Here
and
Now

kuchikomi

Is Japan closing in on herd immunity?

55 Comments

Since the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020, one term often used by such individuals as Dr Anthony Fauci, who recently retired as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, is herd immunity. Called shudan meneki in Japanese, it is defined as being "when the majority of a population develops immunity against a contagious disease either through vaccination or due to a previous infection, thereby significantly reducing the likeliness of disease transmission from one person to another."

The headline in Nikkan Gendai (Dec 6) poses the question, "Is Japan approaching herd immunity?" The timing of the article seems relevant, since an "explosion" of new cases is being reported around the country, marking the start of the so-called "8th wave" of the pandemic.

In Japan's four main islands, the daily average of reported cases at the start of December showed a trend toward increase in the number of new cases, but with one exception. That was in Okinawa, which in the week ending Dec 3 reported the lowest incidence of cases among Japan's 47 prefectures. As opposed to the national average of 1,043 cases per 100,000 population, Okinawa reported just 245.

Why the lower figure? The explanation might be that a larger portion of Okinawa's population harbors antibodies to the coronavirus than does Japan's population at large.

According to a recent report by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, of 8,260 people between age 16 and 69 years who donated blood nationwide during the week of Nov 6-13, more than one donor out of four, or 26.5%, harbored antibodies in their blood to indicate exposure to the coronavirus.

Comparing this with data from earlier this year, from February through March, the percentage of tested individuals with antibodies in the five prefectures of Tokyo, Osaka, Miyagi, Aichi and Fukuoka ranged between 1.49% and 5.65%. Therefore logic follows that from April 2022 onwards -- during the so-called 7th wave of the pandemic -- the number of new exposures took a quantum leap upward. And the prefecture with the highest percentage of population harboring antibodies, with 46.6%, was Okinawa. Which, moreover, also reported the fewest number of cases during the most recent week for which data on antibodies is available.

Okinawa was followed by Osaka with 413 people testing positive for antibodies (a ratio of 40.7% of those tested); Kagoshima (254 people, 35.2%); Kyoto (431 people, 34.9%); and rounding out the top five, Kumamoto (468 people, 32.9%). 

"From the available data, it appears that once a person has contracted the coronavirus, it becomes more difficult to catch it a second time," said Hideomi Nakahara, principal of Seibu Gakuen, an occupational training school for medical technicians in Tokorozawa City. "The current serious spread of infection in China is in part due to the fact that infections there have been suppressed to date. However, even if antibodies are developed, a new strain may appear that can slip past the immune system. So it's necessary to take measures to safeguard the elderly and those with preexisting conditions, who carry a high risk of reacting severely to infections."

Nikkan Gendai concludes that to realize herd immunity, perhaps 60% to 70% of the population at the very least will need to harbor antibodies. So at this point, it appears that Japan still has a ways to go.

© Japan Today

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

Good to hear that Japan's 30 million unvaccinated also get immunity from exposure.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Good to hear that Japan's 100 million vaccinated also get immunity from exposure.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Let's hope so, considering Japan is the 7th highest in total infections around the world after the US, India, France, Germany, Brazil, and S. Korea.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

It's more likely that Japan already had a genetic predisposition to herd immunity from most coronaviruses. The new mRNA shots will have damaged that by forcing the body to create a lukewarm immune response to an old viral strain. It's all an experiment anyway. Maybe one day we'll understand the effects.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

It's more likely that Japan already had a genetic predisposition to herd immunity from most coronaviruses.

Scientifically plausible.

The new mRNA shots will have damaged that by forcing the body to create a lukewarm immune response to an old viral strain.

Conspiracy theory.

It's all an experiment anyway.

No.

Maybe one day we'll understand the effects.

We already do.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

The new mRNA shots will have damaged that by forcing the body to create a lukewarm immune response to an old viral strain. 

You wish. Complete pseudo-science. Nothing to see here.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Let's hope so, considering Japan is the 7th highest in total infections around the world after the US, India, France, Germany, Brazil, and S. Korea.

All the countries on that list are highly vaccinated.

All the poorer countries that couldn't afford the vaccines now have much lower infection rates.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

All the poorer countries that couldn't afford the vaccines now have much lower infection rates.

