national

Restaurant operator slams 'hypocrisy' of health ministry officials

52 Comments
By Rocky Swift

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

© Thomson Reuters 2021.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

"They don't think that it's really dangerous for them to go out and drink," Hasegawa, the president of Global Dining Inc, told reporters on Tuesday. "It's hypocrisy."

Good point.

For the government, the virus measures are not about health, they know the threat to healthy people is hyped by the media, the virus measures are for control.

Like royalty, they believe the rules should only apply to the serfs, not to them.

22 ( +36 / -14 )

It's funny that the best educated apparently having a "Special" university on their CV. Get a lucrative government job, and them like a peeckock display their stupidity and expect to be given deference due to their position. Sorry not going to happen. The whole lot couldn't hold down a job picking up rubbish, and that's how they should be viewed.

27 ( +27 / -0 )

Good luck Kozu Hasegawa. At least there is one person in Japan witth principles.

31 ( +32 / -1 )

I disagree with almost everything this guy said over the last year, but in this case - good on him.

The hypocrisy is staggering, and it’s not just this case. Time after time the government, and many people working in it, have acted in direct contradiction to the message put out.

I guess he’ll lose the case, but it’s worth it for the embarrassment it causes the government while it’s in the media.

27 ( +27 / -0 )

This is Japan! Don’t upset the ‘reiwa’ - Do as I say and all will be fine. Don’t do as I do.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

You know, in Japanese companies, in this case in Japanese government office, it is difficult to say "No" to what their bosses say. I guess their boss said "let's go" and they followed.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

You know, in Japanese companies, in this case in Japanese government office, it is difficult to say "No" to what their bosses say. I guess their boss said "let's go" and they followed.

Agreed. But sooner or later, someone has to grow a spine and resist the ridiculous urges of their boss/es. Send a message up the line even if it means trouble for you. In free nations, people literally fought for their rights. I'm not saying the Japanese need to physically fight, but at least grow some spine...

18 ( +18 / -0 )

Politicians and career "koka komuin" always think they are better than the peons that pay their salaries!

14 ( +14 / -0 )

Yubaru

They are no more the best and the brightest in Japan. Many are quitting disgusted being assigned worthless and uninteresting jobs with small salaries.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

For the government, the virus measures are not about health, they know the threat to healthy people is hyped by the media, the virus measures are for control.

No, they don't know it, they mistakenly believe so, the experts are the ones that do know things and the data is clear, COVID and the new variants represent a very serious danger, even if hypocrites without common sense disregard this scientific conclusion to have late night parties.

You don't like how the media treats the pandemic? go directly to the opinion of the experts, in this case they will tell you the same. And think for a moment if you really believe that hypocritical officials are the ones worth following.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

See it everywhere.... what is said and what is done are totally two different things.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

1st. class citizens can do whatever they please.

you, peasants, should show more respect.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

They should all be fired if you did this kind of stuff in the private sector you be done and dusted

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Do as I say, but not as I do.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

No such word in Japanese (Ministry) vocabulary. “Hypocrisy”? Nan desu ka? Wakarimasen.”

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Not surprised at all here, I mean govt & politicians have been abusing Japanese for 100s of years non-stop, and they mostly just take it with the shoulder shrug & then say, well take a guess what most say...... :(

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Can someone identify the names of the restaurants operated by this group?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You can find them here. https://www.global-dining.com/?lang=en

It seems that I have to change my career plan from unemployed to politician.

I like eating out in nice restaurants if they have non meat menus. I love onsens. I like private taxis with free alcohol drinks. I like brown envelopes and business class flights. I like to retire with once a month one hour “meetings” for ¥20,000,000 a year. I like ¥30000 melons and ¥120,000 fatty tuna.

HOW do I get this job?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

@cricky

Let's be honest, the people who do pick up rubbish are probably doing a more important job.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

So here we have the elite doing as they please again.

We bought our place just months before this whole mess started.

I spent time and money renovating to open my store/workshop with a small coffee/tea area.

But told not to open, then told inspection and new permits for cafe/restaurants are suspended so even if I wanted I cannot even open during the day time forget after 20:00.

But these guys have so much time on their hands they can party into the late hours.

We know it is the bosses and not the younger subordinates that organised this.

Time to fire the bosses and send a message to whoever succeeds them.

But I expect if any disciplinary action is taken it will be some poor lower level guy blamed for it all.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

This guy is completely justified. One rule for us, another for them.

But to all the lockdowners/"liberals" here, you're all for criticizing the Japanese for ignoring the rules placed on we the plebs, but where was your scorn when left-leaning politicians in other countries were flouting their own lockdown rules? You can't have it both ways.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

More slamming going on.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The self-righteousness is incredibly saddening.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes it's hypocrisy, but the restrictions on dining bars during the state of emergency were still appropriate. One group of people dining in large group during a state of emergency is still better than lots of large groups doing it every night. This restaurant fellow wanted dining bars to be open all night every night.

