People check in at Haneda Airport's domestic terminal in Tokyo. Photo: AP file
national

Rapid coronavirus testing centers to open at Tokyo's Haneda airport

66 Comments

Privately run coronavirus testing centers at Tokyo's Haneda airport for boarding passengers will open on Saturday.

The rapid testing facilities will conduct antigen tests, which provide results in roughly 15 minutes, for 1,800 yen, while also offering polymerase chain reaction tests, which take longer than antigen tests, for 1,900 yen but only for those not departing the same day.

The centers will be set up at Haneda's Terminal 1 and 2 for domestic flights from Saturday, at a time when passenger numbers remain low as Japan has recently seen a resurgence in COVID-19, a respiratory illness caused by the virus, and will have a combined capacity to administer 2,100 antigen tests and 1,500 PCR tests per day.

An official of Kinoshita Group Co, which manages the testing centers together with airport operator Japan Airport Terminal Co, said the services will give traveling passengers peace of mind and also benefit passengers who have to go on urgent business trips.

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

66 Comments
Login to comment

Potentially a good idea, but very limited considering PCR results aren't ready on the day of departure and only the domestic terminals have the facilities.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

1,500 is a drop in the bucket compared to demand.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I guess when I want to be tested I will just go to the Airport! Hospitals/Clinics won't test us unless we have Symtoms, so I am glad we have other options!

14 ( +21 / -7 )

Remember when, so long ago, when it was difficult AND so expensive to get ANY kind of COVID test in Japan?

11 ( +14 / -3 )

How can the tests be so cheap when they cost so much at clinics and hospitals?

28 ( +32 / -4 )

I echo the comments above.

[Still no testing at my place of work...]

6 ( +9 / -3 )

PCR test results in 2 hours for only ¥1,900. Very convenient!

(See photo for prices turnaround times: https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/04/8b7249c450c2-rapid-coronavirus-testing-centers-at-tokyo-airport-open-to-media.html)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Enjoying a trip overseas to see my family after more than two years, everything planned and booked, already at the airport drinking a cup of coffee.....

Then, the test becomes positive........

Better to have a test 1 or 2 days before to avoid any last minute surprise. This is ok eventually for business people as the company will take the burden but more risky for others

12 ( +13 / -1 )

"Rapid coronavirus testing centers to open at Tokyo's Haneda airport"

That's a lot of money Kinoshita Group Co, is making. Happy to see a Japanese company making money again!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@P.Smith

Companies want to profit off anything they can!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"Half a loaf is better than nothing" we could say. It's Shocking how slow paced Japan is rolling out these rapid tests. Some developing countries from Africa & Asia have been doing these rapid tests for free at least since last December 2020. The prioritization of making profit is just glaringly evident. Now that these private companies negotiated their cut from the bureaucrats, finally people have an option not to live in fear.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

You can get tested outside a lot of major stations for a few thousand yen. Pay a little extra for same day results. Stop your whingeing Sanchez.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

How very Japan

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@the Resident

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984522371/england-to-offer-free-twice-a-week-covid-19-tests

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"You can get tested outside a lot of major stations for a few thousand yen."

Do the airlines and immigration/airport authorities recognize the results or certificates issued by these hole-in-the-wall places?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Should be grateful for some truth, that daily reports on TV everyday showing how many people tested positive are not same day results, as turn around time at least 24 hours. Though would be good to see PCR swabs that are used have DNA from cotton plants that taint results and therefore inappropriate for use. Numbers for reactions from getting the vaccines blood clotting, deaths, etc..that would be informative to report on as well.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hopefully this will put pressure on the shameless price-gouging clinics that have been charging 20,000 yen or more for pre-flight tests. Or better yet, drive them out of business completely.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

@JeffLee - Most of them can provide the paperwork necessary, yes. I know enough people who have had to use them for travel to UK and USA now. It does (of course) cost a little extra.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@Joeintokyo - Yes and they are lateral flow tests which are far from accurate. But then, after the last year watching testing in Japan, do you REALLY think that will ever happen here. Little point in making this into a 'competition' with other countries now, is there?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@thesanchez

Not where I live....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What's the point of getting a test for a virus with an extremely low mortality rate?