Epidemiological differences can explain this, from incomplete testing to increased lethality (dead people do not become immune later). Examples that contradict this supposed relationship (countries that managed to control cases and are highly vaccinated, and countries with low vaccination and big outbreaks like happening in China) clearly indicate other factors are the one much more likely to be responsible.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Funny how it's dying down yet it has the least people yet on the current booster, and is still more than when it first appeared

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The new variants are more likely to evade the available vaccines than the original virus, but less likely to cause death than the original virus. The new variants are still dangerous, just slightly less so.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The point being that herd immunity to the new variants does not exist, but the new variants are somewhat less deadly.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The new variants are more likely to evade the available vaccines than the original virus,...

The point being that herd immunity to the new variants does not exist, but the new variants are somewhat less deadly.

The new variants are indeed much less deadly, and I agree that they are also more likely to evade the available vaccines.

But natural immunity targets multiple proteins that are relatively conserved within the different variants, so I believe natural herd immunity is our way out of this.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

But natural immunity targets multiple proteins that are relatively conserved within the different variants, so I believe natural herd immunity is our way out of this.

But your persona opinion is contradicted by the experts, not only because natural immunity requires exposure to the risks to be avoided with immunization (making the whole point moot) but because it is not long lasting and broad as you claim. Immunity against non-neutralizing proteins do not offer protection, and instead it could lead to higher risks of immune derived complications

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Is Japan closing in on herd immunity?

No. As the answer appears in the last sentence:

So at this point, it appears that Japan still has a ways to go.

(countries that managed to control cases and are highly vaccinated, and countries with low vaccination and big outbreaks like happening in China) 

If "big outbreaks" are what is happening in China then Japan is having a catastrophic outbreak as its infection and death rates are extremely higher than China's, which has the lowest covid infection and related death rate throughout this entire Covid crisis, according to global health professionals and government statistics I have published frequently here.

And "countries that managed to control cases" don't include the US, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Norway, Brazil...in other words, such countries do not exist--geographically,

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@Strangerland, you might want to update your list of conspiracy theories. The targeted spike protein creation of the mRNA shot does induce an inadequate immune response to newer strains. Hence the need for the bivalent booster. This is no more psuedoscience than the idea that mass vaccination amidst a pandemic is a bad idea.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

"natural immunity requires exposure to the risks to be avoided with immunization"

@virusrex, first of all, the risk of catching covid is relatively low statistically. Secondly, the risks related to covid infection are relatively low, statistically. There are risks associated with the so called immunization from the mRNA shot and we are seeing mountains of evidence pointing to that. And thirdly, the shot doesn't protect against exposure. It only seeks to lessen the severity IF it can target the correct immune response for the infected strain at all.

The blanket statement that it's always better for everyone to get the shots, however many, regardless of individual cost benefit analysis is the biggest misinformation out there.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

But natural immunity targets multiple proteins that are relatively conserved within the different variants, so I believe natural herd immunity is our way out of this.

But your persona opinion is contradicted by the experts, not only because natural immunity requires exposure to the risks to be avoided with immunization (making the whole point moot) ....

No, the experts do not say that. I already provided several peer reviewed studies showing that for younger people the injections are far more risky than the injections. This was even admitted by the experts on the FDA panel, but they ended up approving it for children because they wanted those who were vulnerable (those with diabetes, cancer ...) to have access.

but because it is not long lasting and broad as you claim.

Natural immunity was shown to be much better and longer lasting than that conferred by the injections.

Immunity against non-neutralizing proteins do not offer protection,

Wow! How can you say that? Immunity is much more than just antibodies. Immunity involves other components (e.g. T Cells) that work together with the nonneutralizing antibodies to offer protection.

Plus, a natural infection produces IgA antibodies and activates lymphocytes in the nasopharynx. The injections don't do that and therefore contribute so little to herd immunity, they just reduce covid symptoms.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@Strangerland, you might want to update your list of conspiracy theories. The targeted spike protein creation of the mRNA shot does induce an inadequate immune response to newer strains. Hence the need for the bivalent booster.

