It has been proposed Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha should exercise his powers under the National Security Act to force Siam BioScience, the local producer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, to suspend the export of the vaccine for three months and use those doses domestically instead, to contain the accelerating spread of COVID-19 infections.   Doing so will break contracts to supply neigbhoring countries with the vaccine.  

 

In your opinion, do you think that it is a good idea to invoke the National Security Act and keep all the vaccine production for Thailand?  

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1227303-thai-pm-advised-to-stop-the-export-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-for-use-domestically/

 

 

 

 

The Thai government made the commitments to other countries in the region. Like each one of us as individuals, it has to accept the consequences of its own decision.

I don't think this a real thing.

 

Just the odd "doctor" spouting nonsense.

 

 

 

Seemed to be OK 6 months ago when the EU wanted to put its own citizens first.

Australia was just told --sorry'

 

March

While negotiations with the British government continue behind the scenes to head off the threat of a general vaccine export ban, the EU is moving to tighten its export rules.

The measure, put in place to monitor exports from EU territory and if necessary to block them, has already been used once to prevent an AstraZeneca shipment leaving Italy for Australia

 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/eu-to-tighten-export-rules-to-stop-one-way-flow-of-vaccines/

No. It would backfire and ultimately hurt Thailand's access to vaccines down the line.

Maybe the Top Banana is well advised to let Siam Bioscience fulfill its contractual obligations and stop any and all dealings with his health minister. That is where the buck stops; it was him who limited the Thai-allocation to 3 million vaccinations a month in a meeting apparently taken place on 20 September last year. 

Maybe the voters have a second thought over the query, if the present set-up is the most appropriate and professional to lead their country in the future ...... just thinking out loud ......... 

35 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

The Thai government made the commitments to other countries in the region. Like each one of us as individuals, it has to accept the consequences of its own decision.

I think it was AZ commitment rather than the Thai Govt. However the Govt told AZ they required circa 3 million doses and the rest of the produce AZ allocated to other countries in the region. The Govt then said they wanted much more, which AZ tried to allocate.

 

The whole issue seems to have been a gross miscalculation by the Govt on the numbers of vaccines Thailand required. Subsequently then trying to rectify your mistake by banning export to other countries who have requested it, is at best going to look truly awful.

   I voted no.  Instead, speed up the purchases of other vaccines and do more Sinovac/AZ mix doses to get the AZ to more people.

28 minutes ago, newnative said:

I voted no.  Instead, speed up the purchases of other vaccines and do more Sinovac/AZ mix doses to get the AZ to more people.

 

No one is arguing that Sinovac isn't an inferior vaccine to AZ its regarded as that everywhere.

So, you feel the Thai people should receive an inferior 

Vaccine dose against Covid- and keep selling off the AZ  elsewhere.  They are on line to produce 180 Million doses this year---and already they are shorting the numbered promise to Thailand, but not to the other countries paying.

In late June, AstraZeneca Thailand said its partner Siam Bioscience, owned by King Maha Vajiralongkorn, would produce 180 million doses this year, A Thai official last month said 6 million would be delivered in July, short of the previously announced 10 million monthly doses.

 

It depends what’s written in the contract if they break the contract then AZ have every right to take the manufacturing process elsewhere and let’s not forget who the owner of the Thai company contracted by AZ is 

1 hour ago, newnative said:

   I voted no.  Instead, speed up the purchases of other vaccines and do more Sinovac/AZ mix doses to get the AZ to more people.

Not enough research has been done to recommend giving these two vaccines as a combination World Health Organisation urged caution I for one wouldn’t accept it . I’ve had my 1st AZ if my 2nd vaccine is other than AZ I will refuse to have it 

A better topic for this should read "Can the Government stop the export of Vaccines"

Am I too simple-minded to suggest we gear up a few shops to produce more AZ? Many people out of work, many businesses virtually empty. 

1 hour ago, newnative said:

   I voted no.  Instead, speed up the purchases of other vaccines and do more Sinovac/AZ mix doses to get the AZ to more people.

Is that safe for the over 60s ?

it was one some deranged doctor who proposed this.

why give him platform and fame?

The contract with Astrazenica has not been made public so we don't know the implications of such an action. As I understand it the materials for the production of the Vaccine in Thailand are supplied by Astrazenica so they would have control should the contract be broken.

