health

Delta variant exploits low vaccine rates, easing of rules

20 Comments
By LAURAN NEERGAARD

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

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


20 Comments
Login to comment

It’s harder to tell if the delta variant makes people sicker. British experts have said there are some preliminary signs it may increase hospitalization, but there’s no evidence it is more lethal.

Actually, it’s not harder to tell. It’s more of the same industry sponsored fear mongering. And the data shows it.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/panic-porn-dressed-science-exposing-truth-about-delta-variant

Much more relevant information than in this light piece of misinformation.

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

Actually, it’s not harder to tell. It’s more of the same industry sponsored fear mongering. And the data shows it.

Data without any epidemiological analysis and that makes lots of unproved assumptions running contrary to other evidence that was coincidentally left out without even mentioning? not exactly rock solid evidence.

For example comparing fatality rates of delta (with a lot of vulnerable population already vaccinated) with the historical values of other variants (with lots more of infections in that group) is obviously not valid, but no effort was made on this "analysis" to actually weight the differences to eliminate this bias.

That is why experts rely in actual scientific publications, peer review is not perfect, but it is at least one hurdle that people have to surpass to present their reports in a scientific way.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

So what? 18 months of this nonsense and still the virus spreads and mutates. Even with vaccine. Surely these clowns should have learned something by now.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Data without any epidemiological analysis and that makes lots of unproved assumptions running contrary to other evidence that was coincidentally left out without even mentioning?

Really? And data that actually monitors and measures actual results (ie statical data) is not valid? It’s actually some of the most important when monitoring “pandemics”.

So, where is your scientific or statistical data that indicates otherwise?

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

18 months of this nonsense and still the virus spreads and mutates. Even with vaccine. Surely these clowns should have learned something by now.

They have learned. It’s most everyone else that hasn’t caught on yet.

I wonder: Have we flattened the curve yet? Or will we die of old age or experimental side effects first ?

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Really? And data that actually monitors and measures actual results (ie statical data) is not valid? It’s actually some of the most important when monitoring “pandemics”.

No, because it requires epidemiological analysis, that his the whole point of my explanation you should read it. The problem is not the source of the raw data, but the invalid conclusions that actually require careful considerations to prevent mistakes.

My point is not that he is wrong (likely he is, because of his lack of proper treatment and the mistakes he make) but that his data has not been properly weighted so his conclusions are not valid. Its like saying that one person that can carry 2 bags works less than one that carries 3, without providing necessary information such as the time that takes each person to do the task or the weight of the bags each is carrying.

For example, the report makes the misrepresentation that more vaccinated people die than unvaccinated ones thus the vaccines are supposedly not protective, but he (again opportunely) fails to control for death rates between groups, which means that having approximately half of the deaths coming from the vaccinated group (at this moment mostly being people at very high risk) is huge proof that the vaccines do protect very well, because without vaccination this group of people represented close to 99% of the deaths. This means that this huge difference was now almost completely eliminated.

I wonder: Have we flattened the curve yet? Or will we die of old age or experimental side effects first ?

What do you think? how are the countries with better vaccination doing? how many people have died from the infection compared with effects directly correlated with the vaccine?

2 ( +10 / -8 )

The point of the data mentioned in the article I sent is that there is NO emergency for the majority of the population. Not that there is nobody at risk. We all know who are the ones at risk.

Again. Where is your data to justify the max vaccination and emergency state at this point?

And please don’t extrapolate this crisis onto young people and children. The data clearly shows is NO crisis in that demographic.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

The point of the data mentioned in the article I sent is that there is NO emergency for the majority of the population. Not that there is nobody at risk. We all know who are the ones at risk.

But without proper analysis the point is invalid, for the reasons already written, there is no value in telling again the purpose of something if the methods are easily proven mistaken.

Again. Where is your data to justify the max vaccination and emergency state at this point?

It is not my data but the governments, the reference you produces proves absolutely nothing about lack of effect of the vaccinations nor about the lack of danger of the delta variant, so why bring something that has no use?

And please don’t extrapolate this crisis onto young people and children. The data clearly shows is NO crisis in that demographic.

There is a crisis for people included in those groups, that are at a very high risk from the infection even if you arbitrarily think they are not, their pediatricians and parents have a much better idea than you if they should or not be vaccinated, they do deserve the chance to be protected even if you consider their lives disposable.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Very high risk of infection- unknown

Very low risk of illness - well known

Facts.

Your comment is speculative fear mongering.

Those are not facts, that is just your personal opinion.

How can you prove children with immune deficiencies are not at a high risk from infection? or with diabetes, hypertension, obesity, cystic fibrosis, etc. etc. They are at risk even from milder infections and that is why they are prime target for other vaccinations, how can you prove they are not at risk from COVID?

Why try to misrepresent these false conclusions you make from nothing as "facts"? do you think you can convince their pediatricians and parents that the kids will be completely fine even if infected based on nothing but your own authority? What happened to your previous (supposed) support for vaccinations for vulnerable population? any actual reason why no children can ever be included in it?

2 ( +10 / -8 )

You gotta love when the resident antivaxxers give up trying to defend their conspiracies and just end up attacking people debunking them.

