Planning a trip to Thailand? Think again: COVID-19 sees big jump; 4.76 lakh total cases in 2025 so far
This data, from May 24 to June 14, comes from the Department of Disease Control (DDC). So far in 2025, the country has recorded more than 4.76 lakh total cases, Bangkok Post reported.
Of the recent cases, over 72,000 patients were admitted to hospitals while around 4,000 were treated as outpatients. The death toll this year has reached 154.
Bangkok (17,945), Chon Buri (3,315), Nakhon Ratchasima (3,027), Chiang Mai (2,678) and Rayong (1,775) were the five worst-hit provinces.
The elderly population (60+) continues to be most at risk, with 14,757 cases. Working-age groups were also affected. There are 14,561 cases in the 30–39 group and 13,889 in the 20–29 group.
Experts blame high social activity for the spread. Weekly graphs show that infection rates are still climbing.
Health experts in Thailand have warned people not to take COVID-19 lightly. In the last four weeks, it caused 116 deaths, 29 times more than seasonal flu.
The health ministry recommends wearing masks in crowds, washing hands, and getting booster shots. These measures are especially recommended for high-risk groups.
Thailand's tourism industry, once hit hard by COVID-19, is now bouncing back. In 2019, nearly 40 million tourists visited while, in 2024, the country welcomed 35 million, showing strong recovery. Visitors from China, Europe and the US are returning, helped by government efforts to boost travel.
Bangkok alone saw 32.4 million tourists. On average, each tourist spends $167 per day and stays for 9 days, according to GoWithGuide. Tourism added $48.45 billion to Thailand's GDP in 2019, making up 8.9% of the economy.
In Malaysia, doctors are seeing more people showing interest in getting vaccinated or taking booster doses again. Older people and those with health risks are especially interested. This is happening because COVID-19 cases are rising in nearby countries like Thailand and Singapore.
'Malaysians are encouraged to... practise good hygiene, wear masks in crowded or enclosed spaces and seek medical attention if symptoms develop,' The Straits Times quoted Dr Parmjit Singh as saying.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
19 hours ago
- The Print
Antarctica is the new tourist hotspot. Stop it from being loved to death
Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are permitted in Antarctica have convened in Italy . The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group that aims to address tourism issues. Unchecked tourism growth in Antarctica risks undermining the very environment that draws visitors. This would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica – and the planet. The number of tourists heading to Antarctica has been skyrocketing. From fewer than 8,000 a year about three decades ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the icy continent in 2023–24. The trend is likely to continue in the long term. It's not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond any one country's control. So, how do we stop Antarctica being loved to death? The answer may lie in economics. Future visitor trends We recently modelled future visitor trends in Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033–34, visitor numbers could reach around 285,000. Under the least conservative scenario, numbers could reach 450,000 – however, this figure incorporates pent-up demand from COVID shutdowns that will likely diminish. The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry comprises cruise-ship tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors travel to the Ross Sea region and parts of the continent's interior. Antarctic tourism is managed by an international set of agreements together known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). The Treaty System is notoriously slow-moving and riven by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap visitor numbers. Pressure on a fragile continent About two-thirds of Antarctic tourists land on the continent. The visitors can threaten fragile ecosystems by: compacting soils trampling fragile vegetation introducing non-native microbes and plant species disturbing breeding colonies of birds and seals. Even when cruise ships don't dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution – as well as anchoring that can damage the seabed. Then there's carbon emissions. Each cruise ship traveller to Antarctica typically produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, not including travel to the port of departure. This is similar to the carbon emissions an average person produces in a year. Global warming caused by carbon emissions is damaging Antarctica. At the Peninsula region, glaciers and ice shelves are retreating and sea ice is shrinking, affecting wildlife and vegetation. Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of overall emissions. However, the industry has a moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can compound damage from climate change, tipping delicate ecosystems into decline. Some operators use hybrid ships and less polluting fuels, and offset emissions to offer carbon-neutral travel. IAATO has pledged to halve emissions by 2050 – a positive step, but far short of the net-zero targets set by the International Maritime Organization. Can economics protect Antarctica? Market-based tools – such as taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and certification – have been used in environmental management around the world. Research shows these tools could also prevent Antarctic tourist numbers from getting out of control. One option is requiring visitors to pay a tourism tax. This would help raise revenue to support environmental monitoring and enforcement in Antarctica, as well as fund research. Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of US$100 (A$152) a night. But while a tax might deter the budget-conscious, it probably wouldn't deter high income, experience-driven tourists. Alternatively, a cap-and-trade system would create a limited number of Antarctica visitor permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among tourism operators or countries, via negotiation, auction or lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, making them quite valuable. Caps have been successful at managing tourism impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no trades allowed in that system. Any cap on tourist numbers in Antarctica, and rules for trading, must be based on evidence about what the environment can handle. But there is a lack of precise data on Antarctica's carrying capacity. And permit allocations amongst the operators and nations would need to be fair and inclusive. Alternatively, existing industry standards could be augmented with independent schemes certifying particular practices – for example, reducing carbon footprints. This could be backed by robust monitoring and enforcement to avoid greenwashing. Looking ahead Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research finds that the most workable solution is a combination of these market-based options, alongside other regulatory measures. So far, parties to the Antarctic treaty have made very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market-based levers will be more acceptable to the parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution. The authors would like to acknowledge Valeria Senigaglia, Natalie Stoeckl and Jing Tian and the rest of the team for their contributions to the research upon which this article was based. Darla Hatton MacDonald, Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Tasmania and Elizabeth Leane, Professor of Antarctic Studies, School of Humanities, University of Tasmania This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Time of India
Is a mega earthquake hitting Japan today? The Manga prediction everyone's talking about
Japan is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. With the summers in full swing, people across the globe have been planning a visit to this Asian country rich in natural landscapes, cultural history, modern technology and unforgettable experiences- all of which call the names of travellers who adore exploring new adventures. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now However, currently and especially today, on July 5, people in Japan are scared for their lives and those planning to visit the country have put their plans on hold. Why so? Let's find out! A tsunami to hit Japan? Image credits: X This is because a Japanese manga novel has predicted that a mega-earthquake will hit Japan today. The buzz started from the 2021 reprint of a 1999 manga called 'The Future I Saw' by Ryo Tatsuki, a retired manga artist known as Japan's 'New Baba Vanga'. In it she predicted a crack under the seabed between Japan and the Philippines, triggering a tsunami three times larger than the 2011 one that hit the country. Why are the people scared? In 2011, a 9.0-magnitude earthquake hit Japan's northern Tohoku region. The incident claimed the lives of nearly 20,000 people and caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster. Many believe that Tatsuki had predicted the occurrence. According to the South China Morning Post, a manga's cover included the words "massive disaster in March 2011" leading people to believe that she foresaw the event. Long-time followers of the new Baba Vanga also believe that she predicted the death of Princess Diana, musician Freddie Mercury and the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, over 1,000 earthquakes have rattled the Tokara island chain of the country since June 21, with the latest one on July 3 leading to the evacuation of one small southern island's 89 residents. With these quakes coinciding with the predicted doomsday, people's fears have only amped up. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Will a mega earthquake truly occur? Image credits: X Seismologists insist that the predictions are scientifically impossible. 'At the moment, it is still impossible to predict an earthquake with specific timing, location or its magnitude,' the Japan Meteorological Agency told the Associated Press last month, calling any such prediction 'a hoax' and 'disinformation'. The author herself tried to diminish the speculation through a statement issued by her publisher which clarified that she was "not a prophet" and that the mega earthquake may not happen. She encouraged readers not to be 'overly swayed' by her dreams and 'act appropriately based on expert opinions'.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Time of India
Inspired by Greta Thunberg, Sweden invented flight shaming, now it's desperately begging airlines to come back
