Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Do you feel a sense of frustration about how worried you should be and whether you can trust the government and medical experts on the coronavirus?

41 Comments

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

I'm not so much worried about the govt and not at all worried by medical experts. What worries me is people refusing to get vaccinated.

-4 ( +13 / -17 )

No, I trust them, it’s not wrong what they tell us. The problem is, they tell only a part of it. Maybe they don’t know about the bigger picture or they don’t date to tell it the masses. Anyway, still a partly truth is better than lies.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Trust medical experts? You mean people who have been studying viruses, vaccines and health care for years. Some have devoted their entire careers to this subject. Well, we could trust them but shouldn't we also give equal attention to the man down the pub who read something written by an anonymous right conspiracy theory believing wingnut on Reddit?

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Trust medical experts? You mean people who have been studying viruses, vaccines and health care for years.

Most of the top experts are actually being silenced.

One good thing about this pandemic is that it has made painfully obvious the unhealthy influence of big pharma on the FDA, NIH, CDC, scientific journals, MSM and social media. Instead of regulating and informing, their functions has turned into promoting big pharma at the expense of our health.

So I have absolutely no trust in government and the medical experts promoted by them and the MSM.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

Most of the top experts are actually being silenced.

No, they are not, they are very vocal in their support of the vaccines and other measures to fight the pandemic.

People that refuse to accept science tend to use the excuse that the whole world is in a conspiracy and countless doctors and scientists are willing to sacrifice their own families and friends to hide suppossedly good treatments or the supposedly negative effect of the vaccines. This is of course complete nonsense and nobody rational could ever believe it, but since the scientific and medical consensus is clear this terribly bad excuse is the only exit these antiscientific people have to defend their mistaken beliefs.

1 ( +14 / -13 )

To me, the thing that is most worrisome is the continuous narrative that asymptotic people are likely to infect others. In studies of symptomatic and asymptomatic, symptomatic infected 1 in 6 in their household. Asymptomatic infect less than 1% within their household.

To infect others your need enough virus in your UR system to expel and that ‘enough’ is going to make you symptomatic.

The idea of wearing masks and social distancing because we are all walking Covid spreaders is ridiculous. The symptomatic are, but not the asymptomatic.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Which medical experts?

I think Raw Beer has succinctly summed up the situation.

No more needs to be said.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Which medical experts?

How about all of them, as in the consensus reached for a lot of things related to the pandemic. It is not rational nor believable to think the whole world is in a conspiracy, and every single institution of science and medicine involved in it. The only ones that promote this idea are those that actively reject scientific findings. That is why no more can be said, because the more details of this way of thinking are said the less sense it makes even for the people that want to believe it.

To me, the thing that is most worrisome is the continuous narrative that asymptotic 

There have been plenty of studies that indicate this is still an important way for people to get infected, of course not as much as with symptomatic people but still something that can't be ignored. As a gross average asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people (that are equivalent in respect to the measures needed to avoid them) cause around 20% of the cases compared with symptomatic people. That is quite significative in the control of the pandemic. The thing is not to think recommendations and conclusions in science can be reached by any single study, but by the whole weight of the literature. After all sometimes important details that were not thought to be important end up being essential for the correct interpretation of the results.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00059-4/fulltext

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

virusrexToday  11:08 am JST

Which medical experts?

How about all of them, as in the consensus reached for a lot of things related to the pandemic. It is not rational nor believable to think the whole world is in a conspiracy, and every single institution of science and medicine involved in it. The only ones that promote this idea are those that actively reject scientific findings. That is why no more can be said, because the more details of this way of thinking are said the less sense it makes even for the people that want to believe it.

So you think that the experts who work in the field treating patients with off-label medications that are demonstrated to work in a very high proportion of cases 60-90-odd percent depending on how advanced the condition is when first prescribed, or used as propylactics, are not experts? They seem to be more successful than the experts who just tell people who present with symptoms just to take some aspirin and tough it out until they come back with much worse symptoms and need intubation etc.