There are effective medicines available, so why is everybody so afraid?

Even the WHO admits Ivermectin reduces mortality by more than 80%.

Don't let the media scare you, because that's their goal.

-16 ( +5 / -21 )

@sanchez - care to elaborate. Maybe you're just not looking hard enough

0 ( +2 / -2 )

this company offers the same service in Shibuya and you can get the results of pcr tests in three hours. the one problem is just because you test negative with a pcr test you could still be carrying the virus and be asymptomatic if i am not mistaken. @Hamada, Ivermectin has brutal side effects so i'll pass on that thank you very much.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@stickman - PCR test would probably show an infection , even asymptomatic after 2-3 days exposure.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

jefflee:

Do the airlines and immigration/airport authorities recognize the results or certificates issued by these hole-in-the-wall places?

I'd like to know too. Is there also a catch? Like, is it going to cost 15,000 yen to get a certificate needed to travel abroad? That's another dirty trick those clinics have up their sleeves. At London Heathrow Airport, they just print it off an ordinary printer right in front of your face. Maybe 5p for the paper and ink?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

What's the point of getting a test for a virus with an extremely low mortality rate?

having 1 or 2 chances out of every 100 of dying is not exactly extremely low, but even if you considered those as good odds testing also protect the people around you, which is important to anybody that has even a hint of consideration.

Even the WHO admits Ivermectin reduces mortality by more than 80%.

Any link for this? because the official WHO communications says otherwise.

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Antigen test are very unreliable, there have been many cases of people testing negative with antigen

test more than once and on taking PCR found to be positive. I won't be rejoicing with a negative result

from antigen test.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Google is your friend Pukey. Anywhere between 17-22k all in. By the way that is cheaper than what yo have to pay in London to get the right forms as demanded by Japanese Immigration to come back...Plus your day 2 and day 8 tests in the UK are not free. You have to pay. Catches all over the place.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Oh right - so if you're coming here from overseas you get rapid testing as a matter of course (even though you need to have provided a negative test before you're llowed on a plane), but if you live here and pay taxes, you can't get a test unless you're at death's door?

Thanks. LDP. Let's Heartful Olympic.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

You get a PCR test upon arrival in Japan from overseas, NOT a rapid test. That is compulsory and free. Please read the article properly.

Rapid testing in the UK right now, for free, is only provided for High School and University students - there is a possibility that rapid (lateral flow) tests maybe provided to larger numbers is the UK. It is not yet a done deal and the cost is simply enormous. PCR tests are available , by appointment , for those with symptoms via the NHS app.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yeah but how much is the documentation needed for many countries prior to entry?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I echo the comments above.

[Still no testing at my place of work...]

Just how many "places of work" offer PCR tests?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Inconvenient location and really no point. If you are already at the airport ready to go.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

why isn’t the government meeting the costs for the tests? it’s a major deterrent for many people..very frustrating is their lack of action!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Consider these things;

Vaccine and Pharmaceutical manufacturers are legally indemnified against injury or death by Vaccine. These are NOT Vaccines, these injections are patented as mRNA and DNA Gene Manipulation Therapy, even the HPV Vaccine is mRNA, all Vaccines going forward are mRNA thanks to the Eugenicist Bill Gates…these are not approved, not tested, experimental injections that last a life-time, interfering with how the body fights new viruses that entry the body.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

having 1 or 2 chances out of every 100 of dying is not exactly extremely low

No like usual you are saying something that is not correct because oversimplified and imprecise. The infection fatality rate (the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including all asymptomatic and undiagnosed subjects), not the death rate since you seem to confuse both, is known to be smaller than 1%, let alone 2%. Or you could actually be confusing with the case-fatality ratio (the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a particular period), but I am going to focus my post on the IFR because it's more informative to estimate the fatality rate in both sick and healthy infected.

The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV2 in a super-spreading event in Germany was estimated to be 0.36% for the community and 0.35% when age-standardized to the population of the community.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19509-y

In another estimation from John P A Ioannidis, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27%, with substantial variabilities across different locations reflecting differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors.