Thank you for updating my list of conspiracy theories.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

If "big outbreaks" are what is happening in China then Japan is having a catastrophic outbreak as its infection and death rates are extremely higher than China's

No, they are not, they are just much more closely reported, without needing to hide the 90 to 95% of the deaths as China systematically do. Even by hiding their deaths other countries have lower rates, which means your claim they are the best in the world is false, even as you yourself recognized by saying other countries have done better.

 The targeted spike protein creation of the mRNA shot does induce an inadequate immune response to newer strains.

Not inadequate, it still protects against complications and death, if you mean incomplete then that also happens with the immune response after infection, which means the vaccines even if not perfect are still a much better option than the infection, much less risk and still effective protection.

the risk of catching covid is relatively low statistically.

The experts explicitly contradict you, what evidence do you have they are all wrong?

 There are risks associated with the so called immunization from the mRNA shot and we are seeing mountains of evidence pointing to that. 

And the evidence clearly prove the risk are minucule compared with the infection, milder, more infrequent and less likely to end up in serious problems, the evidence clearly proves your personal opinion is wrong, which is why you have never been able to provide references to any respected medical or scientific institution that supports your claims.

the shot doesn't protect against exposure.

According to the experts and their data they do, at least better than the infection. Infection and transmission rates are also reduced in vaccinated people, something you have never been able to refute with any evidence.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

No, the experts do not say that.

According to you, that can never reference any institution that actually contradicts the scientific consensus. At this point is their professional opinion against you making empty appeals to nameless authorities in the field.

I already provided several peer reviewed studies showing that for younger people the injections are far more risky than the injections.

No, you have not, you brought a severely flawed report already debunked by the scientific community for using invalid methods, or false evidence (such as presenting normal variations of ECGs in children as if that were a sign of pathology).

This was even admitted by the experts on the FDA panel, but they ended up approving it for children because they wanted those who were vulnerable (those with diabetes, cancer ...) to have access.

The CDC panel of experts clearly recommend the vaccines for children based on the available data, in no place of their recommendations they say this only applies to children with special vulnerabilities, just say they are a grup with a higher need for protection. Why make a claim so easily debunked? is is because you have no other evidence?

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/planning/children.html

CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone ages 6 months and older, and boosters for everyone ages 5 years and older if eligible.

Natural immunity was shown to be much better and longer lasting than that conferred by the injections.

No, it has not, because it completely requires the person to be exposed to the full risks that are to be prevented by the immunity in the first place, it is also not a guarantee to avoid further infection or complications, even by close variants as the omicron wave have proved.

Wow! How can you say that? Immunity is much more than just antibodies. Immunity involves other components (e.g. T Cells) that work together with the nonneutralizing antibodies to offer protection.

Then show evidence non-neutralizing antibodies are correlated with a better prognosis, making up things without evidence is deeply antiscientific, and you would be as right doing it as anybody saying that the natural infeciton produces antibody-dependent enhancement, because that is something that is produced precisely by non-neutralizing antibodies.

Plus, a natural infection produces IgA antibodies and activates lymphocytes in the nasopharynx. The injections don't do that and therefore contribute so little to herd immunity, they just reduce covid symptoms.

And that IgA has already proved to be deeply ineffective as protection, so it does not represent an advantage either, which is not something new, intranasal vaccines for previous respiratory infections have repeatedly failed for the same reason.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

No, they are not, they are just much more closely reported, without needing to hide the 90 to 95% of the deaths as China systematically do.

If they are hidden, why do you think they are 90-95% of deaths? Only you found this "discrepancy"? Another conspiracy!

Regardless, medical experts know Japan has one of the highest infection rates in the world right now. This is indisputable---unless you are saying the experts, who actually work in the industry, don't know what they are talking about--or otherwise, if you deny the science.

Immunity is much more than just antibodies. Immunity involves other components (e.g. T Cells) that work together with the nonneutralizing antibodies to offer protection.

Good point and this is obvious to anyone familiar with the topic.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

I already provided several peer reviewed studies showing that for younger people the injections are far more risky than the injections.

No, you have not, you brought a severely flawed report already debunked by the scientific community for using invalid methods, or false evidence (such as presenting normal variations of ECGs in children as if that were a sign of pathology).

Yes, he has.

Studies that you do not agree with or that contradict your personal opinion are still valid studies.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

If they are hidden, why do you think they are 90-95% of deaths? 