How about the government experts that keep prescribing lockdowns and masks and mandatory vaccination while banning cheap, safe and effective treatments/threatening doctors who try to prescribe them, even though the virus keeps spreading beyond their control?

Your consensus looks pretty shaky, doesn't it?

And if you do get COVID-19, would you reject IVM and other drugs that could shorten your illness and avoid hospitalisation, given how safe even you know they are? Even if you don't think they work, given their safety, would it be worth trying them anyway? A simply yes or no would suffice.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

So you think that the experts who work in the field treating patients with off-label medications that are demonstrated to work in a very high proportion of cases 60-90-odd percent depending on how advanced the condition is when first prescribed, or used as propylactics, are not experts? 

Those that push limited, low quality data as "proof" obviously are not. If they were they would immediately understand the overwhelming amount of evidence that clearly indicate the drugs antiscientific groups are promoting are not useful against COVID and would not try to discuss using much less data of much lower quality. And no, using drugs with proven toxicity and risks and disproven benefits is much worse than not giving nothing. Medical professionals are trained to recognize this counterproductive instinct of just giving something even if it does not work because it is unethical and dangerous for the patients. They are NOT worth trying it any way (outside of proper clinical trials with ethical review of the protocol) unless they can prove they provide any benefit..

So no, if you can't get even one name of an institution that says the conspiracy you believe is real, and that recommends the drugs that the consensus have found worthless (ivermectin, HCQ) then asking for people to believe all and every institution of the world is wrong and hiding this because of a conspiracy is still impossible to belive.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

I don't trust the Japanese government not to pull a fast one and ban any and all non-Japanese people from entering the country, valid residence visa or not. They were very fickle about this last year, not to mention vague and avoidant about what exactly the rules for reentry were. This resulted in some people being stuck overseas for months at a time while still having to pay their bills and taxes in Japan. Absurd and completely unfair.

As for the medical experts, honestly I can't tell anymore. I think we're all just going to have to exercise some good judgment and be sensible when leaving the house.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Those that push limited, low quality data as "proof" obviously are not. If they were they would immediately understand the overwhelming amount of evidence that clearly indicate the drugs antiscientific groups are promoting are not useful against COVID and would not try to discuss using much less data of much lower quality. And no, using drugs with proven toxicity and risks and disproven benefits is much worse than not giving nothing. Medical professionals are trained to recognize this counterproductive instinct of just giving something even if it does not work because it is unethical and dangerous for the patients. They are NOT worth trying it any way (outside of proper clinical trials with ethical review of the protocol) unless they can prove they provide any benefit..

Your attitude is baffling. You have a perverse understanding of medical ethics, which start with DO NO HARM. It's very simple to understand.

There is no moral risk in prescribing medications that are proven to be safe even if they end up not working. No harm. But to enforce medical treatment on unwilling participants is fraught with moral hazard, especially when it's still new and experimental with the long-term risks unknown. You know this, but refuse to acknowledge it.

There are loads of studies out there (https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/medical-evidence-and-optional-medicines/essential-documents/) showing the effectiveness of these therapies, but because they don't align with the narrative being pushed, you refuse to acknowledge them.

If you're so confident in your assertions, why not publicly debate the doctors who use them? If you're right, there's nothing to be scared of.

So no, if you can't get even one name of an institution that says the conspiracy you believe is real, and that recommends the drugs that the consensus have found worthless (ivermectin, HCQ) then asking for people to believe all and every institution of the world is wrong and hiding this because of a conspiracy is still impossible to belive.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of facts and data, which fall in favour of these treatments. You constantly run to the supposed comfort of a consensus that simply doesn't exist. You ignore the threats by your beloved institutions against doctors who successfully treat patients with these off-label drugs and against pharmacies for supplying them to treat COVID. And you have to resort to that ol' chestnut of conspiracy theory in claiming that not a single institution recommends these drugs.

So what?