42 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Am I too simple-minded to suggest we gear up a few shops to produce more AZ? Many people out of work, many businesses virtually empty. 

44 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Am I too simple-minded to suggest we gear up a few shops to produce more AZ? Many people out of work, many businesses virtually empty. 

Yes.  Tere is FAR more to producing a vaccine than "gearing up a few shops".

 

PH

1 hour ago, crazykopite said:

Not enough research has been done to recommend giving these two vaccines as a combination World Health Organisation urged caution I for one wouldn’t accept it . I’ve had my 1st AZ if my 2nd vaccine is other than AZ I will refuse to have it 

Lucky you.  I ended up with 2 doses of Sinovac and I would have liked to have had AZ  as my second dose.  

26 minutes ago, newnative said:

Lucky you.  I ended up with 2 doses of Sinovac and I would have liked to have had AZ  as my second dose.  

Envy Thai medical workers who are now planned to get a third dose of Pfizer after Sinovac and AZ.

Wasn't a sale of 16 million doses contracted with The Philippines? Hardly a neighbor.

I voted #1 but suggest that Prayut does not as Head of Government have authority to overrule a contract with a company owned by the Head of State. 

Altruism doesn't exist. Stop the export of the vaccines. Who ever decided that exporting vaccines was a good idea wasn't thinking straight. Experience around Europe and US should have sounded alarm bells as soon as exporting was mentioned.

1 hour ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Am I too simple-minded to suggest we gear up a few shops to produce more AZ? Many people out of work, many businesses virtually empty. 

What about Pfizer in Thailand manufacturing Pfizer vaccines for Thailand? 

Ranks #1 Thailand pharmaceutical in terms of revenues and market share (2018). 

Albeit probably too late now given the prevalence of Delta Variant. But when the government contracted with Siam Bioscience last year the timing might have been right to contract with Pfizer as well.

4 hours ago, smutcakes said:

I think it was AZ commitment rather than the Thai Govt. However the Govt told AZ they required circa 3 million doses and the rest of the produce AZ allocated to other countries in the region. The Govt then said they wanted much more, which AZ tried to allocate.

 

The whole issue seems to have been a gross miscalculation by the Govt on the numbers of vaccines Thailand required. Subsequently then trying to rectify your mistake by banning export to other countries who have requested it, is at best going to look truly awful.

"The whole issue seems to have been a gross miscalculation by the Govt". Well what can we expect from a  Military Academy educated PM and his soldiers.

Of course they should stop exporting AZ! Circumstances change (Wuflu Indian variant) so priorities should change. All vaccine producing countries have at various times restricted or banned exports because of local needs and when they have contained the outbreak restored supplies and even provided more vaccines free! However it's unlikely to happen as too much 'profit' taking has already occured and the 'proceeds' spent. And the proceeds have reduced in value by the devaluation of the baht which they didn't anticipate. Perhaps the baht rallying by way of a fully vaccinated population might just might be attractive enough for a brief closing down of AZ exports?

Where is option #3: "Don't really care, cause I, as a foreigner (under 60), won't get any vaccine in Thailand anyway"?

 

As there is no such option, I voted for 'no', cause it is considered both, bad international politics and economics, unless, of course, you're in league with countries like China, North Korea, or Taliban-Afghanistan...

Edited August 16, 20214 yr by StayinThailand2much

Voted yes, the Thai economy is in such a mess upsetting a few neighbors for 3 months is not going to make much difference.

If you do not know what you are talking about or scared to tell the real story, better say nothing

I will say it again,

It was taken out of the Governments hands long ago

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

What about Pfizer in Thailand manufacturing Pfizer vaccines for Thailand? 

Ranks #1 Thailand pharmaceutical in terms of revenues and market share (2018). 

Albeit probably too late now given the prevalence of Delta Variant. But when the government contracted with Siam Bioscience last year the timing might have been right to contract with Pfizer as well.

Given the farce we have watched unfold over the last 12 months, no one, especially a reputable pharmaceutical manufacturing concern, is going to touch Thailand and a partnership with the Thai government with several barge poles stuck together with the fanciest of high tech gaffer tape!

Very odd.  There are a number of reasons why someone might want to vote no but for this survey you can only choose 'No. In the long term breaking contractual agreements with neighbors is potentially dangerous'.

 

It would be a no vote from me but not for that reason.