Because that is the complain the own chinese experts have raised, where every patient with a comorbidity (that in every other country are 90 to 95% of the deaths) is not reported as a covid death, there is no need to conjure any conspiracy, just the arguments their own experts use to say the system is completely flawed.

Regardless, medical experts know Japan has one of the highest infection rates in the world right now.

And have a much decrease death rate compared with last year. Also Japan is not the example of the best control over the pandemic, according to you that would be Sweden, that still proves the Chinese strategy is unnecessary and counterproductive, again according to your own comments.

Good point and this is obvious to anyone familiar with the topic.

What is obvious is that this "argument" is not supported by any scientific evidence, which means it holds no importance, specially when the vaccination derived immunity is extremely effective at preventing the worst outcomes from the infection, meaning that neutralizing antibodies are the main mechanism to protect people.

Yes, he has.

Yet you do not bring any of them, which mean you are also making a baseless claim and appeal to authority.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Plus, a natural infection produces IgA antibodies and activates lymphocytes in the nasopharynx. The injections don't do that and therefore contribute so little to herd immunity, they just reduce covid symptoms.

And that IgA has already proved to be deeply ineffective as protection, so it does not represent an advantage either, which is not something new, intranasal vaccines for previous respiratory infections have repeatedly failed for the same reason.

They certainly have not shown IgA to be ineffective. It's the most important type of antibody needed to prevent infection and transmission of respiratory infections. That is why many have tried to develop nasal vaccines. Those attempts have failed, mainly because they haven't produced enough IgAs, unlike the natural infection. My guess is that it's because nasal vaccines do not remain in the nose long enough, unlike the injected ones that remain in the circulation for several weeks!

Just because nasal vaccines failed does not mean that the IgA produced during a natural infection are ineffective.

BTW, those peer reviewed studies have not been retracted, so your claims that they were poorly done or falsified is just your opinion (and perhaps also that of some pharma linked people).

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

They certainly have not shown IgA to be ineffective.

Yes they have, the only rational conclusion from having nasal vaccines stimulating IgA production and failing to be protective is that the IgA by itself is ineffective.

That is why many have tried to develop nasal vaccines. 

No, the reason is convenience, the rationale would be IgA but unfortunately it has been proved a failing strategy.

 Those attempts have failed, mainly because they haven't produced enough IgAs, unlike the natural infection.

What reference do you have for this? what report say this is the reason all the failed vaccine trials have not been successful? making up things is not a valid argument even if you would like this to be true.

Just because nasal vaccines failed does not mean that the IgA produced during a natural infection are ineffective.

That and the increasing rates of reinfections are reasons to clearly say this is happening. But more importantly the fact that natural infection means the patient already was exposed to the risks the immunity was supposed to prevent is what makes natural infection ineffective to prevent that exposure. Like losing a hand is not a measure you want to recommend to avoid hurting that hand.

BTW, those peer reviewed studies have not been retracted, so your claims that they were poorly done or falsified is just your opinion (and perhaps also that of some pharma linked people).

A study can be poorly made and still left in the literature, a retraction is an extreme measure for reports that have been proved to be faked or manipulated. What make those reports debunked (the same as countless in the history of science) is the post publication peer review, which is the one that clearly described the problems that disqualify the conclusions made in the deficient reports, criticism that neither you nor the authors even try to refute.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Now you draw in Chinese experts into your conspiracy? The same experts who advocate for Zero covid.

When something is clearly described in an open way even by the experts that is no longer a conspiracy theory, that is just an excuse you are trying to use to avoid accepting something which is not valid.

Now you're promoting Sweden as the ideal? 

In the text you quoted I never wrote I was the one promoting it, as written it was YOU that say the Sweden strategy was based on excellent points that clearly prove the Chinese policy based on lockdowns was not only unnecessary but cause more health problems than what they solve.

Again, this is your argument, not mine.

Just your saying the argument is not supported by any scientific evidence is not evidence, so that means your claims are false.

The evidence for my claim is the complete lack of reference to support that point, your claim is that this is "well known" but if nobody ever say this that means it is still a baseless appeal to authority.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

No, the reason is convenience, the rationale would be IgA but unfortunately it has been proved a failing strategy.

