Transcript of the above video:

As we are sort of sitting here along the event horizon where it is looking like we are seeing the Emergency Decree coming to an end here in Thailand, I was recently reading an article from the Bangkok Post, that is bangkokpost.com article is titled: Chadchart: Bangkok reconsidering mask rules. Quoting directly: "Mask requirements in Bangkok may be reconsidered following the Government's decision to revoke the Emergency Decree on COVID-19 according to City Governor Chadchart Sittipunt. Speaking during a visit to Pom Prap Sattru Phai District on Saturday, he said the capital's administration would address control of the Coronavirus using the Communicable Disease Act now that the Emergency Decree is to be ended and the National Center for COVID-19 Situation Administration (CCSA) is to be dissolved on October 1." 

My response to that is using the Communicable Disease Act, how? We've done the analysis on this. I did the analysis I don't know, what was it? A year ago? Something like this; 18 months ago at the time when they were using the Emergency Decree and they didn't have the codified authority to impose a mass mandate then. How do they propose they have any codified authority to impose a mask mandate after the Emergency Decree ends? I never agreed with the logic that "we can do it because we have an Emergency Decree". I never really bought into that line of logic because there wasn't any logic there, at least none that I could see under the type of legal reasoning that I am used to dealing with. Yes I understand Civil Law is different and so I come at this as an outside observer. I am kind of a comparative law kind of person when it comes to this but this "mask mandate" was never codified and codification is the basis of the Civil Law. You have got to put it in writing somewhere and it is not. It is just not in there. You can't interpret it in, even under an Emergency Decree. I didn't agree with it then as I was very vocal about, so continuing to talk about this; a) I don't see the point, b) haven't we gotten to the point where we do understand that this "mask mandating" largely is not effective. I mean based on the data that I have read and I am happy to stand corrected, if people have peer reviewed studies of this, please put it in the comments. I will happily look at it but based on what I have read and based on what I have seen it is my understanding that at best it's like a net neutral and in many ways it may actually be a detriment in certain ways. Again, I am no expert on this whole thing from a medical standpoint, but it's my understanding that it has not been this great benefit in terms of a public health measure. 

Meanwhile to just say "oh we are going to use the Communicable Disease Act", well how? It is not in there; it never was. Again I will put up the link in the description below to the analysis; that thing was like 30 or 45 minutes long where we went through line by line the actual Act. It is not codified, it is not there. I mean even from an interpretive standpoint, I don't get what they're interpreting in because it says that they can prohibit certain things, they can't compel which is what this is unless you are saying "well we are prohibiting breathing" which that to me is ludicrous on a whole different level. So again, not to get too excited about this but I think the question should be posed: "at what point is this going to end?" The Emergency Decree is over. Clearly it's not an emergency anymore because the Emergency Decree has ended so why would we even consider continuing with all this stuff?