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7947934.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Another study (still not peer-reviewed) estimated the country-wide average IFR in Brazil to be 0.97% with strong variability with age: 0.028% for 0.002%

18 - 49 years; 500 per  per 1,000,000 infections - 0.05%

50 - 64 years; 6000 per  per 1,000,000 infections - 0.6%

65+: 90,000 - 9%

Note the very severe IRF among the elderlies which of course is a known thing.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

For the death rate, it's of course quit small also, eg. 0.17% for US. Czechia republic has actually the highest one, 0.26%.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

HPV Vaccine is mRNA, all Vaccines going forward are mRNA

My understanding is that mRNA is quickly degraded in the body. It is not stable like DNA. Please study basic biochemistry.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

No like usual you are saying something that is not correct because oversimplified and imprecise. The infection fatality rate (the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including all asymptomatic and undiagnosed subjects), not the death rate since you seem to confuse both, is known to be smaller than 1%, let alone 2%.

No, that is again you not understanding what you read and making invalid assumptions. It is perfectly valid to have those chances AFTER you are diagnosed with the infection, confirmed deaths and confirmed infections are the only clear data we can use to get rates, the rest is derive from inferences that may or not be wrong.

For example, Ioannidis is a terrible reference for anything that has to do with COVID, his huge conflicts of interest and the sudden drop of qualify of his research have made him a dubious reference at much, Everybody was surprise how he could publish studies so deficient and incomplete when previously he was the one that was first to criticize every mistake he made. After his funding became clear the surprise was gone.

Once again you part from not understanding correctly what you read and making wrong conclusions about it, it was the same with the "escape mutants" or the paper that supposedly proved COVID would never reach herd immunity. I seriously recommend you to put more attention to what you want to discuss first. Your own reference for Johns Hopkins data prove that observed case-fatality ratio (the one that require less inferences and assumptions to make) is at least 1-2% and for some countries much higher.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Consider these things;

Vaccine and Pharmaceutical manufacturers are legally indemnified against injury or death by Vaccine. These are NOT Vaccines, these injections are patented as mRNA and DNA Gene Manipulation Therapy, even the HPV Vaccine is mRNA, all Vaccines going forward are mRNA thanks to the Eugenicist Bill Gates…these are not approved, not tested, experimental injections that last a life-time, interfering with how the body fights new viruses that entry the body.

Everything in your comment is easily disproved as false information.

The vaccines fulfill completely the definition of what a vaccine is, none of them manipulate any of your genes, they are already out of experimentation and are being used for their therapeutic value so they are no longer considered experimental, and all were thoroughly tested, Bill Gates has never been an eugenicist, the injections have half-life measured in minutes to hours and they interfere much less with the immunity than the actual virus, that produces proteins with the specific purpose of messing with your immune system.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

theresident:

Google is your friend Pukey. Anywhere between 17-22k all in. By the way that is cheaper than what yo have to pay in London to get the right forms as demanded by Japanese Immigration to come back...Plus your day 2 and day 8 tests in the UK are not free. You have to pay. Catches all over the place.

The test and certificate at Heathrow only costs about 80 pounds which doesn't come anywhere near 17-22,000 yen. Plus, I had to pay well over 20,000 yen for a limousine because we're not allowed to use public transport from Haneda/Narita. Plus, are these day 2 and 8 tests in the UK obligatory (if you stay home?).

Catches all over the place, yes. But more so in Japan. I don't see the French having to pay for these tests.

Most of my older relatives abroad have already had their first vaccination. In Japan, the most important people in the country, the Olympic athletes, haven't even had theirs yet.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

It is perfectly valid to have those chances AFTER you are diagnosed with the infection, confirmed deaths and confirmed infections are the only clear data we can use to get rates, the rest is derive from inferences that may or not be wrong.

Nah, it's simply your way to get the scariest sounding number. Assuming that all infections are included in the official PCR-confirmed number does not make any sense, especially for Japan.

I already told you where to get Raoult's data of the ca. 0.07% death rate (all ages).