The developers themselves say the reason is to get IgAs, as that is what is needed to prevent infection and transmission.

Again, they failed because their vaccines could not produce enough antibodies, because the product does not stay in the nose long enough. It has nothing to do with IgAs not being important for immunity.

With a natural infection, the antigens are present in the nasopharynx long enough to produce appropriate levels of IgAs. And this greatly reduces infection and transmission. Yeah, I know it's not 100%, but it's much greater protection than provided by the injections.

With the injections, the stuff circulates throughout the body (often wreaking havoc) for several weeks. Yes, it produces lots of IgGs, but that does very little to help prevent infection or transmission, and so it does not contribute much (if anything) to herd immunity.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@virusrex,

According to the WHO there have been roughly 650 million covid cases globally. There are roughly 8 billion people. So that's roughly 8% of the entire population of planet Earth. But not even that. Some people account for multiple confirmed cases. So that leaves AT LEAST 92% of the entire population or roughly 7.35 billion people who have not had a reported cases of covid. That's not to say they did but it was asymptomatic, though. But who's worried about an asymptomatic case anymore since even the vaccine can't even stop transmission. That was the justification for lockdown after all. It might not hurt you but you could spread it to grandma, then you'd feel bad so better close down your business. It's only 15 days to flatten the curve.

I'd say 8% of the entire population is pretty low numbers, statistically.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The developers themselves say the reason is to get IgAs, as that is what is needed to prevent infection and transmission.

I specifically asked for a reference because you thend to misrepresent what the authors actually say in their reports, even contradicting their conclusions.

It is also important that when they fail to get a useful vaccine even after stimulating the IgA that means they disprove their theory, meaning their negative results actually work at disproving the value of IgA.

Again, they failed because their vaccines could not produce enough antibodies, because the product does not stay in the nose long enough. It has nothing to do with IgAs not being important for immunity.

That is still an excuse you are trying to present as if it came from the authors, again the requirement is for the authors to specifically mention this reason, if they do not that means you are making up something when the negative results disprove what you want to believe.

With a natural infection, the antigens are present in the nasopharynx long enough to produce appropriate levels of IgAs.

Again, this "sufficient" level is something you are trying to use without proving it first, and if this only comes after the full risks of the infection are present it means it is useless for the purpose of being exposed to those risks.

 Yeah, I know it's not 100%, but it's much greater protection than provided by the injections.

In reality is 0%, because the requirement to get it is to get the full risks, the prevention of which is the purpose of getting immunized in the first place.

es, it produces lots of IgGs, but that does very little to help prevent infection or transmission, and so it does not contribute much (if anything) to herd immunity.

The many differen injectable vaccines for other respiratory infections clearly disprove this personal theory of yours, even for covid the currently available vaccines have been demonstrated to reduce significantly the risk of infection and transmission based on experimental and epidemiological data, which clearly disprove your claim.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

In reality is 0%, because the requirement to get it is to get the full risks, the prevention of which is the purpose of getting immunized in the first place.

For younger people, the risks from the injection are greater than from the infection. The number of injections required to prevent one covid hospitalization results in several hospitalizations from the vaccine adverse effects. Several studies have confirmed that.

It is also important that when they fail to get a useful vaccine even after stimulating the IgA...

That's the thing, they don't stimulate IgA production, because the product does not stay in the nose long enough...

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

For younger people, the risks from the injection are greater than from the infection. 

The scientific consensus is the opposite, and the scientific data that institutions present to recommend the vaccine clearly disproves this claim of yours.

he number of injections required to prevent one covid hospitalization results in several hospitalizations from the vaccine adverse effects. Several studies have confirmed that.

Disqualified and debunked studies with invalid conclusions that require hiding data or misrepresenting the comparison? those are terribly poor sources to make that claim. When authors have been heavily criticized for making invalid comparisons (for example by counting patients with literally a dozen of health problems because of covid as one single hospitalization and every single related sytmptom from a vaccinated person as a separate case of side effect) they are showing their purpose is not to understand the situation but instead to push for an invalid conclusion. So much that neither them nor you even try to justify those invalid methods or hidden data in their reports.

That's the thing, they don't stimulate IgA production, because the product does not stay in the nose long enough...

The authors say they do, you baselessly claim they don't without proviing any source, simply because you don't like that they proved the IgA is not a good defense. Just repeating what you personally claim does nothing to prove the studies found that. Refusing to present references even when explicitly been told they are necessary to support your claim shows the studies you mention clearly contradict what you claim they say.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

But who's worried about an asymptomatic case anymore since even the vaccine can't even stop transmission.

The vaccine clearly reduces in an important degree transmission, even with the current variants, much more with the original ones.

That was the justification for lockdown after all.

And at the time they were used in the world it was a perfectly valid justification with proven effect, at this point the lockdowns are no longer as efficient nor necessary which is why they have been replaced by vaccination and other measures (something the antiscientific groups bitterly claimed would never happen, with lockdowns continuing forever...)

It might not hurt you but you could spread it to grandma, then you'd feel bad so better close down your business. It's only 15 days to flatten the curve.

There is no population that is guaranteed to be fre from risk of covid, vulnerable population are just more likely to have serious complications, not the only ones that have that risk.

I'd say 8% of the entire population is pretty low numbers, statistically.

You understand that this means 92% of the population is at risk from covid, right? Your argument would work to support the need of measures against covid (if it was not just an invalid generalization).

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Refusing to present references even when explicitly been told they are necessary to support your claim shows the studies you mention clearly contradict what you claim they say.

@virusrex, can you please provide proof of this scientific consensus you keep claiming? Can you provide a source and study that definitively proves that ALL scientists in ALL fields in ALL industries in ALL localities ALL agree on ALL the data? Or by consensus are you referring to the small set of outspoken voices of whom most might have a few conflicts of interest within the pharmaceutical and or regulatory agencies involved in setting public health policy?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

That's the thing, they don't stimulate IgA production, because the product does not stay in the nose long enough...

The authors say they do, you baselessly claim they don't without proviing any source, simply because you don't like that they proved the IgA is not a good defense.

Well this paper states that most of the "vaccination-naive groups who received two intranasal doses of ChAdOx1 failed to develop mucosal IgA or IgG responses." So I have trouble believing the veracity of your statement; i.e, I am not the one making baseless claims.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-022-00106-z

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

can you please provide proof of this scientific consensus you keep claiming

As always, you could easily disprove this scientific consensus by giving references of scientific or medical respected institutions that support your claims, but you never produce anything. This means the consensus is real and easy to corroborate (just by consulting what respected institutions have in their official communications). Again, how do you explain that you never find any example of an institution anywhere in the world that support your claims if not because of the consensus. No small subset at all, just the generalized professional opinion of all institutions of value in the world.

Can you provide a source and study that definitively proves that ALL scientists in ALL fields in ALL industries in ALL localities ALL agree on ALL the data?

That is not what consensus means, if that were the case there would not be a consensus about anything at all, there are examples of supposed professionals defending impossible theories about almost anything you can think about, from the function of organs to the microbial theory of infection, that does not mean that there is no consensus about what organs do or that viruses and bacteria exist and produce disease.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

*Well this paper states that most of the "vaccination-naive groups who received two intranasal doses of ChAdOx1 failed to develop mucosal IgA or IgG responses." So I have trouble believing the veracity of your statement; i.e, I am not the one making baseless claims.*

Your claim was that the explanation of the failure of the many different vaccines for respiratory diseases was the lack of production of IgA, that one single example failed to produce it do not mean they all do, or in general that is the case.

But more importantly, the most important part that refute your claim is that infection is 0% effective at preventing the exposure of the person to the full risks of the infection because that exposure is a requisite to get this kind of immunity. The false dichotomy is pretending you can only have good immunity by getting exposed to the full risk or else deficient, unprotective nasal vaccination. The best option of injectable vaccines that prevent even transmission and infection in a significant percentage of the people is still there.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

But more importantly, the most important part that refute your claim is that infection is 0% effective at preventing the exposure of the person to the full risks of the infection because that exposure is a requisite to get this kind of immunity.

... The best option of injectable vaccines that prevent even transmission and infection in a significant percentage of the people is still there.

No, that is the worse option. They offer much less protection than infection, but with much greater risk than infection (except perhaps for the vulnerable).

