Thai Firm to produce 200 million doses of Covid-19 vaccine

[Sudarut]

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Everything I've seen says "preservative free".

 

Have you "heard" something different?

 

 

All of us anti-vaxxers know that Thimerosal (also kills fungi and microbes) use has dwindled. 

 

 

 

 

No haven't heard any different, i know some vaccines have mercury as a preservative.

[Jeffr2]

19 minutes ago, Sudarut said:

No haven't heard any different, i know some vaccines have mercury as a preservative.

Fewer and fewer use Thimerosal in jabs.  Some, but less and less every year.  In the US, it was eliminated in all childhood jabs back in about 2001.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html

[Boomer6969]

Just hope we'll be able to get the proper vaccines at Bumrungrad or any other private hospital.

[ChouDoufu]

2 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

If they only aim to vaccinate 50% of the population in 2021, then I cannot see Thailand opening until 2022 ! I'll go flipping crazy in the flipping bed and breakfast in north UK by then !

 

that is not the aim.

 

they are simply reporting the current numbers.  AZ is setting up production facilities in thailand where they can support the vaccination programs throughout southeast asia.

 

finally!!!  thailand is a hub of something!!!

 

out of the 200 million expected doses to be produced (subject to revision!!), thailand has been allocated (and has contracted to purchase) 26 million, enough for half the population.

 

that in no way indicates thailand is not planning to innoculate the other half, only what the AZ production reported on will cover.

[ChouDoufu]

3 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Did they choose  the Oxford Uni AstraZeneca one because it's the cheapest ?

regards Worgeordie 

 

considering the ease of transport, handling, and storage, AZ is the proper choice as a supply for southeast asia.

 

imagine trying to get sub-zero containers of vaccine through jungles and swamps into isolated villages.

[Amusements]

2 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Maybe, but there's also the fact that Oxford University said from the beginning that their vaccine would be licensed for manufacture all around the world and would be distributed on a non-profit basis. They also quickly announced plans to manufacture 3 billion doses in 2021, mainly for distribution in developing countries.

 

Whereas the other companies (like Pfizer and Moderna) only announced plans to supply much more limited numbers of a for-profit vaccine and made exclusive agreements with mostly western, industrialized nations.

Exactly! There is a recent Panorama documentary called "Race for a vaccine" that explains how Oxford University developed the vaccine, and worked closely with Astra Zeneca. I am not sure if it is on youtube, but there are a few torrents of it, and an interesting watch.

[rabas]

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Nothing in the article that I can see, says (or even implies) that they plan to vaccinate only half the population.

 

It says they plan to export around half of the planned 200 million doses. That would imply they would have enough vaccine left for about 50 million people. That's more like 70% of the population - and it assumes they won't go on to manufacture more doses, or to acquire doses of other vaccines.

From the article.

 

"Thailand aims to vaccinate up to half of its population against Covid-19 next year according to the director of its National Vaccine Institute, Dr. Nakorn Premsri."

 

So they imply less than or equal to 50% in 2021. Of course they can continue into 2022 if needed.

[rabas]

4 hours ago, sezze said:

the 62% is without the mistake made in test . It was presumed to get 2 injections , same size . Apparently , some doctors did read it wrong and injected a half dose for the 1st . Together with the 2nd dose being a normal 1 , apparently it created a bigger immune reaction and that number is up to 90% .

I have read that UK is about ready to give approval in next 2 weeks .

Prob Thailand chose the AstraZeneca because it doesn't require anything new . The same technique used is used for many other vaccines . Also , since Asia has got top notch places , not everywhere in Asia is that the case . The AZ one , can be very easily handled , much easier then Pfizer and Moderna ( low transport temp ) . So easier to make and easier transport .

Initially they were not aware of the mistake that led to the full/half dose group. The FH group was also a separate group that did not include older people like the FF group did. Thus, they also cannot claim 90% efficacy for the FH group because it didn't cover the full age range.

 

This may be why they are considering a combination vaccine with Sputnik, or even Pfizer/Moderna. Second dose issues are known for AZ type vaccines. Sputnik used two vectors to avoid the problem. 

