health

As vaccines are rolled out, questions remain

17 Comments
By Amélie BAUBEAU

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2020 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


17 Comments
Login to comment

Why has Japan had such few fatalities? The numbers maybe more but I'm sure not in the same league as Europe and the US. Why? If we know the answer we may learn something

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's vaccine and be human guinea pigs, even government advisors agree we don't have enough data to make clear judgements!

No, sorry that is mistaken. Human trials are already finished and the vaccine has already been demonstrated as safe and effective. The real guinea pigs would be those that will refuse vaccination and will be compared with protected people in the years to come about the incidence of long term problems that COVID-19 causes.

And also, not knowing every detail is very different from making decisions without data. For example we still don't know how well the vaccine will stop transmission, which can complicate the decision of who to get priority; but we already know that the vaccine is much less risky than the natural infection, so the decision to promote vaccination is perfectly well justified.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you want the vaccine, take it. If not, don't take it. No sweat off my back if you don't take the vaccine, in fact, I think this is an excellent opportunity for the anti-vaxer's to put their endless conspiracy theories to the test.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Let's vaccine and be human guinea pigs, even government advisors agree we don't have enough data to make clear judgements!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Frances76360935/status/1333162289822916612

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So you consider it unethical to save lives. You expect them to follow the orders of unqualified and corrupt agencies and let their patients die. France has a high death rate, because the government has long forbid HCQ, fortunately Raoult follows his conscience and his experience.

No, that is a false strawman, the real argument is that it is unethical to falsify human experimentation to make it appear as if something good is done for the patients when in reality it is all product of undue manipulation of the data. People are saving lives thanks to real, trustful data, people without ethics that try to push their false data for their personal gain are acting against this. More lives would have been saved without the falsifications, that should be clear.

Raoults group has a very good success rate, he tests everyone early, and anyone who tests positive is immediately treated.

Again, that is not true, the data you are trying to use is false, has been already discovered and insisting on ignoring this fact is not doing anything good for your argument. Real data indicate that mortality is at least 1%, false or manipulated data is irrelevant.

If people are tested and treated early with certain meds (HCQ/azithromycin/zinc or ivermectin) death rates drop to about 0.05%

Again, that is false, and this is very clear since you cannot prove it without data that has already been found to be unreliable thanks to unethical manipulations.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

That is false, people that are not familiar with ethical considerations or that even admire bad scientists that put patients in unnecessary risks because of unethical human research may not understand correctly, but health professionals are obligated morally not to use treatments that are still being considered for efficacy (like ivermectin) outside of properly approved clinical trials, and even more for treatments that have been proved not to contribute at all against the infection like HCQ.

So you consider it unethical to save lives. You expect them to follow the orders of unqualified and corrupt agencies and let their patients die. France has a high death rate, because the government has long forbid HCQ, fortunately Raoult follows his conscience and his experience.

And no, death rates of 0.05% are not real, as you were corrected before real epidemiological studies have put the real rates between 1 and 8%, a value of 0.05% is not a valid statistic easy to see since it is not between 1 and 8.

Did you even read my post. The high death rate includes all treatments, but many places follow what you call "ethical considerations", i.e. letting people die because they are not allowed to use certain meds that have been forbidden by corrupt officials. Raoults group has a very good success rate, he tests everyone early, and anyone who tests positive is immediately treated.

If people are tested and treated early with certain meds (HCQ/azithromycin/zinc or ivermectin) death rates drop to about 0.05%.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Yes, depending on where they are treated. Unfortunately, in many places, doctors are pressured or forbidden to offer certain effective treatments.

That is false, people that are not familiar with ethical considerations or that even admire bad scientists that put patients in unnecessary risks because of unethical human research may not understand correctly, but health professionals are obligated morally not to use treatments that are still being considered for efficacy (like ivermectin) outside of properly approved clinical trials, and even more for treatments that have been proved not to contribute at all against the infection like HCQ.

And no, death rates of 0.05% are not real, as you were corrected before real epidemiological studies have put the real rates between 1 and 8%, a value of 0.05% is not a valid statistic easy to see since it is not between 1 and 8.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Johns Hopkins reports that the fatality rate among those infected varies between 1% and 8.8%, depending on where one is treated, not 0.05%.

Yes, depending on where they are treated. Unfortunately, in many places, doctors are pressured or forbidden to offer certain effective treatments.

If people are tested and treated early with certain meds (HCQ/azithromycin/zinc or ivermectin) death rates drop to about 0.05%.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

They have not shown any yet. Many problems (allergies, autism, other neurological problems,...) can show up later, and cannot be detected within a few months of testing. NOBODY knows whether these vaccines are safe.

I am not talking about imaginary problems that you want to relate to vaccines exclusively and that have still a much larger probability of being caused by the natural infection (if only because the huge amount of antigens they bring to the body) I am talking about actual, real effects that the disease predispose, such as neurological degeneration, autoimmune diseases, persistent myocardial inflammation, etc. All of these things have already been proved after the natural infection, but not on any of the volunteers, even after 6 months of following.