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

No, that is the worse option. They offer much less protection than infection, but with much greater risk than infection (except perhaps for the vulnerable).

That is impossible infection offers zero protection against the exposure to the full risks, just repeating your baseless claim that is contradicted by the medical and scientific communities of the world do not make it less mistaken.

The vaccines replace the significative risks from covid with a tiny fraction of milder and shorter risks, that makes the the best option, nameless people on the internet saying the medical community of the world are all wrong simply is not enough to disprove them.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The vaccines replace the significative risks from covid with a tiny fraction of milder and shorter risks

You keep on saying that, but it is not supported by evidence; it's just your personal opinion.

Peer reviewed studies clearly say otherwise:

To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31 207–42 836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5–4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation).

https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

Over the past months I brought up other studies with similar conclusions. These are not "fruitcakes", these are peer reviewed studies by experts.

Except for the vulnerable, an infection is less risky than an injection, and offers greater and longer lasting protection from FUTURE infection and transmission, and therefore contribute much more to achieving herd immunity than the injections do.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

You keep on saying that, but it is not supported by evidence; it's just your personal opinion.

Of course not that is the professional opinion of all major scientific and medical organizations of the world that clearly recommend the vaccines, trying to pretend they don't exist and you are discussing against one personal opinion obviously is invalid and a transparent attempt to mislead.

You already presented that reference and it was already rebuked by the opinion of experts that found many problems in how the authors make invalid assumptions and use invalid methods to reach the conclusions they want to push.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9344593/

Why keep using something that has already demonstrated mistaken? is it because you have nothing actually valid to use instead?

Over the past months I brought up other studies with similar conclusions. These are not "fruitcakes", these are peer reviewed studies by experts.

And they are still wrong and invalid as discussed by the experts that give precise arguments that you make no effort to refute, which means you are implicitly recognizing they demonstrate the article is invalid.

Except for the vulnerable, an infection is less risky than an injection, and offers greater and longer lasting protection from FUTURE infection and transmission

That is still false, as clearly demonstrated by how the institutions of medicine of the whole world contradict your claim. And again no, infection is zero percent effective at preventing exposure to the risks, because to get it 100% of the people need to face those full risks first. Vaccines on the other hand do prevent those risks so the protection they offer is real, not imaginary.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Let's hope so, considering Japan is the 7th highest in total infections around the world after the US, India, France, Germany, Brazil, and S. Korea.

All the countries on that list are highly vaccinated.

All the poorer countries that couldn't afford the vaccines now have much lower infection rates.

Source?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Of course not that is the professional opinion of all major scientific and medical organizations of the world that clearly recommend the vaccines

All?!!! You do know that a number of them are moving away from that. They've realized the damage the injections cause. Those that continue to recommend injections for all remain captured...

You already presented that reference and it was already rebuked by the opinion of experts that found many problems in how the authors make invalid assumptions and use invalid methods to reach the conclusions they want to push.

Yeah, any time someone says or writes something that pharma doesn't like, someone (pharma-linked) will come out and criticize it. In this case (your reference) it is just one person.

Yet, the paper has not been retracted.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

According to the covid tracking website of John's Hopkins, Japan has the highest rate of new Covid infections per day, well over 100,000 new cases per day.

No telling how many of these cases are people who have previously received vaccinations.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

All?!!! You do know that a number of them are moving away from that. 

Which ones? one thing is that some locations have no longer sustained transmission on the general population another completely different is that they support your claim that vaccines are more risky than the infection, that is not supported by any well respected medical institution of the world, as easy to see as you can't bring any references that disprove it.

Yeah, any time someone says or writes something that pharma doesn't like, someone (pharma-linked) will come out and criticize it. In this case (your reference) it is just one person.

The arguments on the criticism are valid and solid, it would not matter if an elementary school child wrote them they would require for the authors (or you that keep trying to push that deficient study) as valid without even trying to adress the criticism.

Yet, the paper has not been retracted.