 

Combining the best of both world's could be a real winner to up efficacy and lower cost and logistics.

Edited December 24, 2020 by rabas

[RichardColeman]

2 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

that in no way indicates thailand is not planning to innoculate the other half, only what the AZ production reported on will cover.

Yes, agreed, but without knowing where Thailand is in the cue with other vaccine firms from other countries , these vaccination might be the only ones they get until 2022 !

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Did they choose  the Oxford Uni AstraZeneca one because it's the cheapest ?

regards Worgeordie 

Cheapest, and doesn't have the same sophisticated storage requirements as the others.

[Lacessit]

Perhaps they should contain nanochips, so vaccination certificates for COVID could not be faked. And it would keep the conspiracy theorists happy.

Oh wait, they're the ones probably wanting fake certificates.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Lacessit

[cormanr7]

The AstraZeneca vaccine works so poorly, based on the results of the pooled results from the UK and Brazilian trials (60 and 64% efficacy, respectively, with ca 4,500 participants in total having received the actual vaccine. The confidence intervals for these efficacy -roughly 30-80%- data do not inspire much confidence, hardly surprising with such low numbers) that there now will be attempts to replace one shot by the Sputnik V vaccine ( https://www.european pharmaceuticalreview.com/news/136683/astrazeneca-to-test-combination-of-azd1222-and-sputnik-v-vaccines/).

The Sputnik vaccin itself is unusual in that the ingredients of the first and second shot differ.

There is still some hope that the half-full dose of the AstraZeneca gives better results, but some suggest this may have been due to the fact that all participants in this particular 'side-trial' were below age 55, 91% were white,.....  And talking about the reliability of Oxford Univ.: the half dose blunder was due to the fact that the Univ. used a spectrophotometric assay (basically a density assay) to test the number of virus particles in an Italian-produced batch. The Italians had correctly assayed the number of particles by PCR but Oxford ignored this and believed that the number of particles was overstated by a factor of two and hence diluted the batch by a factor of two (they have since gone to the assay used by the Italians). Why did the Thai Govt. selected the AstraZeneca vaccine? I assume partly because it can be stored at 4oC but most likely because it is by far the cheapest.

[Don Chance]

The USA plans to vaccinate the entire population by June. All you need to do is fly to the USA and get your jab. They won't be checking green cards.

[mommysboy]

On 12/24/2020 at 9:21 AM, Jeffr2 said:

I think I'll pass on these jabs.

 

Any one know of a time frame for when the jabs will be ready here?

 

Yep, stick to your mask theory.

 

I'll go with the jab from AZ, as it is extremely effective at presenting serious infection.

[mommysboy]

On 12/24/2020 at 3:05 PM, rabas said:

Initially they were not aware of the mistake that led to the full/half dose group. The FH group was also a separate group that did not include older people like the FF group did. Thus, they also cannot claim 90% efficacy for the FH group because it didn't cover the full age range.

 

This may be why they are considering a combination vaccine with Sputnik, or even Pfizer/Moderna. Second dose issues are known for AZ type vaccines. Sputnik used two vectors to avoid the problem. 

 

Combining the best of both world's could be a real winner to up efficacy and lower cost and logistics.

 

Last I read age is not believed to be a factor in the higher efficacy rate- rather it is thought to be time period between doses.

 

Still, wish the MRHA wouldn't drag their feet.  It sends out the wrong message.  Hope this one is approved because it's so much more practicable than the others and I like the fact that it uses tried and tested techniques.  I know the mRNA vaccines are likely very safe but I still don't want an experimental vaccine in my arm to be honest!

[mommysboy]

8 hours ago, cormanr7 said:

The AstraZeneca vaccine works so poorly, based on the results of the pooled results from the UK and Brazilian trials (60 and 64% efficacy, respectively, with ca 4,500 participants in total having received the actual vaccine. The confidence intervals for these efficacy -roughly 30-80%- data do not inspire much confidence, hardly surprising with such low numbers) that there now will be attempts to replace one shot by the Sputnik V vaccine ( https://www.european pharmaceuticalreview.com/news/136683/astrazeneca-to-test-combination-of-azd1222-and-sputnik-v-vaccines/).