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

You don't state when you travelled Pukey. Rules have changed considerably recently.

Yes - The Day 2 and 8 tests are compulsory even for those outside the Red Zones and must be prebooked.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What a ripoff, to pay for something that others want, not I. If someone wants to know, that one has to pay. Do you also test yourself if you are still a human being or currently really still carrying your head on the neck? No? You should test it daily too, and for that similar stupidity even pay tenfold of what you have in your purse....rofl

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Again completely meaningless comment (do you even read what you write?) because you just want to reject the science and the scientific work you are not able to understand and reply to, and that goes against your false rhetoric.

My reasons are clear and valid, so much that you have not been able to reject them, not now nor in the previous discussions where you ended up simply not defending your mistakes. I know they make your mistake evident, but that has nothing to do with them being meaningless.

Those are serious accusations that you are not in a position to do unless you provide me your a list of your publications that would give you any credibility in questioning his work. His estimations were in line with others studies which of course you decided to ignore.

I never said that I was the one that proved the accusations, I said it was a well known problem because it is, and you are completely wrong, a list of publications do not make someone more or less correct when criticizing mistakes, the evidence of those mistakes is the one that makes them valid or not. Your invalid appeal to authority is meaningless, If a elementary school kid can prove something is wrong that is enough to consider it wrong. Your position is deeply antiscientific.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/why-unreliable-tests-are-flooding-the-coronavirus-conversation-cvd/

https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/

https://www.businessinsider.com/buzzfeed-stanford-coronavirus-study-funded-by-jetblue-founder-2020-5

It is simple enough to say he predicted 10,000 deaths for the US, that made him only over half a million deaths short until now.

You never reply to my points and always go to some accusations that actually apply to you. 

I directly proved your invalid assumption about what I write is not correct. You have proved not being able to understand correctly scientific texts and misrepresent them (for example with the COVID herd immunity paper, where the authors ASSUMED endemicity in order to put forward a model and you mistakenly though they PROVED endemicity was the only possible result). You never defended against this criticism over the terrible way you treat evidence.

Nowhere on your post you are replying to the data I provided you and about your poor understanding of the terms involved. 

No, you simply made the mistake of assuming I was talking about one thing when it was obvious I was talking about another, none of your data proves that getting a diagnostic of COVID means having less than 1% chances of dying.

You are correcting only your own misrepresentation of what other people write, as you usually do.

This really proves how sloppy you are. I gave the link in order to provide you the death rates because I think this is what the post you replied to was referring to.

You provided a very clear reference that proved that case-fatality ration is at least 1-2%, that obviously means people can refer to that, and it is actually the natural thing to do, because it depends on information that is reliable (to a certain point) and do not require unproved assumptions. Nevertheless you assumed arbitrarily I was talking about something different and "corrected" only your own confusion. Having this evidence there should have been enough to make you think "the CFR may be what the comment is about", but you didn't do it because you have very strong problems understanding what other people write and insist on misinterpreting it at your convenience.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

@Sven Asai - Easy answer and easiest option for you is - 'Don't Travel', Therefore making your drivel irrelevant.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Nah, it's simply your way to get the scariest sounding number. Assuming that all infections are included in the official PCR-confirmed number does not make any sense, especially for Japan.

I already told you where to get Raoult's data of the ca. 0.07% death rate (all ages).

No, it is simple the most reliable number that can be obtained, It destroy the whole "COVID is not even that bad" argument, but that is because it is not true. It does not assume that only detected infections happened, it simply is the number that can be calculated directly without making assumptions of unknown numbers that depend on many unidentified variables.

And no, the imaginary Raoult data is not real, you have never provided a source, only that you can see it even if nobody else can. Of course you could prove me wrong by providing a source here, but I suspect you will not because you have never done so.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

theResident

You can get tested outside a lot of major stations for a few thousand yen. Pay a little extra for same day results. Stop your whingeing Sanchez.