It's been demonstrated repeatedly over the last 2 years and well before that there are strong financial and personal network links between the pharmaceutical companies, the organisations that are supposed to regulate them, and institutions that are funded by them. Do you really expect organisations funded by the pharma companies to bite the hand that feeds them? This is perfectly clear in the FDA's decision to take 75 years to study safety data for Pfizer's vaccine. What a farce! Thankfully the court has told them to release it all at once. Ignoring these links is simply wilful blindness.

It's results on the ground in real patients being successfully treated with these drugs by real doctors - without harm - that matter.

Don't forget that.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Do you feel a sense of frustration about how worried you should be and whether you can trust the government and medical experts on the coronavirus?

No governments or medical experts can predict what variant is going to appear next and where, but that doesn't frustrate me.

What annoys me is selfish anti-vaxxers prolonging the pandemic, screwing economies and putting the world in danger geopolitically.

Grow up!

2 ( +9 / -7 )

The whole government response in most countries has been wildly over the top. And often illogical. That is frustrating. Especially as we are now finding out that the draconian measures taken in many countries did not solve "the pandemic" and did not lead to better outcomes than in countries that were far more measured in their approach.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Which medical experts?

How about all of them, as in the consensus reached for a lot of things related to the pandemic.

There is no consensus. There are many who disagree with what you call consensus, like a (the ?) top expert of infectious diseases Didier Raoult, or the creator of the core mRNA delivery technology (used in mRNA vaccines) Robert Malone, the top epidemiologist John Ioannidis, the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, and countless doctors who have been very successfully treating Covid patients (Shankara Chetty, Pierre Kory, Paul Marik, Vladimir Zelenko and many others).

How can anyone have any faith in the "experts" we see on the MSM when the above voices are constantly silenced and attacked.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

No.

Keep the border closed and vaccines not mandatory, thanks.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

There is no consensus

When every single institution of science and medicine of the world supports the same conclusions and recommendations definetely there is a consensus. Even if disgraced researchers that fabricate, falsify data and conduct unethical human research for many years say the contrary without supporting their personal opinions with actual data.

Unless you can find institutions that disagree with vaccines being effective and safe, or the value of non-pharmacological interventions (and the lack of value of ivermecting and HCQ) the only logical option is to accept there is a consensus in science and it completely contradicts you.

There is nothing wrong with attacking people for making false and baseless claims for personal gain, that is how the system is supposed to work.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Your attitude is baffling. You have a perverse understanding of medical ethics, which start with DO NO HARM. It's very simple to understand.

That is why the drugs you want to promote are not used, they give no benefit and instead harm the patients for no reason, which is why they are worse than not using anything. In this case not using them is exactly what do not harm means. It is terribly easy to find the multiple problems and risk from using HCQ and Ivermectin, so just you saying they are safe is not enough to contradict the evidence.

There are loads of studies out there

And they are deficient, low powered or biased, which is why the much better, bigger, more controlled studies were necessary to find out what was actually useful, unfortunately people that only want to misrepresent science are unable to accept that not all evidence is equal, and that all the professionals of every institution of science and medicine of the world are not wrong or in a conspiracy, they simply are much better at understanding what the best available evidence says, and that is that those drugs do not work.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of facts and data, which fall in favour of these treatments

the opposite, the best data proves they are worthless, even if people without honesty want to misrepresent the literature presenting only low quality studies as if they had the same scientific weight as the best that have been conducted. Again, its you against every institution of the world, it is obvious who is in the wrong.

When all your arguments depend completely on EVERY single institution of the world being in a conspiracy that simply demonstrate is not logical, much less believable.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

When all your arguments depend completely on EVERY single institution of the world being in a conspiracy that simply demonstrate is not logical, much less believable.

Except that it is not every single institution of the world that follow your so called consensus. It's a consensus within most western institutions that have been "captured" by big pharma. It is very naive to believe they have our best interests at heart.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Face it, virusrex. You're losing. The tide is slowly but surely turning against governments, the pharmaceutical industry and the legacy media, and will reach a tipping point before too long.

