ftpjtm

Prayut has his sights set on challenging China for this honor.

The Chinese graciously assisted with the investigation.

I'm 62 years old and reasonably fit. My 54 yo Thai wife and I both received 1st and second doses of Pfizer on the same days. We both had similar side effects. With the first shot a little light headed for 30 minutes after the shot. A little arm soreness for a few hours. Nothing more than that and no problem going about our business, including driving home, for the rest of the day. Next day no remaining side effects. After the second shot, which we received around noon, we had both lost our appetite by evening. We were also very tired. We forced down a little food and took a walk, then retired early at about 9pm and slept soundly through the night. The next day we both felt great and didn't have any more side effects.

Keep your guide and let me know when all this is no longer required.

I did exactly that when my neighbor insisted she saves money by using 91 in her Honda City. In my MG3 I get 10.53 Km/L with 91 vs 10.25 Km/L on E85. It has a 45 L fuel tank, so range is 474 Km on 91 vs 461 on E85. Assuming pricing @ 29.68 for 91, and 22.94 for E85 (per Kuhnbenq's post earlier on this thread) it costs 282 baht to drive 100 Kms on 91 vs 224 on E85. So I save 60 baht per 100 Km running E85, or about 200 baht per fill/300-350Kms. Yes, the range is a bit less but it's barely noticeable and the power feels the same with either fuel. Maybe the performance difference is greater with a Honda City, but E85 is definitely the way to go in my MG.

We left Thailand in May, which was pretty good timing IMO. We don't have a return date yet, but definitely don't want to do 14 days in BKK quarantine. Drop a note if you're in the New England area.

Another consideration for those who mainly use 95 or fuel without ethanol, I grew up in New England in the US where we have variable weather, hot as Thailand in summer and well below freezing in winter. When I was younger, ethanol fuel additives were very popular and a must in freezing weather. This is because as temperatures change, condensation can form inside near empty fuel tanks, and when the tank is filled this contaminates the fuel with a small amount of water. In the winter the water can freeze, stopping fuel flow and leaving vehicles stranded. So it was a early winter ritual to add some "gas line anti freeze", which was a bottle of ethanol, to your fuel. The ethanol absorbs the water in the fuel and it is burned off with the ethanol in the combustion chamber. A decade or two ago the US government mandated that all gasoline sold in the US must contain 10% ethanol (or methanol). This mandate ended the need for gasoline anti freeze, as ethanol is present in all fuel. While freezing gas lines are not a worry in Thailand, there are evenings when it's cool enough to cause substantial condensation. This could lead to water in fuel tanks, and 100% petroleum fuels like 95 won't absorb it. If enough water accumulates in your tank it can cause engine misfiring or stalling. So I would recommend that persons who predominantly use 95, use an occasional tank of one of the grades containing ethanol to flush water out of the fuel tank. Either that or add an occasional bottle of overpriced "fuel conditioner", which is mainly ethanol, to your tank to achieve the same result at a higher price.

I have a car (MG3) which is compatible with E85, E20, 91 and 95. I did some research and this is what I came up with. 95 is 100% petroleum based. 91 is 10% ethanol, E20 20%, and E85 85% ethanol. I was told by several neighbors that E85 gives worse KM's per liter than 91 or 95, which negates any savings due to the dramatically lower price. I didn't believe it so carefully recorded Km readings and liter usage with several tanks of 91, E20 and E85, driving in a similar manner as much as possible. With my experience the range of a tank of E20 vs 91 was indescernible. A tank of E85 netted a few less Km's, but the extra range from 91 was absolutely not enough to negate the savings vs use of E85. E85 was by far the most economical choice. I my car runs fine on all of the fuels. I definitely can not notice any difference in performance with a tank full of E85 vs 95. One problem with E85 is limited availability. In my area it's only available at the larger PTT outlets. I've never seen it available at a Shell, Esso or Caltex station. But if you're not able to find it the obvious answer is to use another fuel type. Another problem and the main reason some cars are not rated for E20 or E85 is that ethanol is more corrosive than petroleum. So if ethanol corrosion rated materials are not present in the fuel system E20 & E85 definitely should not be used. Myself, if I leave the car sitting for long periods of time (when I leave Thailand for multiple months) I make sure it's full of 95, and ask the neighbor who takes it on occasional runs to keep it full of 95. As far as environmental friendliness, from what I understand ethanol burns more cleanly than petroleum. But burning ethanol also produces more greenhouse gasses, so it's probably a wash. The ethanol used in Thai motor fuels is predominantly distilled domestically from cassava or sugarcane, so to me I feel better about supporting the Thai farming community vs the petroleum industry. The reason that the ethanol fuels are cheaper in Thailand is because the ethanol industry is Thai government subsidized via import taxes on petroleum. So E85 and E20 fuel's cost advance could disappear overnight with the stroke of a pen. But for now, it's the best option IMO for cars that are driven daily.

Could it be that the doctor is implying that had the government signed off on that requisition half a year ago, the vaccinations would have started months ago?

A good start would be signing the 20M dose Pfizer requisition the private hospitals have been begging them to sign for nearly a year.