You can, if you don't have any symptoms. Symptomatic, and you'd need to contact the hokenjos. But to get tested through the hokenjo, your symptoms need to be Really Bad. (Oh - and prove that you were close to a positive covid patient, for more than 15mins. Oh, but, if you wore a mask then don't bother even dialling the number, they won't test you.)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sorry @Vinke - You are incorrect. many people WITH symptoms are deciding to get tested this way as they don't want to face the bureaucratic nightmare that it is to get a Government test here.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

theResident -

I haven't found a single private testing facility that would accept symptomatic people. The guidelines are clear and simple, like this one:

The test will not be given to those who have symptoms of such as fever, taste and smell disorder, or cold symptoms, or had close contact with an infected person.

(http://www.sendagaya-ic.com/en/)

or this one

We do not perform PCR testing for symptomatic individuals. Please do not walk-in.

(https://www.americanclinictokyo.com/)

or this one

Only those who are asymptomatic and want to have a PCR test for obtaining a negative certificate or for their peace of mind can have a medical examination.

(https://clinicnearme.jp/)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What's the point of having them in the domestic terminals? And such low numbers per day, 1 single domestic 777 or A350-900 carries over 300 passengers. How many of those take off every single hour on domestic flights?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Vinke

https://pcr.nishitanclinic.jp/en/

just one example.

I know people who have used this service, WITH symptoms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CDC study shows COVID-19 rapid tests not as accurate as first reported. Researchers found that for those showing symptoms, rapid tests were right 80% of the time. That number is down from the reported 96.7% when the FDA gave emergency use authorization back in May.

In those not showing symptoms, accuracy dropped to just 41.2%. There can be false positives and false negatives too.

So, the tests are not accurate enough.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It is one year behind.

Only Japan had been obsessed with irrational skepticism against PCR test in the world.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

My reasons are clear and valid, so much that you have not been able to reject them, not now nor in the previous discussions where you ended up simply not defending your mistakes. I know they make your mistake evident, but that has nothing to do with them being meaningless.

I did reject them because I told you that they make no sense. What you write is scientifically meaningless. What mistakes are you talking about? What I provided you are correct definitions, correct science and real data.

I never said that I was the one that proved the accusations, I said it was a well known problem because it is, and you are completely wrong, a list of publications do not make someone more or less correct when criticizing mistakes, the evidence of those mistakes is the one that makes them valid or not. Your invalid appeal to authority is meaningless, If a elementary school kid can prove something is wrong that is enough to consider it wrong. Your position is deeply antiscientific.

The above makes literally no sense, what are you talking about? For the sake of humanity, could you just write something that makes sense instead of putting randomly words together?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/why-unreliable-tests-are-flooding-the-coronavirus-conversation-cvd/

https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/

https://www.businessinsider.com/buzzfeed-stanford-coronavirus-study-funded-by-jetblue-founder-2020-5

Those are media content not scientific papers. Provide scientific data and research. Not media articles which are largely politicized as you are. And you keep focusing on Ioannidis while I provided you many sources of data for the IFR which you chose to ignore since you can't reply to them.

It is simple enough to say he predicted 10,000 deaths for the US, that made him only over half a million deaths short until now.

That's not what we are discussing here. You are just cherry picking something because it fits your rhetoric and choose to ignore the subject at hand.

I directly proved your invalid assumption about what I write is not correct. 

No, you simply made the mistake of assuming I was talking about one thing when it was obvious I was talking about another, 

Oh really let's see. Here is the post you replied to:

What's the point of getting a test for a virus with an extremely low mortality rate?

This post precisely referred to mortality rate (=death rate, a measure of the number of deaths, in general or due to a specific cause, in a particular population, scaled to the size of that population, per unit of time). You replied by giving figures for the case fatality ratio which was wrong because you indeed were confusing both. And I suspect that you didn't even know the term case fatality ratio because you misunderstood what the mortality rate means. Now you don't want to admit your mistake and you claim I made a wrong assumption of what you wrote. This is too easy, next time then stop to be sloppy because terms have precise meanings.

