 cases for a general population of 7 million people.  One-sixth of that (or two month's worth) would be 583 serious blood clotting issues that would be expected.  Sure sounds to me like a much worse number than the 8 cases reported. 

What remains puzzling to me is the failure of almost all articles on the subject to discuss the background rate of blood clots in the general population.  In every article I've read, the background blood clot rate (the number of blood clot issues expected to be experienced by any population) far exceeds the rate experienced by the vaccinated population.  If one believes those numbers, then one could conclude that there is far less likelihood that one would experience a clotting issue if one was vaccinated than not vaccinated!
To simplify my comments, so far the US has experienced 8 serious blood clotting issues within the population of 7 million people who have been vaccinated with the questioned vaccine. According to the medical literature, the lowest number of blood clot issues expected (US history) would be 1 to 3 cases per year of 1000 people within the general population.  Using the lowest number there (1 serious blood clot issue per year within a general population of 1000 people),  then one would expect 7000 cases for a general population of 7 million people.  One-sixth of that (or two month's worth) would be 583 serious blood clotting issues that would be expected.  Sure sounds to me like a much worse number than the 8 cases reported. 

I can only hope:

I can only hope:

I can only hope:

I can only hope:

I can only hope:

I can only hope:

Never saw that place that I recall but I have somewhat toured the area (including the nearby dam and reservoir).  From my memory, there basically isn't much of anything around there and it sure is a long way from town.  Likely a pretty place but way too far from town for my tastes.  I presume the resort will make transportation available but it won't be fast and you surely won't find any songteaws anywhere near there.

While you are at it, please consider adding a "remember me" button or some such thing so some people don't have to log in every time one visits the site.  Almost all websites have that feature and I have to believe it's fairly standard to add it with whatever software this site is using.  

Sorry, I disagree.  The new rules apply to those issued an 0-A visa in their home country after October 31, 2019.  There's no basis to suggest the rules will be applied retroactively. 
There is one dicey area perhaps....those who obtained an 0-A visa before November 1st, 2019, but first entered Thailand after October 31, 2019..  Because of the language in the police order, that one area is a bit confusing although I'd bet 5 baht that the only criteria will be the actual issue date of the 0-A visa (but time will tell if I lose that 5 baht).  But regardless of that workout, the new rules (unless and until changed) shouldn't affect anybody who's in Thailand prior to the beginning of next month. 

Sorry, I disagree.  The new rules apply to those issued an 0-A visa in their home country after October 31, 2019.  There's no basis to suggest the rules will be applied retroactively. 
There is one dicey area perhaps....those who obtained an 0-A visa before November 1st, 2019, but first entered Thailand after October 31, 2019..  Because of the language in the police order, that one area is a bit confusing although I'd bet 5 baht that the only criteria will be the actual issue date of the 0-A visa (but time will tell if I lose that 5 baht).  But regardless of that workout, the new rules (unless and until changed) shouldn't affect anybody who's in Thailand prior to the beginning of next month. 

The bottom line is that the new health insurance regulations do not affect anyone presently in Thailand.  And, unless they add new rules making the requirement applicable to other groups,  the requirement is easily avoidable (simply come in on a Non-O or Tourist Visa ....or even a simple 30-day exemption....and convert to a retirement extension in country).
The real problem for a few (those obtaining 0-A visas in the future in their home countries) is that they are limited to buying the "long stay" insurance from the approved list of Thai insurance companies.  Based on my review of those (the few sites one can switch the language to English and actually make sense of it) is that only one of the 9-12 companies is offering the long-stay insurance to people over 70 (but only if you've had coverage with that particular company since you were 70 or before); other than that possibility, it would appear that nobody over 70 is ever going to be able to obtain an 0-A visa after October 31st.  

It'll take a while.  I had to fill out a TM6 card two nights ago when flying into Chiangmai from Seoul.  That's actually easy as hell and shouldn't be a bother to anybody (what the heck else do you have to do while on a long flight?).  The new fingerprinting deal is a minor bit of hassle....and, frankly, one would think that they'd wipe off the scanners every time somebody slaps their four right fingers, four left fingers, and then their two thumbs on the glass scanner. I'm not a germaphobe but I can't help but think that it's a bit unsanitary.
As for the TM30, I suppose it depends on where you live in Thailand as to how much of a hassle it is.  Plus some people don't understand the difference between filing an original TM30 and updating it.  Here in Chiangmai, they do require the original filing for your residence and it's actually relatively easy to do once you have the correct documents (in a landlord situation, one needs a copy of the landlord's Thai ID and either a copy of the landlord's deed and/or tabien baan).  As for updating here in Chiangmai, it is currently required only upon re-entering the country (travelling and staying within country doesn't require any updating) and it's extremely easy as you simply present your passport.  And it's fast (I updated yesterday morning and was in and out in about 4 minutes). 