The Sputnik vaccin itself is unusual in that the ingredients of the first and second shot differ.

There is still some hope that the half-full dose of the AstraZeneca gives better results, but some suggest this may have been due to the fact that all participants in this particular 'side-trial' were below age 55, 91% were white,.....  And talking about the reliability of Oxford Univ.: the half dose blunder was due to the fact that the Univ. used a spectrophotometric assay (basically a density assay) to test the number of virus particles in an Italian-produced batch. The Italians had correctly assayed the number of particles by PCR but Oxford ignored this and believed that the number of particles was overstated by a factor of two and hence diluted the batch by a factor of two (they have since gone to the assay used by the Italians). Why did the Thai Govt. selected the AstraZeneca vaccine? I assume partly because it can be stored at 4oC but most likely because it is by far the cheapest.

 

Absolute rubbish.

[Patong2021]

The virus has mutated, and it is just some time before new version dominates.

With an MRNA based vaccine, the vaccine can be modified and changed up the fastest to respond. Moderna, and BionTech Pfizer is mRNA. No adjuvant required. 

 

With the Oxford Astra Zeneca DNA adenovirus based vaccine, not easy to modify and to change.  This vaccine requires adjuvant. Changes will require more testing and clinical trials.

 

Adaptability characteristics like above and efficacy are why mRNA vaccines are  the probable future of vaccines. 

If  countries only have one vaccine that relies one original virus version, maybe country will not be saved by the vaccine. If the mRNA vaccines can be modified faster, like is done with flu vaccine, then easy to make new or additional strain version. 

[partington]

5 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The virus has mutated, and it is just some time before new version dominates.

With an MRNA based vaccine, the vaccine can be modified and changed up the fastest to respond. Moderna, and BionTech Pfizer is mRNA. No adjuvant required. 

 

With the Oxford Astra Zeneca DNA adenovirus based vaccine, not easy to modify and to change.  This vaccine requires adjuvant. Changes will require more testing and clinical trials.

 

Adaptability characteristics like above and efficacy are why mRNA vaccines are  the probable future of vaccines. 

If  countries only have one vaccine that relies one original virus version, maybe country will not be saved by the vaccine. If the mRNA vaccines can be modified faster, like is done with flu vaccine, then easy to make new or additional strain version. 

I'm not sure why you think the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is not so easy to modify. Just like modifying the mRNA -based vaccines it is simply a matter of changing the nucleotide sequence coding for the spike protein that the adenovirus contains.

 

The virus vector used in the Oxford AstraZeneca can be changed to incorporate a new sequence in a few days using simple molecular biology techniques, and then simply slotted into the manufacturing procedure.  It isn't difficult or time consuming.

 

In addition because the vaccines make an antigen that's large enough to evoke many different antibodies, which would bind to different parts of it, it is thought unlikely that the mutations currently known would prevent the vaccines from working.

 

Incidentally, I'm not sure why the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine would need an adjuvant, since it is based on exactly the same principle as mRNA vaccines - both types go into human body cells after injection and the human cells themselves make and present the spike protein (antigen) - which evokes the immune response.

 

Adjuvants are usually used when the vaccine itself is an injected antigen . However I haven't looked this up so would be willing to be corrected if the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine does contain one.

Edited December 25, 2020 by partington

[sezze]

8 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The virus has mutated, and it is just some time before new version dominates.

With an MRNA based vaccine, the vaccine can be modified and changed up the fastest to respond. Moderna, and BionTech Pfizer is mRNA. No adjuvant required. 

 

With the Oxford Astra Zeneca DNA adenovirus based vaccine, not easy to modify and to change.  This vaccine requires adjuvant. Changes will require more testing and clinical trials.

 

Adaptability characteristics like above and efficacy are why mRNA vaccines are  the probable future of vaccines. 

If  countries only have one vaccine that relies one original virus version, maybe country will not be saved by the vaccine. If the mRNA vaccines can be modified faster, like is done with flu vaccine, then easy to make new or additional strain version. 

Theres already prob a few 100 mutations around . For covid , at the moment the mutations all look minor , so it is not expected to have any change in the vaccines approved / in research . As far as i know and understand , mRNA vaccines look more promising indeed , as long as the spike sequence used does not change significant . How it works out in the long run , well thats still uncertain . Anyway , the research results , and now in use results , will go into the next step for vaccines , and is very useful whatsoever .

[cormanr7]

2 hours ago, sezze said:

Theres already prob a few 100 mutations around . For covid , at the moment the mutations all look minor , so it is not expected to have any change in the vaccines approved / in research . As far as i know and understand , mRNA vaccines look more promising indeed , as long as the spike sequence used does not change significant . How it works out in the long run , well thats still uncertain . Anyway , the research results , and now in use results , will go into the next step for vaccines , and is very useful whatsoever .

Indeed, the 'more infectious' variant (SARS-CoV-2 VUI 202012/01) from the UK (?) has 14 mutations resulting in amino acid changes and has three deletions so 99% of the sequence has not changed https://www.who.int/csr/don/21-december-2020-sars-cov2-variant-united-kingdom/en/. In reality there are loads of marginally different (in genomic terms) strains, see e.g.  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238344

[cormanr7]

11 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Absolute rubbish.

Oh dear, words often spouted by people who have thousands of posts (and want to get many more) but cannot make any intellectual comments. I hope some readers take the time to read the official publication on the efficacy of the vaccine in the AZ trials https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext, the dumb assay error that resulted in the  half dose https://uk.yahoo.com/ news/oxford-vaccine-mix-came-scientists-162640732.html from the Telegraph, interestingly AZ originally blamed this on a 'manufacturing error') and the widely reported to be tested sequential combination of AZ and Sputnik vaccines https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55273907.

The lancet article is a hard slog. The reviewers forced the authors to re-write it and split up the data into various trials rather than lumping the results. There is also information on age groups and ethnicity of the participants (which both have come under heavy criticism as they do not conform to a proper trial set-up). An interesting detail from Table 5 in the article: there were  only 2 severe cases of COVID (both in the control group, one died) and zero in the vaccinated (two normal doses) group. In addition, two persons from the vaccinated and ten from the control group were hospitalized with less severe symptoms. How did they get the efficacy then, i.e. the 60-64%?  This was primarily based on self-swabs which were then tested by PCR in an official facility. There were more PCR-positive tests in the control group but these persons were probably largely asymptotic. So not much to go on, the merits of the AZ vaccine remain to be confirmed.  Should the half dose-full dose regime not work for older persons (to be clarified in ongoing trials whether this is a dose- or an age effect) then it would still possible to reserve it mainly for lower age groups. 

And a final note: AZ has tacitly admitted that the trial set-up was not so brilliant  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9050601/AstraZeneca-trials-differently-charge-Oxfords-vaccine.html and that they would have done 'it 'differently if they had been in charge' but failed to say what exactly they would have done differently. 

[mommysboy]

21 minutes ago, cormanr7 said:

Oh dear, words often spouted by people who have thousands of posts (and want to get many more) but cannot make any intellectual comments. I hope some readers take the time to read the official publication on the efficacy of the vaccine in the AZ trials https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext, the dumb assay error that resulted in the  half dose https://uk.yahoo.com/ news/oxford-vaccine-mix-came-scientists-162640732.html from the Telegraph, interestingly AZ originally blamed this on a 'manufacturing error') and the widely reported to be tested sequential combination of AZ and Sputnik vaccines https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55273907.