Doc why don't you go to the families of children that have died from COVID and say to them they were not at risk? if they become aggressive you can also call them fear mongers, that will surely solve things.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

The vaccines most used in Western countries still appear to offer strong protection against the highly contagious delta variant

According to official data from Public Health England: 35,521 unvaccinated people showed up at the emergency infected with the Delta variant between Feb 1st and June 14; while 4,087 fully vaccinated (at least 14 days after 2nd dose) people had the Delta variant. 34 out of the 35,521 unvaccinated died (0.096%), while 26 out of the 4,087 fully vaccinated died (0.64%).

So it isn’t so clear how useful these vaccines are against the variant.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

So it isn’t so clear how useful these vaccines are against the variant.

This is a point already disproven in the discussion, I can copy-paste the comment I made before again without problem.

For example, the report makes the misrepresentation that more vaccinated people die than unvaccinated ones thus the vaccines are supposedly not protective, but he (again opportunely) fails to control for death rates between groups, which means that having approximately half of the deaths coming from the vaccinated group (at this moment mostly being people at very high risk) is huge proof that the vaccines do protect very well, because without vaccination this group of people represented close to 99% of the deaths. This means that this huge difference was now almost completely eliminated.

From the under 20's in Japan, no deaths or serious effects from Conid-19 out of almost 85,000 confirmed infections.

Japan has not been the only country with the pandemic, there have been already many documented cases around the world where children have had terrible complications and even died from COVID, unless you can prove Japanese children are somehow different, and specially that kids with preexisting conditions that make respiratory infections very risky have been infected without problems then you can't validly say there is no risk. The families from those children go to great lengths to protect them from the infection, something that a vaccine can facilitate.

Even if only for those children there is plenty of reasons to be vaccinated, and that can only possibly happen with emergency use authorization. How exactly do you propose those children, included completely as vulnerable people can get the vaccine without the EUA?

Also, exactly the same as other users, if you can't provide evidence of negative health effects from vaccines above what is observed from the infection. How can you conclude it makes no sense? Children are already being vaccinated against diseases that kill no children, and that have identified risks even above what has been observed with current COVID vaccines. If it makes sense for other vaccines it also makes sense for this one.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Doc why don't you go to the families of children that have died from COVID and say to them they were not at risk?

Why don’t you identify those families? None in this country.

Why don’t you go to the families whose children suffered vaccine side effects and tell them they were not at risk.

As for the anti-Vax accusations. That’s a lame tactic. Most people , including myself that are highly critical of this Covid debacle are not anti-vax.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Why don’t you identify those families? None in this country.

So you consider valid to simply ignore clear medical evidence of risk from COVID to children only because it happened in a different country? that would mean you would of course also consider valid to ignore any evidence of risk from the vaccines, after all it also happened in another country as well.

Why don’t you go to the families whose children suffered vaccine side effects and tell them they were not at risk

None of those in Japan either, you have to choose one standard. Either you reduce your universe to Japan only or include the whole world, switching between them is called having a "double standard" and it is clear sign of an invalid argument.

As for the anti-Vax accusations. That’s a lame tactic. Most people , including myself that are highly critical of this Covid debacle are not anti-vax.

The problem is that you are against the scientific consensus about COVID and the vaccination for reasons that can easily be proved mistaken, false or invalid. Titles are irrelevant but persisting in a belief that is not correct, never ever recognizing the value of contrary arguments (even if you can't demonstrate they are wrong) is not a valid stand for any problem. Specially if you end up abandoning the discussion only to "attack" people instead of the arguments.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Readers, no more bickering please. If you have already posted on this thread, please take a break.

According to official data from Public Health England: 35,521 unvaccinated people showed up at the emergency infected with the Delta variant between Feb 1st and June 14; while 4,087 fully vaccinated (at least 14 days after 2nd dose) people had the Delta variant. 34 out of the 35,521 unvaccinated died (0.096%), while 26 out of the 4,087 fully vaccinated died (0.64%).

I don't think these death rates (0.096% and 0.64%) are comparable. Most of those who were fully vaccinated would be in the older age bracket and those unvaccinated in the younger age bracket. A better comparison might be with death rates among older people from last year (pre-vaccination) and older people following vaccination. I couldn't find such data in the Public Health England document (link below), but it's a long document and I may have missed it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997414/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_16.pdf

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Is the Delta variant more deadly than others?

The Delta variant has panicked the world, most of all Japan (entry regulations) due to murcomycosis.

Yet the disfigurement that Indians have endured along with Covid has not been repeated all over the world

The same way that westerners have seen more casualties than those in the east.

This virus affects various genotypes differently.

The various vaccines seem to do the same…

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Delta variant has panicked the world, most of all Japan (entry regulations) due to murcomycosis.

Not correct, the delta variant has called the attention of the professionals around the world because it has shown to be more easily transmitted and turns immunity from previous strains and vaccines less effective. No panic but care because this means it could make a lot of damage if proper care is not taken until it is proved to be not specially dangerous.

This virus affects various genotypes differently.

That is not a valid interpretation, it affects various locations differently, but since they have many other differences (not only genotypes) attributing the higher or lower danger to one single factor requires much more evidence.

Are westerners in asian countries more affected than the locals? are Indians in the US dying more than the average? are vaccines failing to protect one one group of people living in a country? Many other factors seem to be more important, from how well the health services are supported to the speed of the spreading, immediately assuming genetics explain everything is not justified.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@virusrex

You make me laugh

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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