You have proved not being able to understand correctly scientific texts 

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere you can claim that this is valid to say that. My post was totally correct as I gave you exact definitions of the IFR and case fatality ratio and told you why to use the IFR, precisely because your post was replying to another one about the dangerously of the virus. The case fatality ratio only allows to calculate the fatality rate from the observed positive cases and therefore is useful to drive the health care response. However, by definition it can't measure the real fatality rate of the virus, that's why epidemiologists use the IFR. You claim that the IFR is not valid without the beginning of competence to do that. If you want to do so please provide me a precise analysis that shows why and how the current methods uses to estimate the IFR are not reliable. Provide a rigorous mathematical analysis and calculations. Unless you do that, everything else is pure BS! Also most of the estimations of the IFR are based on models that simulate the spread of the virus, so provide a mathematical proof which shows that the equations used to drive those models are based on wrong assumptions. I should also mention the same models are also used to drive the restrictions and lockdowns policies. And if you look at the mortality rate, the estimations of the IFR for example from the CDC are in accordance together since you would expect a higher mortality rate if the IFR is much higher.

for example with the COVID herd immunity paper, where the authors ASSUMED endemicity in order to put forward a model and you mistakenly though they PROVED endemicity was the only possible result)

Absolutely did not say that. I argued that the authors did implement a model to analyze the trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 INTO endemicity and how this could drive the vaccination policies for example. You did not read properly both my post and the paper, read again

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6530/741

one of your data proves that getting a diagnostic of COVID means having less than 1% chances of dying.

They do and you aren't providing any scientific analysis proving otherwise.

You are correcting only your own misrepresentation of what other people write, as you usually do.

You can't reply scientifically so you keep throwing baseless arguments.

You provided a very clear reference that proved that case-fatality ration is at least 1-2%, that obviously means people can refer to that, and it is actually the natural thing to do, because it depends on information that is reliable (to a certain point) and do not require unproved assumptions. Nevertheless you assumed arbitrarily I was talking about something different and "corrected" only your own confusion. Having this evidence there should have been enough to make you think "the CFR may be what the comment is about", but you didn't do it because you have very strong problems understanding what other people write and insist on misinterpreting it at your convenience.

Again random words put together, what are you saying? You replied to a post which was precisely referring to mortality rate with wrong figures because you did not understand what the mortality rate means. And now you claim this is me misunderstanding your post because you can't just admit you were flat out wrong. Again if you don't want people to supposedly misunderstand you, why don't you start to read properly people's post and be precise in your response? Why didn't you then refer in your post to the CFR instead of just throwing numbers around? The original post you replied to precisely mentioned the mortality rate, that's why I gave the link because it gives the mortality rate which were of course not in your 1-2% range whatsoever. Again because you replied to a comment precisely mentioning the mortality rate.

And again what are those unproved assumptions? As I told you above, provide a robust analysis for the term unproven.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

A part of my original post was cut, here how it should read:

Another study (still not peer-reviewed) estimated the country-wide average IFR in Brazil to be 0.97% with strong variability with age: 0.028% for less than 30 years, 0.21% for 30–49 years, 1.06% for 50–69 years, 2.9% for 70 years and higher.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177626v3

From the US CDC, the current best estimate for the IFR in US in it's pandemic planning scenarios is as follows:

0 - 17 years; 20 per 1,000,000 infections = 0.002%

18 - 49 years; 500 per 1,000,000 infections = 0.05%

50 - 64 years; 6000 per 1,000,000 infections = 0.6%

65+: 90,000 per 1,000,000 infections = 9%

Note the very severe IRF among the elderlies which of course is a known thing. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

so I'm wondering....

a) don't international flyers require proof of being 'clear' prior to purchasing tickets? (I presume that other countries require them, no?)

and b) what if your test shows up positive? do the testers inform the airline and you're forbidden to board?

whatever, it's a hell of a parlous situation..... everywhere....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@jiji Xx

Moat countries require proof a test taken within 72 hours to departure - in many countries you may not get the result until 24 hours prior to your flight. People will have already (in the majority) purchased their tickets well prior to this - and if you are on the return leg, well you couldn't prove you were clear before purchase, could you? Very strange question.