That means that yes, the natural infection is much more risky in the short, medium and long term, because it has already proved to cause problems on all three time scales.

Also, we're assuming the clinical trials were carried out honestly. But I can't see any reason why we should assume that they were done more honestly than the recent US elections...

Once again, if the only argument you can use to criticize something is a conspiracy that has no proof at all and depends on something practically impossible to do under close vigilance of several countries in the world. That should strongly indicate that you have no real reasons for your beliefs. You not seeing reason to believe literally thousands of health professionals and instead choosing to believe in something supported by absolutely nothing at all is your right, but you cannot call that rational.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

while no vaccine volunteer has shown any of those problems

They have not shown any yet. Many problems (allergies, autism, other neurological problems,...) can show up later, and cannot be detected within a few months of testing. NOBODY knows whether these vaccines are safe.

Also, we're assuming the clinical trials were carried out honestly. But I can't see any reason why we should assume that they were done more honestly than the recent US elections...

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Johns Hopkins reports that the fatality rate among those infected varies between 1% and 8.8%, depending on where one is treated, not 0.05%. If only that latter figure were true! The CDC reported that the death rate for those infected with the common flu was 0.02%.

What I would like to see at this time is that the nations of the industrialized world use their resources to ramp up production, so that we can put this particular pandemic behind us before the start of summer. Pfizer and Moderna developed their vaccines, and are manufacturing them to the best of their ability, but governments have it within their power to see that doses are made available to everyone, rapidly.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

One question that should be asked is whether this vaccine is needed, considering that if treated early Covid19 has an overall death rate of about 0.05%.

Vaccination reduce very importantly the risk, not only for healthy and young adults but also for all age groups that are target of vaccination. That would be reason enough, but also it helps keeping people infected from having heavy symptoms and reduces the possibility of having serious complications that last for very long time, some even for life. And the need for hospitalization, because of this a situation where the hospitals are completely full (and anybody that required care in them becoming a likely fatality) can be avoided.

All this for negligible risk, it is a very good deal.

They are the most rushed vaccines ever developed.

The manufacturers have been given total immunity from liability if their experimental vaccines cause injury.

The clinical trials testing the safety of these injections are not finished.

The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are part of an experimental class of injection that has never before been given to the public.

These vaccines have not been tested for their ability to prevent infection or spread of SARS-CoV-2 and are not intended to do so.

And there is absolutely no long-term data about these vaccines to determine what their effects may be on fertility, the potential for pathogenic priming, or any other serious adverse reaction.

All your considerations are mistaken or worthless

The vaccines are not rushed, they have been tested properly according to schedules used for other vaccines in use today, money and lack of other options to surpass explain why development did not take years.

Clinical trials NECESSARY for using the vaccines in the population are already finished, phase IV not, but that is because by definition that phase begins after the health intervention is in the market, the same as every other drug, vaccine, surgery, etc.

mRNA vaccines have been studied for more than a decade, have been tested on human clinical trials for years, in literally hundreds of studies without giving any specific problem for the technology. There is no realistic probability for them to give any kind of frequent problem after tens of thousands of people recieved them for this specific vaccines (and many more for the hundreds of previous ones)

No vaccine ever in the story of humanity have been tested to prevent infection, because that is not what vaccines do, vaccines prevent disease, that is their purpose and what they are tested about. Not testing them about preventing infection is like not testing antibiotics to prevent viral infections.

Long term problems are actually one of the reasons that vaccines are better than the natural infection, because getting COVID-19 actually increases the risk for problems that last for a long time, some for life, while no vaccine volunteer has shown any of those problems. So even with the data we have right now we can validly conclude the vaccine causes less long term problems than the infection. Pathogenic priming is not even a realistic possibility because the natural infection (that introduces to the body a million times more antigens) has not caused it, there is no reason why the vaccine would ever be able to produce it.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

One question that should be asked is whether this vaccine is needed, considering that if treated early Covid19 has an overall death rate of about 0.05%.

Other things to consider:

They are the most rushed vaccines ever developed.

The manufacturers have been given total immunity from liability if their experimental vaccines cause injury.

The clinical trials testing the safety of these injections are not finished.

The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are part of an experimental class of injection that has never before been given to the public.

These vaccines have not been tested for their ability to prevent infection or spread of SARS-CoV-2 and are not intended to do so.

And there is absolutely no long-term data about these vaccines to determine what their effects may be on fertility, the potential for pathogenic priming, or any other serious adverse reaction.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Guam is expected to have I believe all their citizens vaccinated by spring, and so, being a small island that depends on tourists and the military let's see how they do in such a confined space.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Vaccinated people should still wear masks. Even though they may not develop symptoms they may still spread the virus to others.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

My only question is when can I get it. Enough of those stupid masks and plastic sheets at stores.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Maybe by late summer or next fall we will get the vaccine here in Japan.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites