Thai Government May Close Game Parlors Over Swine Flu Fears
Thai Government May Close Game Parlors Over Swine Flu Fears
July 9, 2009
Swine Flu remains a concern in Thailand, where government officials are considering a shutdown of game centers in an effort to control the spread of the illness.
GameCulture reports that Thai prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva will decide today whether such a step is warranted. Public Health Minister Witthaya Kaewparadai recently named game parlors as hotspots for the spread of Swine Flu. From the GC report:
Thailand, which has recorded more than 2200 H1N1 infections since the virus started spreading globally earlier this year, saw a spike in cases over the past weekend... Interviews with patients pointed to Bangkok's popular gaming cafes as a hub for transmission. On weekends, and particularly during holidays, Thai teenagers crowd into the cafes, where they chat and play games until the wee hours...
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
And when will they reopen it??? I'm thinking an anti gaming excuse. >_>
Dude, you have no idea how bad the Swine Flu scare has spooked Asian countries. I'm talking serious airport security. If you even have so much of a sniffle they'll run you down and ask you a battery of questions on your health.
For once, I actually believe the Swine Flu reason.
To be fair, it is a bit suspect that it's only game centres that are being mentioned, certainly as far as I can see.
/b
Well, considering it's called GamePolitics, not RestaurantPolitics or MallPolitics, I think they'd only mention the gaming aspect, not all the other stuff they've closed down since the outbreak started.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Well, Asia is bursting with wildlife and people so a lot of diseases get quickly transmitted there.
GameSnooper
I don't remember them taking these precautions over Avian Flu, or SARS. (Remember those, they were supposed to kill us all as well.)
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
They didn't.
The West did.
Since we aren't getting any word of other public venues being closed, it seems all the more sketchy.
Huh, I thought this whole swine flu thing was a done deal. I guess the media here finally got tired of blabbing about it all the time.
No. Michael Jackson Died. Now everyone is focusing on that and soon they will forget what they were talking about before hand.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
I'm sick of seeing about him too. Shouldn't spend more than a week on a dead person unless there's a real scandal or something interesting about it, not spend two weeks STRAIGHT of memorial stuff.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
At least it wasnt Anne Nicole Smith going about for 3 weeks.
In other news, 2200 cases of the real flu have been reported this week (not really, making that number up).
A number I'm not making up though, is that approximately 36,000 deaths and over 200,000 hospitalizations happen each year from the standard flu (thanks wikipedia) in the USA alone. Meanwhile, Swine flu has had about 108,000 reported cases and only 560 deaths. So, despite the fact that Swine flu kills about 0.1% as much as the real flu, this one gets all the media attention.
Can we be over this BS already?
Exactly what I had been thinking. Swine Flu is just a strain of the normal flu, it's no more deadly as long as you don't have other underlying medical conditions (most that have died of swine flu had other diseases/conditions as well). The only reason that swine flu could be a LITTLE bit worse is because no one has gotten it before, meaning that no one has any antibodies for it. I'm sick of the coverage of flu.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
It really is ridiculous. In the time it took for there to be ~8 deaths attributed to the Swine Flu, there were ~13,000 deaths from the regular flu. In the United States alone. And that was months ago, the number has no doubt soared by now; flu is a fairly common cause of (or contributing factor to) death - even here in America.
Now, there was a legitimate cause for the scientific and medical communities to keep a close watch on the outbreak; it is suspected (though not proven, as far as I know) that the 1918 pandemic was caused by a mutated version of the swine flu.
That said, the chances of this swine flu outbreak mutating into a similar strain were abysmally low, and even those few facts were lost to a media that simply wanted to sensationalize the fear factor.
With the difference being that normal flu deaths are caused by negligence (not going to see a doctor) or bad health care (exacerbating the conditions). Generally, we know how to deal with the flu, as long as people go to see good doctors.
What makes the medical community scramble every time one of these new viruses are discovered are the unknown factors. Who knows if, once they start replicating in the human body, they start mutating at an exponential rate? That would make them impossible to cure. You never know when a new virus is going to start a pandemic, so it's always better to be safe than sorry in terms of health, in my humble opinion.