The lancet article is a hard slog. The reviewers forced the authors to re-write it and split up the data into various trials rather than lumping the results. There is also information on age groups and ethnicity of the participants (which both have come under heavy criticism as they do not conform to a proper trial set-up). An interesting detail from Table 5 in the article: there were  only 2 severe cases of COVID (both in the control group, one died) and zero in the vaccinated (two normal doses) group. In addition, two persons from the vaccinated and ten from the control group were hospitalized with less severe symptoms. How did they get the efficacy then, i.e. the 60-64%?  This was primarily based on self-swabs which were then tested by PCR in an official facility. There were more PCR-positive tests in the control group but these persons were probably largely asymptotic. So not much to go on, the merits of the AZ vaccine remain to be confirmed.  Should the half dose-full dose regime not work for older persons (to be clarified in ongoing trials whether this is a dose- or an age effect) then it would still possible to reserve it mainly for lower age groups. 

And a final note: AZ has tacitly admitted that the trial set-up was not so brilliant  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9050601/AstraZeneca-trials-differently-charge-Oxfords-vaccine.html and that they would have done 'it 'differently if they had been in charge' but failed to say what exactly they would have done differently. 

 

I think your take is largely wrong and heavily tainted and contains some untrue facts.

 

The most telling, real life, factor in this trial was that nobody who got the vaccine became seriously ill, whereas in the control group this was not the case, and sadly one person died. 

 

The AZ trial is the only one to be peer reviewed and published in The Lancet.

 

The testing strategy was in fact more rigorous than in the Pfizer trial which in fact did not test participants on a weekly basis, discounted mild symptoms, and relied on self reporting.

 

 

[Meat Pie 47]

On 12/24/2020 at 5:52 AM, ezzra said:

Maybe its just me but i have never trusted locally manufactured medicines somehow they don't have the same potency is the foreign big pharma ones... and why not of Pfizer or Moderna? and who is AstraZeneca? doesn't seems that any one is using them...

AstraZeneca plc is an British-Swedish multinational pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical company with its headquarters in Cambridge, England.

[Elkski]

It does seem like Thailand didn't rush to get vaccine orders in and this is sad fir Thailand.   Maybe Thailand has learned not to put all their eggs in one basket.  It is probably wise to consider two vaccines.  Also  cryo low temps are not compatible with Thailand. 

[mommysboy]

On 12/24/2020 at 4:24 AM, Jingthing said:

Why only half?!?

Targets to achieve herd immunity are over 70 percent. 

 

To protect the most vulnerable from serious illness, I guess. 

 

I'm not sure herd immunity is thought do-able in most countries.

[Jingthing]

17 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

To protect the most vulnerable from serious illness, I guess. 

 

I'm not sure herd immunity is thought do-able in most countries.

Of course it is doable -- by vaccinations. 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Of course it is doable -- by vaccinations. 

 

I don't know then.  Happy New Year btw.

 

I think a mixed vaccine approach is regarded as the best for some reason- perhaps they're eyeing the Pfizer vaccine for health workers, or perhaps hoping to pick up a few millions doses of Sinopharm for a song.

 

Even in the UK, using the Oxford jab, inoculating most of the population is a tall order. It's not just about having the doses, you have to have thousands of medically trained helpers.

 

 

 

[cmarshall]

On 12/25/2020 at 11:26 PM, Don Chance said:

The USA plans to vaccinate the entire population by June. All you need to do is fly to the USA and get your jab. They won't be checking green cards.

 

Only if the Biden administration turns things around, since at the current rate it will take ten years to vaccinate the US population.  

[Jeffr2]

5 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Only if the Biden administration turns things around, since at the current rate it will take ten years to vaccinate the US population.  

Trump promised some 20 million would be jabbed by now.  I think the number is around 2.1 million.  A huge failure.  But then again, it wasn't an easy task....

[cormanr7]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Trump promised some 20 million would be jabbed by now.  I think the number is around 2.1 million.  A huge failure.  But then again, it wasn't an easy task....

Its not only the US that lags far behind. In the UK only about 50% of the 'promised' 2 million vaccinations up till Dec 31st have been administered. However, I think it is useful to look at the % of the population vaccinated rather than absolute numbers. So far, it appears that Israel (population ca. 9 million vs 332 million in the US) is far ahead, with about 10% of the population expected to be vaccinated in 2020 (though these will still need to receive a second shot), see   https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2020/dec/30/how-has-israel-launched-the-worlds-fastest-covid-vaccination-drive for some background.