GroveHillWanderer

No he would not. Since Thailand is off the red list, he would only have to "quarantine" wherever he is staying, for ten days (so in essence, self-isolate) - and undergo the necessary testing. See info on the link below: Travel to England from another country

The trouble with articles that say how long vaccines usually or typically took, based on what has happened in the past is that's exactly what that are - articles on how long vaccines used to take in the past. There are multiple, perfectly good and logical reasons why the current crop of Covid vaccines took a lot less time than vaccines used to in the past. Many (though not all) of them are mentioned in the video below, from the Oxford University Vaccine Technology development people. The other thing is that it's totally illogical to say that just because some vaccines took 10 years or more in the past (in total development lead time) all vaccines must therefore, now and forever into the future, take ten years or more. As at least one epidemiologist has pointed out, asking why vaccines can be created so quickly now when it used to take longer in the past is like asking why it used to take two weeks to cross the Atlantic back in the 1800's, whereas now you can get across the ocean in just a few hours.

And what biological mechanism would you propose for vaccines to be able to have adverse effects after 3, 5 or 10 years?

You don't need long term studies to prove that mixing viral vector and mRNA vaccines produces higher levels of all the major components of the immune system: antibodies, B cells and T cells. And all the studies done so far, show that to be the case.

Actually, SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate "just like the flu." It mutates in a quite, quite different (and relatively-speaking, slower) manner because of the different nature of its genome. For instance, influenza viruses (of which there are dozens, each requiring a different vaccine, by the way) mutate mainly by two processes known as antigenic drift and antigenic shift. In contrast, and as stated in the article below: The natural evolution of SARS-CoV-2

It's unusual for injected vaccines to give sterilising immunity to respiratory diseases because such vaccines are not normally known to induce mucosal immunity. There is some development going on into inhalable or edible vaccines, partly because it is hoped they would indeed lead to mucosal immunity.

The MG EP looks like a decent vehicle and costs less than ฿1 m (albeit only just).

OK sorry, didn't know you were over 65, obviously.

I think it's more to do with the logistics - I'm not aware there are any standard, internationally-valid documents saying you have had, and recovered from, a CoVid-19 infection.

They have their own, separate regulations. Details can be found on the link below: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/travel-to-england-from-another-country-during-coronavirus-covid-19

As I read those articles, I think you're very possibly reading too much into the raw numbers. As pointed out in the second link: "Results from those studies can be skewed by any number of factors, including the location, the age of the population vaccinated, when they were immunized and the timing between the doses, Dean said. For example, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was rolled out weeks before Moderna’s to priority groups — older adults and health care workers. Immunity wanes more quickly in older adults, so a decline observed in a group consisting mostly of older adults may give the false impression that the protection from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine falls off quickly." The fact is that both vaccines remain highly effective against serious illness, hospitalization or death. Also there's no indication as yet that booster doses, whether of Pfizer or Moderna, will be authorized for the general public in the US.

The US provided 1.5 million doses of Pfizer, not 150,000. 1.5 million Pfizer vaccine doses donated by the US

That doesn't mean they're experimental. Experimental vaccines are ones that are still undergoing clinical trials (trial and experiment being synonyms) and none of the Covid vaccines currently authorized for use, are still in the clinical trial phase. For one thing, when vaccines are still in the trial/experimental stage, only half of the people receiving injections actually get the vaccine - the other half get a placebo. That is not what is happening with the vaccines under discussion, so they are clearly not experimental. Also all other vaccines vaccines did not (and do not) undergo trials for 10-15 years, that's just a total skewing of the facts. For instance, the mumps vaccine only took 4 years from start of design until approval. Also, although they're not starting from scratch every time, new flu vaccines are designed, developed and approved within 6 to 12 months every single year. Now, it is true that many vaccines in the past had a total lead time of 10-15 years, from the start of the conceptual or design phase, all the way through till final, full approval. However, they did not spend that whole time undergoing human clinical trials. Very often, 5-10 years of the total development lead time could be spent on design, laboratory and animal studies just to find a vaccine that was suitable to go into human trials. Also, the human clinical trials often only lasted as long as they did because of the various logistical and bureaucratic procedures involved. In the UK for instance, the normal minimum time from submitting an application for approval to conduct a human clinical trial to receiving the go ahead is 6 months. It would then normally take another 6 months after submitting the results of each phase of trials, for the regulatory authority to get around to reviewing those results. This was mainly due to the fact that there was no ongoing global health emergency caused by a totally new and deadly virus for which there was no known treatment or cure. Consequently there was no particular urgency to move quickly between different phases of development. With the Covid vaccines however, these fundamentally unnecessary bureaucratic delays, (which would often add up to years in total, for all three phases) were eliminated. Furthermore it's not a valid or a logical argument to say that just because some vaccines in the past took 10 to 15 years to develop, therefore all vaccines now and forever into the future must also take that length of time. As one epidemiologist has pointed out, asking why the Covid vaccines could be developed so quickly when vaccines in the past used to take a lot longer is akin to asking why international travellers can now get across the Atlantic Ocean in 6 hours when in the 1800’s, it used to take two weeks.