Psychological studies have shown many people hate hypocrisy more than actual lies, but I think it is a typical human failing and see it as no worse than greed, deceit, or jealousy. The problem here is the lack of accountability. The bureaucrats will not be punished. Without accountability, democracy collapses into oligarchy. Since it's the Ministry of Health, the punishment should be especially severe.

fwiw, my interest in hypocrisy comes from having kids and trying to hold them to standards I sometimes fail to meet myself, e.g., don't raise your voice.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Just on the hypocrisy vs. lies issue, but the Ministry of Health will have told many lies during the pandemic. They will have lied about testing and the level of testing to be introduced, they lied about when people would get the useless Abenomasks, they probably told lies about contact tracing, and are now lying about the vaccination rollout. Again, the issue is no accountability.

These lies are much more important to me than whether some had a hypocritical jolly during lockdown.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

decried the "hypocrisy" of health officials

Welcome to Japan. The land of contradictions.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Welcome to Japan. The land of contradictions.

Well if it was just Japan that statement would be true.

But reality exists.

Canada, UK, France, USA, etc..

All had this sort of thing and worse, with elected officials going on holidays including flying to Mexico, the Caribbean, Greece, etc.. while their constituents are under near full lockdown.

Seems to be a problem with all countries.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

He may be complaining, but one of his restaurants in our area has been constantly open during the emergency. Long lines outside well until 23:00. Including company farewell and welcome parties with no masks.

His restaurant chain has been taking away clients from smaller restaurants that cannot risk any fine, and meanwhile he is the billboard of restaurants that suffer?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Most health experts say that an adherence to hygiene rules and social distancing have helped Japan keep overall COVID-19 cases and deaths relatively low, without the kind of rigid lockdowns seen in other countries.

Well done Japan.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Let them eat cake

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I know Hasegawa is suing for only 104 yen to make a point, but after this fiasco, among others, I'd like to see him shoot for the money. Especially since these bozos are dining and partying on our dime.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Well if it was just Japan that statement would be true.

But reality exists.

Canada, UK, France, USA, etc..

All had this sort of thing and worse, with elected officials going on holidays including flying to Mexico, the Caribbean, Greece, etc.. while their constituents are under near full lockdown.

Please give a concrete source for each country you mention otherwise it's another "other countries are worst" statement to excuse japanese scandals.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

El vino did flow.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You don't like how the media treats the pandemic? go directly to the opinion of the experts, in this case they will tell you the same.

Yes, 'the science' is starting to be followed again after a suspension of its conventional workings... Recommended listening for the failure of the wider scientific community over the last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOHon6UjXLM

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Please give a concrete source for each country you mention otherwise it's another "other countries are worst" statement to excuse japanese scandals.

Never once tried to give any excuse for Japan.

I did however point out this is not a Japan only situation and that is a fact you can look up.

As for concrete sources here is a list much to long just for Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7551438/canadian-politicians-vacation-coronavirus/amp/

Enjoy it is a long list.

Then we have Dominic Cummings aid to Boris Johnson and his little 300 mile trip among others.

The USA well that list is of no importance seeing that half the country can't ever agree if covid is real.

Do you need more then Google.

My point was and is very simple nothing is anything special about Japan when it comes to abuse by government officials, bureaucrats or elected officials, this seems to be something they all feel that they are somehow above us and the rules.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yes, 'the science' is starting to be followed again after a suspension of its conventional workings...

There was never a gap, science is the method, the way to evaluate information to reach conclusions that are useful. If you have incomplete information obviously the conclusions will not be so exact or reliable, but they will be still much better than guessing around.

If you confuse between academic and scientific matter that is not a problem of science but yours, science is relatively simple in that aspect, you get evidence, the professionals analyze it, the best analysis makes knowledge advance and at some point the scientific community can reach a consensus. Science is being followed during all this period, even when evidence is being collected.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

virusrexToday  04:39 pm JST

Yes, 'the science' is starting to be followed again after a suspension of its conventional workings...

There was never a gap, science is the method, the way to evaluate information to reach conclusions that are useful. If you have incomplete information obviously the conclusions will not be so exact or reliable, but they will be still much better than guessing around. 

If you confuse between academic and scientific matter that is not a problem of science but yours, science is relatively simple in that aspect, you get evidence, the professionals analyze it, the best analysis makes knowledge advance and at some point the scientific community can reach a consensus. Science is being followed during all this period, even when evidence is being collected.

Unfortunately these days scientists often provide results that those who fund them want. Not in all cases, of course, but frequently in contentious areas like meteorology, health and energy.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Doesn't matter what you "believe" or "think", what matters in this case is what science can prove; that social distancing, masks, and avoiding both crowded places and unnecessary contact save lives. If given the choice between your money and your life, or the life of your family, how hard is it to make that call? If someone's behaviour is putting others at risk, then he should be sanctioned. If someone's behaviour is hypocritical, as that of Gavin Newsome, Nancy Pelosi, the Trump family circus and the maskless majority of the GQP was, you should be ridiculed and used as an example.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Unfortunately these days scientists often provide results that those who fund them want. Not in all cases, of course, but frequently in contentious areas like meteorology, health and energy.

A group that produce results that contradict everybody else? sure, believable. But the whole scientific community producing congruent results that point very clearly towards the same conclusion and against the interests of the ones that could give them more funding? Just fantasy.