Your understanding is the same as mine.
While I don't know if it is available in Thailand as yet, there's an alternative (called Cologuard) in which you send a stool sample in for analysis and, supposedly, it actually is more precise in detecting all kinds of issues (especially various types of cancers).  The benefits are obvious - none of the night before preparations or cost (in US, Medicare pays for all of it) - but it's not recommended for people who have had prior issues (discovery of questionable polyps, etc.) and, also, if the analysis does show an issue, then an actual colonoscopy is usually the next step.  And the Cologuard is recommended for every three years.  I had one colonoscopy about 12 years ago (luckily, no issues) and did the Cologuard deal last summer while in the US.  Two more years and I'll do it again.
I attended a funeral in June for the wife of a friend who died from complications from her first colonoscopy 3 weeks earlier.  Those kind of fatal complications don't happen often from a colonoscopy procedure but, like most medical procedures, it's not risk-free. 

All of us somehow learn how to pronounce letters before we even attend school, sort of a muscle/mouth/breathing control that seems to get locked in and oftentimes is very difficult or impossible to change once we're older.  Say the "v" sound and you'll notice how you automatically form that sound without even thinking about it.  Given Thai has no "v" sound in their alphabet, it's generally impossible for Thais to pronounce.  David becomes "Dawit" (the Thai "d" at the end of a word or syllable is pronounced like a "t") and, of course, tv becomes "tee wee."
As for the "b's" in Bob, the Thai alphabet has a "b" (บ) which sounds exactly like an English "b" at the beginning of a word or syllable but it's always pronounced like a "p" at the end of a word or syllable; thus, I am forever "Bop" here.  That same anomaly is why you oftentimes see "crab" both pronounced and written in Thai menus as "crap."
Like Joshhb, I simply have never been able to pronounce the "ng" (ง)Thai consonant which is the initial consonant for Thai words such as snake (ngoo) or money (ngern).  I've tried for almost 20 years to pronounce it right but just can't seem to do it.  Whenever I do try to pronounce that damn consonant, usually Thais either badly attempt to hide a laugh at my attempt or, after a short tee hee, they actually try to help me pronounce it (without any real success so far).  

Agree about the foolishness part.  And feel sympathetic toward those who can't afford reasonable coverage (or have so many pre-existing conditions that having health insurance which excludes pre-existing conditions is pretty much a waste of time and money).
As to the alleged new medical insurance requirement:
(1)  Since the new policy wasn't announced until after you renewed last Friday, not surprising that the Immigration officer didn't say anything about it.
(2)  Ubonjoe (typically very accurate) indicates the new medical insurance requirement at the moment (things could change) only applies to those applying for an 0-A visa in their home country (which, of course, is the only place you can get an 0-A visa based on retirement).
 
 
 
 

Bob, nobody is trying to argue with you.  Perhaps you might explain just how your partner is going to handle disposition of your remains (which, no doubt, will end up in a hospital morgue) without a release from the embassy/consulate (along with police release and payment of the hospital charges) and without a valid Will that gives your partner authority to make those decisions.  

I've always used prepaid (AIS) and think it's incredibly cheap.  Recently (I was at the AIS shop for some other issue), I switched to a six-month paid-in-advance data package which was 20-30% cheaper than the prior monthly data cost of about 200 baht per month and also provided another gig or two of data (I don't need a lot of gigs as I'm usually home and the True wifi we have here is rather speedy).  