That's untrue. As stated repeatedly by numerous virologists and epidemiologists in various articles, no vaccine has ever been shown to have long term adverse effects. Here are just a couple of examples of such statements. Long term side effects of Covid vaccines Is Old Vaccine Technology the Key to Hesitancy?

The article said they only just started on the process:

That has absolutely nothing to do with the list of countries' vaccinations that the UK will accept.

It seems a little strange to be publishing this oped just now, when it was already announced a week ago that the UK policy on accepting vaccinations is literally about to change in just a few days. As from October 4, the UK will accept vaccinations from these countries, from all around the world: Andorra Antigua and Barbuda Australia Austria Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Bulgaria Canada Croatia Republic of Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Israel Japan Kuwait Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malaysia Malta Monaco Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Qatar Romania San Marino Saudi Arabia Singapore Slovakia Slovenia South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan The UAE The UK The US Vatican City Which countries' vaccines are recognised in the UK? It's worth noting that according to the same article, only certain vaccines are acceptable, as follows: Pfizer BioNTech, Oxford AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen (J&J).

If he said that, he's wrong. AZ is not an inactivated virus vaccine, it's a viral vector vaccine.

It is possible to change venue for the second shot, at least in some places. In Hua Hin you can scan a QR code issued by the government hospital, so I would try contacting your local government hospital and see if they have a procedure for doing this.

Yes, that's ten days for unvaccinated people, not those vaccinated. This Reuters report seems to be a summary of an earlier article in a well-known English language newspaper in Thailand which says the proposal is for a 7-day quarantine for fully vaccinated people. If you Google the name Opas Karnkawinpong, the health official quoted in the OP, you can find the article I'm talking about.

Analysis of data from millions of people shows that you're much more likely to get blood clots from being infected with Covid than you are from getting any of the vaccines. COVID-19 infection much more likely to cause blood clots than vaccines

I'm not sure there have been any deaths that have been proven to be linked to the AZ vaccine in Thailand. A number of deaths have occurred in people who had received the vaccine but I'm not aware that a direct causal link has been established. Don't forget that having a vaccine does not make you immortal and deaths will still occur in vaccinated people at roughly the same rate as they occur in the unvaccinated (apart from dying of Covid of course).

Well, if it's subcutaneous, then all bets are off. However it's not subcutaneous according to the latest article in the Bangkok Post (which of course I can't quote or link to) and according to different articles about this idea (e.g. Reuters, The Nation) when it was first mooted, the whole plan was to use intradermal injection. I suspect that any references to subcutaneous are because of people confusing the two terms, since they are very similar in concept. The doctor proposing it even referenced the study in the Netherlands into using the Moderna vaccine intradermally. Medical expert suggests intradermal inoculation to multiply vaccine usage As for the dosage, the general principle is that whatever the amount used for intramuscular injection, a smaller dose is required when using the intradermal route, to get the same immunological effect. Please note that all of this is still just being put forward as part of an academic discussion of the relative merits of different methods of vaccine administration and I'm not making any specific judgement of what the Thai authorities are currently doing.

Fine, just so it's also clear that all the potential immunological and reactogenic drawbacks mentioned in the BMJ article apply to subcutaneous injection, not intradermal injection. Furthermore, it is not against all the international scientific evidence on covid vaccine administration. I already quoted from a study by Dutch scientists into administering the Moderna vaccine intradermally, and which states that: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210802/Intradermal-administration-of-low-dose-mRNA-COVID-19-vaccine-induces-strong-immune-response-study-finds.aspx

I already mentioned that in an earlier post.