Ask yourself: why? Is trust in government, health bureaucracies, the scientists who are allowed to

Too obvious Strawman fallacy, the ones that proved that ivermectin and HCQ do not work are not goverments, pharmaceutical industries nor the media, it was the scientific community in general, and thanks to the very effective interventions (including vaccines) science has managed to put forward to very effectively reduce the risks from the pandemics it has become very clear the value of scientific research.

On the other hand antiscientific groups have beome desperate, nothing of their predictions about the pandemic ended up being true, vaccines work, masks and other interventions are effective, new drugs and vaccines are close to reduce the risk from COVID even more, and that is why the arguments against science end up being irrational and impossible to believe (as in "All the scientists in the whole world are on it to kill you")

You have provided not a single institute of science or medicine that support your mistaken views, that means that according to you they are all on it, with everybody involved killing their own families and friends by supposedly hiding drugs and putting forward dangerous vaccines, that is impossible to believe.

Except that it is not every single institution of the world that follow your so called consensus

You have been free to prove this is wrong by providing examples that openly reject the consensus on vaccines, masks, risks from COVID, repurposed drugs, etc. Over many months you have provided exactly zero.

This clearly indicates that yes, there is a consensus and you could not find even one institution that provides medical care and originates science that contradicts it.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Anyway, still a partly truth is better than lies.

I'm not sure why you got voted down so much. I think uncertainty is a basic quality of experts. As someone once said, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

I'm not sure what most people's expectations are regarding Covid - that it will disappear or that it will become endemic, but hopefully at a mild level like the common cold. Meanwhile, numbers strongly suggest that vaccination reduces the level of transmission and serious cases, thus reducing pressure on health services.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I had understood that getting the experimental mRNA vaccine from Moderna would make travel easier for me and that is important to see my large US family. I am not sure I can handle being locked in a small hotel room for 6 days upon return however without going insane. Maybe some science to back up locking coronavirus negative people up for 6 days would help.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I had understood that getting the experimental mRNA vaccine from Moderna would make travel easier for me and that is important to see my large US family.

Most people that understand the science believed this as well, as after people get vaccinated, and the death rate of the virus drops, all the restrictions should have dropped, since the whole point of having them, which was at that point "waiting for the vaccine" was already archived.

Then it started to get pushed into "until X% of people ar vaccinated", which implies that they are aiming for sterilization, which wasn't the original purpose, and for which there was little scientific support, but "getting rid of covid" was a good political slogan, and so the route to implicit zero covid began, and it is where we are right now.

We are in the point where actually mortality risk, serious of infectiousness risk is no longer a factor, and where the goal seams to get the virus "under control", and making that case number as lower as posible, ad-infinitum.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

@virusrex

My questions are always sincere. I believe in discussion and not argument for the sake of argument. I’m very capable and willing to change my mind when presented with facts that are counter to my belief.

Do you think the spread of omicron is a net positive considering the relatively mild symptoms and quick recovery, in addition to the enhanced immunity to the more serious delta variant?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Most people that understand the science believed this as well, as after people get vaccinated, and the death rate of the virus drops, all the restrictions should have dropped, since the whole point of having them, which was at that point "waiting for the vaccine" was already archived.

That was not my understanding. I thought the main concern was to reduce pressure on health services. While Covid hospitalizations were increasing, many were not getting other treatments and surgery. I think that's still a problem, but hopefully becoming less so. I'm also frustrated - not being able to visit Japan to see family.

but "getting rid of covid" was a good political slogan

Sure, for politicians, but I don't recall any medial experts saying it could be got rid of.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Can't trust government overkill on the issue. Nor on government's dependence on 'experts'. Governments all around the world have abrogated their responsibilities, just to blame a bug.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

We are in the point where actually mortality risk, serious of infectiousness risk is no longer a factor,

But that situation is being maintained while under several measures of proven efficacy, therefore it is not an argument to automatically consider those measures unnecessary. For that, evidence is necessary that the low risk would be maintained without them.

My questions are always sincere

I see no reason to consider them differently

Do you think the spread of omicron is a net positive considering the relatively mild symptoms and quick recovery, in addition to the enhanced immunity to the more serious delta variant?