A rather incredible comment but, in spite of that, I wouldn't wish him on your country.  I still consider Trump's election to be an indictment of the US education system. [post-election studies do reflect an almost perfect bell curve with respect to the education level of the voters (i.e., as the education level went up, his support went to near zero)] 

A rather incredible comment but, in spite of that, I wouldn't wish him on your country.  I still consider Trump's election to be an indictment of the US education system. [post-election studies do reflect an almost perfect bell curve with respect to the education level of the voters (i.e., as the education level went up, his support went to near zero)] 

A rather incredible comment but, in spite of that, I wouldn't wish him on your country.  I still consider Trump's election to be an indictment of the US education system. [post-election studies do reflect an almost perfect bell curve with respect to the education level of the voters (i.e., as the education level went up, his support went to near zero)] 

A rather incredible comment but, in spite of that, I wouldn't wish him on your country.  I still consider Trump's election to be an indictment of the US education system. [post-election studies do reflect an almost perfect bell curve with respect to the education level of the voters (i.e., as the education level went up, his support went to near zero)] 

What is known is: 
 
(1)  The British have indeed stated that they won't issue income affidavits beginning January 1, 2019, and are recommending that Brits maintain the 800k bank accounts to support retirement visas/extensions.  Unless this new declared policy is changed, the new policy will obviously affect the Brits who have relied on the income affidavits to stay here long term. 
 
(2)  The British authorities for some reason made a comment that they know that the same change is coming for US citizens too.  While the Brits had no real business talking about what the US policy will be, I'm also doubtful that the Brits would have said that without knowing something about it (i.e., one typically can rely on what British officials say).
 
(3)  Everyone has known for years that the US embassy/consulate has been issuing the income affidavits to its citizens without any requirement that the applicant show any proof of income. But, on the other hand, I've always wondered why other countries have required the proof of income before notarizing the affidavits because the form the embassy/consulate officials sign is simply verifying the identity (and not the income amount) of the signer of the form.
 
(4)  In Chiangmai, there have been some credible reports for the last two months or so that CM Immigration officers are occasionally asking a US citizen with an income affidavit to provide some proof of that income.  So far, it's been hit and miss for that activity (but there were no prior reports of this occurring so something different is afoot).
 
What's unknown is why this is happening now.  Some have suggested (and it's inferred in some of the British statements) that the changes are occurring because of demands by Thai immigration (i.e., Thai Immigration has told the Brits that they must verify the income before issuing the affidavits and the Brits have determined that they have neither the ability or desire to spend the time/effort to verify income from various sources around the world). 
 
While I disagree with Scooby's blanket comment that it's all "completely useless information", he's right that only god/buddha knows what the immigration rules (or application of those rules) will be next month let alone the in the coming years. 
 
[OP - you plainly assert that the Thai Immigration Chief - Big Joke or whoever - made some declaration that Thai Immigration would no longer accept the British Income affidavits.  Where exactly did you find that the Thai Immigration chief said any such thing?  The only statements I've seen so far are by British officials]

What is known is: 
 
(1)  The British have indeed stated that they won't issue income affidavits beginning January 1, 2019, and are recommending that Brits maintain the 800k bank accounts to support retirement visas/extensions.  Unless this new declared policy is changed, the new policy will obviously affect the Brits who have relied on the income affidavits to stay here long term. 
 
(2)  The British authorities for some reason made a comment that they know that the same change is coming for US citizens too.  While the Brits had no real business talking about what the US policy will be, I'm also doubtful that the Brits would have said that without knowing something about it (i.e., one typically can rely on what British officials say).
 
(3)  Everyone has known for years that the US embassy/consulate has been issuing the income affidavits to its citizens without any requirement that the applicant show any proof of income. But, on the other hand, I've always wondered why other countries have required the proof of income before notarizing the affidavits because the form the embassy/consulate officials sign is simply verifying the identity (and not the income amount) of the signer of the form.
 
(4)  In Chiangmai, there have been some credible reports for the last two months or so that CM Immigration officers are occasionally asking a US citizen with an income affidavit to provide some proof of that income.  So far, it's been hit and miss for that activity (but there were no prior reports of this occurring so something different is afoot).
 
What's unknown is why this is happening now.  Some have suggested (and it's inferred in some of the British statements) that the changes are occurring because of demands by Thai immigration (i.e., Thai Immigration has told the Brits that they must verify the income before issuing the affidavits and the Brits have determined that they have neither the ability or desire to spend the time/effort to verify income from various sources around the world). 
 
While I disagree with Scooby's blanket comment that it's all "completely useless information", he's right that only god/buddha knows what the immigration rules (or application of those rules) will be next month let alone the in the coming years. 
 
[OP - you plainly assert that the Thai Immigration Chief - Big Joke or whoever - made some declaration that Thai Immigration would no longer accept the British Income affidavits.  Where exactly did you find that the Thai Immigration chief said any such thing?  The only statements I've seen so far are by British officials]