No point if you go to the airport with a positive test OR no test result as you wouldn't even be allowed to check in. Airlines are responsible to immigration at destination to check for negative tests in the same way as they are for valid visa status or visa waiver.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Rather than relying on „ Kinoshita Group(?)“ is it only a single airport to be tested at the mentioned price?

Do I have to wait for my next cheap flight to be sure bout my status?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

having 1 or 2 chances out of every 100 of dying is not exactly extremely low, but even if you considered those as good odds testing also protect the people around you, which is important to anybody that has even a hint of consideration.

The odds are way less-fear mongering!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

theResidentToday  03:48 pm JST

@jiji Xx

thank you The Res.... that clarifies it somewhat.

would've been surprised if you didn't need a certificate, to board, but since that's the case, it struck me as odd that someone would take a test the result of which you have to wait for till the next day (since you're at the airport already)..... and.... are the 15-minute tests valid vis-à-vis boarding and entry to other countries I wonder. if they are, then why all the 72-hour prior and all that?

have been puzzled for over a year as to why, amidst lockdowns (in those countries that had/have them) and sundry other measures, thousand and thousands of people have been flying about the planet.... and though of course I understand why people might want or need to, seems like asking for trouble to me.... and has been trouble of course.

in any case, I can't fathom why I got thumbs-downed for asking a couple of questions to which I simply hoped for answers from those who know more about it than I.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Covid Test Spot what about provide to set up in Shibuya , the square of front of the Dog statue or Ginza Sukiyabashi crossing corner of park side ? Must do it in the middle of bubble in Tokyo Central at first !!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

theResident

https://pcr.nishitanclinic.jp/en/

just one example.

I know people who have used this service, WITH symptoms.

In the page you provided, however, it says:

Can I take the test when I have any symptoms?

The PCR Test of our clinic is for those who are asymptomatic.

Great though, of course, if there are even some places where you can go get tested when you're symptomatic, but can't pass the strict hokenjo screening, but

a) it shouldn't be that ridiculously expensive - one more reason why people don't get tested

b) like mentioned, majority of the private testing places don't accept symptomatic people

c) when personal visit is required, it's difficult for people to get to those few places, especially if and when they have symptoms, especially if they don't drive/have a car - they may be far away from their homes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Can you sue for false negatives, which are around 40%. Or false positives around 20%.

one of the impacts of the 60% accuracy rate is very expensive quarantine isolation, the other is you can just walk around spreading the variants.

but most important, why is it almost impossible for ordinary Japanese to get tested?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Absolutely did not say that. I argued that the authors did implement a model to analyze the trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 INTO endemicity and how this could drive the vaccination policies for example.

What is the point of denying something that is still here written for anybody to find?

"* you just keep doing grotesque simplifications (eg. the term ""escape-mutant strains" is really sloppy). *

The transition of the virus from epidemic to endemic dynamics is associated with a sift of the infections to the younger age group"

Read yourself, you clearly say it, you assumed this transition was a done thing that was proved by the model (else why to use it against the argument that vaccines can produce herd immunity?) There is no need to read again the paper, which has no problem it is only your mistaken interpretation which is problematic because you keep assuming wrong things.

They do and you aren't providing any scientific analysis proving otherwise.

Which one specifically says that getting a diagnostic of COVID have less than 1% chances of death, specifically. You understand that by getting the diagnostic you are talking about CFR, right?

You can't reply scientifically so you keep throwing baseless arguments.

I provided plenty of examples of you making wrong assumptions and be in denial of it. That is the opposite from baseless.

Again random words put together, what are you saying? You replied to a post which was precisely referring to mortality rate with wrong figures because you did not understand what the mortality rate means.

Of course not, because even your own quote mentions the tests, which obviously make it the CFR, the only one that assumed IFR was you, so you only corrected yourself.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Less than one percent of the Japanese population has been vaccinated? Doesn't seem like the best way to respond to this global pandemic.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

CrashTest

So, the tests are not accurate enough.

It does not matter. Lots of rapid tests, even without being 100% accurate, are better for getting a handle on the situation, than fewer slow tests that are more accurate. That should be obvious.

4 ( +4 / -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