In many ways, Thailand's simultaneous efforts to ease the Covid-19 health crisis and reopen international tourism exist in a state of friction. (Island Watch #12)
My dad used to say we shouldn't assume malevolence when incompetence can explain an outcome. I think that is clearly the case here. However, to be fair, we are seeing the same COVID surge in the United States despite vaccines being readily available for the asking.
I would be the first to agree that the best approach would have been to prioritize vaccinating all locals. But in the absence of enough vaccine, that is not going to happen, and in these circumstances, the problem with the egalitarian approach is that it tends to ensure everyone suffers equally rather than everyone benefits equally. As an example, imagine we don't have enough food to feed everyone. Should we then not feed anyone, or should we at least distribute as best we can the food supplies we have? It would be the same with limited vaccines.
Therefore, why not employ available resources in a way that yields the greatest collective benefit? Phuket is unique in that it is easily physically isolated, and special in that a greater part of its economy depends on foreign visitors. If the sandbox program could bring even limited economic benefits to the island without increasing health risks from COVID, why shouldn't it? The exceptionally low rate of infections among sandbox arrivals quoted by David suggests that is the case.
Also, I'm not convinced that Thais not being able to visit Phuket is a significant hardship or a big enough reason to scrap the program. Thais aren't really able to move around freely elsewhere at the moment either. I would agree, however, that once sandbox arrivals leave Phuket, they should be under the same rules as Thai nationals for interprovincial travel, including entering Phuket.
Thanks again, David, for another thoughtful, balanced, well-researched article. Cheers.
Once again you point out real questions by a honest approach.
When the major part of the population in Thailand is deeply suffering of the pandemic and is urged to stay home, it can be awkward to give foreign tourists the possibility to come and indulge themselves on a paradise island as if the world outside didn't exist except Bangkok and Pattaya, of course.
Thai people need money. Under such circumstances, why refusing to locals to take part in these reopening programs? Are they not entitled to seek kind of relief too? All sources of money from tourism should benefit every single province as long as they are willing to reopen and welcome visitors whether they are locals, residents or foreign tourists.
I wouldn't be surprised if the government had personal and financial interests in that Phuket Sandbox whose name says a lot. What about Phuket's governor? In this crisis, he is distinguishing himself by his selfishness. How dare he boast on the fact that 70% of the island is vaccinated while the rest of the country is waiting for its first injection? No doubt he has an agenda.
In my opinion, the prime minister and the authorities should focus on the most vulnerable people before rolling out the red carpet to the wealthiest and privileged ones as usual. First things first.
Hi, David.
My dad used to say we shouldn't assume malevolence when incompetence can explain an outcome. I think that is clearly the case here. However, to be fair, we are seeing the same COVID surge in the United States despite vaccines being readily available for the asking.
I would be the first to agree that the best approach would have been to prioritize vaccinating all locals. But in the absence of enough vaccine, that is not going to happen, and in these circumstances, the problem with the egalitarian approach is that it tends to ensure everyone suffers equally rather than everyone benefits equally. As an example, imagine we don't have enough food to feed everyone. Should we then not feed anyone, or should we at least distribute as best we can the food supplies we have? It would be the same with limited vaccines.
Therefore, why not employ available resources in a way that yields the greatest collective benefit? Phuket is unique in that it is easily physically isolated, and special in that a greater part of its economy depends on foreign visitors. If the sandbox program could bring even limited economic benefits to the island without increasing health risks from COVID, why shouldn't it? The exceptionally low rate of infections among sandbox arrivals quoted by David suggests that is the case.
Also, I'm not convinced that Thais not being able to visit Phuket is a significant hardship or a big enough reason to scrap the program. Thais aren't really able to move around freely elsewhere at the moment either. I would agree, however, that once sandbox arrivals leave Phuket, they should be under the same rules as Thai nationals for interprovincial travel, including entering Phuket.
Thanks again, David, for another thoughtful, balanced, well-researched article. Cheers.
Hello David,
Once again you point out real questions by a honest approach.
When the major part of the population in Thailand is deeply suffering of the pandemic and is urged to stay home, it can be awkward to give foreign tourists the possibility to come and indulge themselves on a paradise island as if the world outside didn't exist except Bangkok and Pattaya, of course.
Thai people need money. Under such circumstances, why refusing to locals to take part in these reopening programs? Are they not entitled to seek kind of relief too? All sources of money from tourism should benefit every single province as long as they are willing to reopen and welcome visitors whether they are locals, residents or foreign tourists.
I wouldn't be surprised if the government had personal and financial interests in that Phuket Sandbox whose name says a lot. What about Phuket's governor? In this crisis, he is distinguishing himself by his selfishness. How dare he boast on the fact that 70% of the island is vaccinated while the rest of the country is waiting for its first injection? No doubt he has an agenda.
In my opinion, the prime minister and the authorities should focus on the most vulnerable people before rolling out the red carpet to the wealthiest and privileged ones as usual. First things first.