That is not an argument for the paper to be valid and correct, countless wrong papers are never retracted because that is not the role of a retraction. A study can be of deficient quality or with transparent bias, that still means it can remain published, so the scientists of the world can take it as evidence, even if only of what kind of mistakes other people can make and why it is so important to avoid them. A retraction comes for reports where malice, data fabrication or falsification is found for example, because at that point there is no value on keeping those reports in the discussion. That does not change the fact that post-publication peer review is the actual parameter to qualify the value of every report. It is ingenous to think the 2 or 3 people that review the paper before it is published would do a better job criticizing it than the whole scientific and medical communities.

So no, a paper can remain without retraction and still be wrong. If you want to say it is valid you have to address the criticism made about it and refute them.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

All I see are the number of cases, not the severity of current variants. Severity should dictate who ought to receive vaccine. The original virus was soon known to kill the very elderly and people with multiple co-morbidities. Healthy people including the young were known to be, with few exceptions, survivors. Yet lockdowns were imposed and knowledgeable critics of that lockdown blacklisted (e.g. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration). Today I see the same use of fear through “information lockdowns” (number of cases, not severity among demographics) to manipulate public opinion.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The current serious spread of infection in China is in part due to the fact that infections there have been suppressed to date.

Interesting statement in an article entitled Is Japan closing in on herd immunity?

Meanwhile, Japan continues to have one of the highest infection rates in the world, while the country is presumably masked and vaccinated to the T.

Something is not working in Japan.

Take your pick.

The actual experts already have.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The Chinese zero covid policy and three years of prison-like lock-ins killed millions from covid and other diseases with people unable to obtain treatments.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Considering you can get infected a second, third and who knows how many times, I'd say herd immunity doesn't exist.

Not easy to say if the vaccines are working either.

I guess time will tell.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

wallaceToday  02:48 pm JST

The Chinese zero covid policy and three years of prison-like lock-ins killed millions from covid and other diseases with people unable to obtain treatments.

That's what it was called in Europe? Oh.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

few simple facts.

vaccinated people can get infected by covid and can infect others.vaccination itself did not stop spreading of virus.

vaccinated people by MRNA vaccines having side issues as loosing own natural body balance and immunity damaged by MRNA vaccine.

many vaccinated people are dying everyday,some because of heart muscle failure/often case/others for some other reason,say people die suddenly because dont have natural balance and immunity anymore so even some banal sickness may cause death.many dead are young,active,sports loving people,no drugs,no alcohol-but Pfizer or Moderna.

here we rea everyday how many new cases reported and how many deaths reported but NEVER read how many cases are vaccinated and how many deaths are vaccinated.Jgov is keeping these info somehow secret from public as possible want to hide that vaccines promoted by them does not work at all.In some other countries like for example Czech republic citizens have right to know these details and if you want to know you just send request to Ministry of Health and they must reply to you with needed details.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

This is really great reading.

lol

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Eastman

Do you have any references of the few simple facts you wrote? because they run completely against what doctors and scientists say about COVID and vaccines.

I am specially interested in your claim that mRNA vaccines against COVID decrease the immunity because this is a part of the work I do and I have found no evidence of this. The only thing I found about it is a terribly bad movie about supposed young people dying because of the vaccines and clots but without offering any actual proof this is happening.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I feel sorry for virusrex - someone who actually understands the topic dealing with those who have picked up a little bit from internet forums and developed a new type of psuedoscience. And even though he is obviously more knowledgeable , and debunks argument after argument, gets more downvotes than ups. What a crazy world!

One argument that makes my head hurt most is on "natural immunity". Yes, it is possible that it provides even better protection vs vaccination (I don't it does though), but that is not the point. You get vaccinated to reduce the risks of being infected while you have no antibodies at all and it possibly being fatal. Obviously if you survive you end up more resilient to future infections. But no matter how often this is explained, the "muh natural immunity" argument keeps getting repeated.

Data from the UK show that vaccinated people of all age groups are far more likely to survive COVID than unvaccinated by a significant margin. And interestingly, vaccinated people have a lower mortality against non-COVID causes of death as well (likely to be more related to demographics, risk aversion, education and social class).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I feel sorry for virusrex - someone who actually understands the topic dealing with those who have picked up a little bit from internet forums and developed a new type of psuedoscience. And even though he is obviously more knowledgeable , and debunks argument after argument, gets more downvotes than ups.

You gotta respect him for persistently repudiating their conspiracy theories with science.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

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