Sweden Flight Shaming Backfires as Country Drops Air Tax to Revive Economy- Sweden, the birthplace of the 'flight shaming' movement, has now reversed course by scrapping its aviation tax in hopes of reviving a struggling economy. The move, effective from July 1, 2025, marks a sharp departure from Sweden's climate-focused past, where flying was discouraged to reduce carbon emissions. The air tax, which ranged from 76 to 517 kronor (£5.50–£37.40) per passenger, had been in place since 2018, championed by the then centre-left government. But with Sweden's economy shrinking and regional aviation collapsing, the country is now welcoming airlines back—with open arms and tax breaks. The decision has triggered both praise from the aviation industry and disappointment from climate advocates. Why did Sweden scrap its air tax despite its eco-conscious reputation? Sweden's aviation tax was introduced at a time when environmental awareness was peaking. In 2018, the same year the tax was enforced, Greta Thunberg, then 15, launched her first school climate strike outside the Swedish Parliament. This led to a cultural wave known as 'flygskam' or flight shame, where people deliberately avoided flying to reduce their environmental impact. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Photos Captured the Exact Wrong Moment Read More Undo According to a 2019 survey, nearly 25% of Swedes were avoiding flights, up from 17% in the previous year. The impact was significant: Sweden's national airport operator, Swedavia AB, recorded a seven-month decline in passenger numbers in 2019. That year also saw the slowest growth in airline travel in a decade, while train travel through SJ, the national railway, soared to 32 million passengers as more Swedes opted for 'climate-smart' travel. What were the economic consequences of flight shaming in Sweden? Over the next seven years, international flights to and from Sweden dropped by a third. Smaller airports, especially in northern and remote regions, began to suffer. Ryanair completely exited the domestic market in Sweden, and Bromma Airport, near Stockholm, almost shut down due to lack of use. By 2025, only one regional airline, Västfly, was operating from Bromma. Live Events The situation worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic and a recession in 2023, followed by a 0.3% GDP contraction between April and July 2024. The new right-wing government, elected in 2022, responded by scrapping the air tax and announcing a £76 million investment into aviation infrastructure. Officials claimed there were 'few reasons to feel flight shame' in today's context. How did airlines respond to Sweden's tax reversal? The response from the aviation industry was swift and supportive. Ryanair reintroduced two aircraft to its Swedish operations and announced ten new routes. EasyJet welcomed the move, saying it would help keep flying affordable. Norwegian Airlines added new routes between Norway and Sweden. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) praised the decision, stating: 'Taxation of air passengers is counterproductive economically and ineffective environmentally.' The government now hopes the boost to the aviation sector will support regional development, increase connectivity, and restore consumer confidence. What does this mean for Europe's green aviation efforts? Sweden's reversal is being closely watched by other European countries that introduced their own versions of flight taxes or bans on short-haul flights: Germany raised domestic flight taxes by 75% in 2020. Belgium has a €10 boarding tax on short flights. The Netherlands imposes a €29.40 tax on every flight, no matter the distance. Denmark, as of January 1, 2025, charges 50DK (£5.73) for intra-Europe flights and up to 410DK (£47.55) for long-haul. France banned short domestic flights where train travel takes less than 2 hours 30 minutes. Spain is considering a similar ban that could cut domestic flight emissions by 10%. Still, critics argue these moves don't go far enough. Environmental group Ecologistas en Acción called Spain's proposal 'purely symbolic,' while others say broader, more enforceable bans are needed to meet global climate goals. Can aviation ever be green without hurting economies? This is the central question Sweden now forces the world to confront. The conflict between climate action and economic recovery is more visible than ever. Justin Francis, co-founder of Responsible Travel, commented: 'Some governments' short-term attitudes to regulating aviation have shifted, but the science hasn't. Aviation is still one of the fastest-growing sources of emissions.' Francis argues that taxing aviation fuel, rather than passengers, could be a more balanced approach. The proceeds, he says, should be directed toward low-emission aviation research and expanding rail networks. But until electric or hydrogen-powered planes become commercially viable, countries may struggle to reduce aviation emissions without disrupting connectivity, tourism, and regional economies. What's next for Sweden and Europe's aviation future? Sweden's U-turn offers a real-world lesson on the challenges of balancing environmental goals with economic pressures. The case will likely influence how other countries adjust or reinforce their aviation policies in the coming years. For now, it's clear that while climate ideals sparked the flight shaming movement, economic realities have the final say. FAQs: Q1: Why did Sweden end its flight shame policy and scrap the air tax? Sweden dropped its flight tax to support its economy and revive regional air travel. Q2: How has Sweden's flight shaming reversal affected airlines and travel? Airlines like Ryanair and EasyJet are expanding again as Sweden lifts the aviation tax.