It could be, but it could also be of no consequence or a net negative depending on circumstances we still don't know, for example the immunity from infection of other variants appear to be short lived against Omicron, if the opposite is also true (something likely since the milder the infection the less the immunity seems to last) then the spreading would be less effective against other variants than a booster, and much more risky as well.

That would mean Omicron would only be causing extra cases (including a number of complications and deaths) just for other variants (new or already present) to take over a few months later.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Project Veritas dropping another truth bomb from leaked military files on the alleged “wet market” conspiracy theory and the “Ivermectin is useless” conspiracy theory:

"Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response."

I’m not worried one bit about whether I can trust any government. I don’t.

After the western worlds (government and media) big lie of the 2nd gulf war, nobody should.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

FizzBitToday  09:59 am JST

Project Veritas dropping another truth bomb from leaked military files on the alleged “wet market” conspiracy theory and the “Ivermectin is useless” conspiracy theory:

It was interesting watching Fauci's hand shake like a leaf when questioned about gain of function research by Sen. Marshall, only to have a Democrat senator rescue him when the heat got turned up too high.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDM2OIUksKA

And here he ducks and weaves without giving a straight answer to anything when questioned by Rand Paul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRY5i5P74K0

Because Fauci has been so dishonest, he has to resort to character assassinations of his opponents because the data doesn't support his claims and recommendations. He and his ilk are a big part of why I don't trust the experts trotted out by governments to be the public face of The Science™.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

trust your common sense is best.

read and get many info from various sources,dont rely one sided informations.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The only expert to trust is VR, right?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

My only frustration with the government is why it is taking them so long to follow Singapore and make all people who choose not to be vaccinated pay for any Covid treatment

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I would worry about the noise and dishonesty by posts on social media.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

“The idea of wearing masks and social distancing because we are all walking Covid spreaders is ridiculous. The symptomatic are, but not the asymptomatic.”

This is ridiculous!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Its not a matter of if Fauci lied, as he has admitted lying because "the public cant handle/accept it". (paraphrase)

So its really only a matter of how many more times he has lied that he wont admit to and what he is lying about still.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The entire society is affected by politics. A doctor or a researcher might be smart, but they still need funding and time for their research which comes with political baggage attached.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"experts, experts, experts good!" "listen to them, do as you are told!"

Watch this...

"Nobel Prize winner, Dr Robert Malone is an EXPERT in this field".

(chaos ensues)

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Its not a matter of if Fauci lied, as he has admitted lying because "the public cant handle/accept it". (paraphrase). So its really only a matter of how many more times he has lied that he wont admit to and what he is lying about still.

Hmmmm......

Trump tp Woodward, Feb 7th 2019: "This is deadly stuff," Trump told Woodward in a Feb. 7 phone call. “You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed,” Trump told Woodward. “And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flu.”

Trump to the American people that same month: Trump continued to hold packed political rallies throughout February and told reporters at the White House on Feb. 27: "This is a flu. This is like a flu."

Merely one of hundreds of lies by the former, defeated President...

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Not about Trump sorry.

even if it was that doesn’t change that Fauci lied and is still lying now.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Not about Trump sorry.

even if it was that doesn’t change that Fauci lied and is still lying now.

Hmmm......

In a March interview with Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward, he acknowledged that "plenty of young people" were affected...

At a September rally, President Donald Trump "falsely claimed" that the novel coronavirus "affects virtually nobody" younger than 18 and mainly threatens seniors and people with underlying health conditions...

In secret COVID is "deadly", a "killer", "rips you open", "like the plague".....to the American people, it "just the flu", "under control", and will "magically disappear"....

Americans know who the liar is - the one who lost the election in 2020...

You know, The Loser....

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Americans know who the liar is - the one who lost the election in 2020...

Most Americans these days don't care, some get vaccinated, some don't, many vaccinated to get the virus, at this point, stay safe, live your life and stop worrying and it's up to you if you want to listen to the experts or not, I don't.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

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