Being contentious is not a problem when you have a huge well sustained consensus on one side and a tiny minority without data on the other, it just mean some people are very interested in not accepting the science. vaccines are contentious, but that does not mean the scientific data on their efficacy and safety is not overwhelming, you can even say that the shape of the planet is contentious since some fringe elements of society are still fighting very strongly to defend (without data) their beliefs on that aspect.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Unfortunately these days scientists often provide results that those who fund them want. Not in all cases, of course, but frequently in contentious areas like meteorology, health and energy.

Yes, very true!

A good example would be all the research on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. Studies linked to big pharma conclude that HCQ is ineffective and/or dangerous. The hundreds of studies that are not linked to big pharma essentially all show positive effects. An then big pharma commentators will come out as just say the the former studies were good and the latter ones were bad...

Even the Cochrane Library carried out an extensive review of 1000's of studies and they too found a clear trend regarding the claimed effectiveness of medicines and the investigators' conflicts of interest.

When leading epidemiologists like Ioannidis conclude that lock downs have little effect, they are ignored, but they will continue to pay attention to models from Imperial College (have they ever modeled anything correctly?)

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

A good example would be all the research on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine

That would be the opposite, a very good example of how deficient, low quality science show only noise and background signal, but better done science consistently points towards the same direction, in this case that HCQ is worthless for COVID-19. The pseudo-argument of "big pharma" is as easy to demonstrate bogus as always, because cheap and very effective drugs are well recognized as such, even if they cut very importantly profits that could be made with other drugs that are much more expensive, The "big pharma hides good medicines" conspiracy would say this is impossible.

When the first author that tried to push HCQ even to the point of committing scientific malpractice and unethical human trials just to benefit personally from it (Raoult Didier) now recognizes openly the drug is useless for COVID, science corrects itself like this all the time.

Ioannidis is a much better example of bad scientists that provide results according to who pays them, when he first published a terribly bad study going against the rest of the evidence collected around the world everybody was really surprised of how he abandoned the standards he was known for, then it became clear he was paid to produce false results for economic gains and it was easy to understand what happened, now he is no longer respected and instead is an example of how even if big economic interests pay to get false results for their benefit science can take care of eliminating them with better studies.

That and also to make evident the hypocrisy of people that bitterly complain about possible conflicts of interests of researchers they don't like, but happily justify corroborated conflicts of researchers that say something they like.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

When the first author that tried to push HCQ even to the point of committing scientific malpractice and unethical human trials just to benefit personally from it (Raoult Didier) ...

That is just the usual baseless attack of a highly respected researcher who says something that big pharma does not like.

...now recognizes openly the drug is useless for COVID, science corrects itself like this all the time.

That is completely, 100% false. I follow his regular updates and he continues to treat patients with it and believe in its effectiveness. The same treatment protocol is followed worldwide today. He just received a medal of honor from the head of state of Senegal for his excellent work. Not at all a disgraced doctor as you try to depict him as. You do have a habit of wrongfully stating things as fact (sometimes accompanied by irrelevant references).

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

It's safe to assume that all politicians are corrupt or becoming so. Hypocrisy is just a form of corruption. If we assume politicians are corrupt it helps in understanding them. How can we prevent (or reduce) this problem? Instant feedback. Usually, it's the free press that finds these people and sounds the alarm. Once the alarm has sounded the public needs to deal with the problem swiftly and surely. The heck with formal apologies and resigning to take responsibility that's just hilarious. Either fire them on the spot or force them to stay and fix the problem.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

That is just the usual baseless attack of a highly respected researcher who says something that big pharma does not like.

Not baseless, you could not refute even a single proof presented that made his study a textbook example of malpractice, if it were a baseless thing he would not have been accused of such and subjected to a complaint by the Order of Physicians of France that originated a disciplinary case against him.

That is completely, 100% false. I follow his regular updates and he continues to treat patients with it and believe in its effectiveness

Completely true, as anybody that follows the case knows.

For example

https://mobile.twitter.com/t_fiolet/status/1350410625227382784

The text is in french, but the images are extremely clear, Raoult signed and recognized the results of the study are correct and valid, and the results are clear, absolutely no difference in risks of death or ICU admittance wheter the patients were treated with HCQ or not. See? this is what proof means, not something that only you supposedly can see. This "irrelevant" reference proves he now accepts HCQ is worthless.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Scandals come and go in Japan but this one should be prosecuted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Raw Beer

There is just one major flaw in the whole HCQ theory!

If HCQ worked the pharmaceutical companies would be the first to be pointing it out as profit is their number one motive for everything.

There is far more money to be made by treating a disease than a one or two shot Vaccine not to mention all the rest of the products needed for treatment.

This is always the one flaw in the anti vaxxer's stuff.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

these bozos are dining and partying on our dime.

What's not new? LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The text is in french, but the images are extremely clear, Raoult signed and recognized the results of the study are correct and valid, and the results are clear, absolutely no difference in risks of death or ICU admittance wheter the patients were treated with HCQ or not. See? this is what proof means, not something that only you supposedly can see. This "irrelevant" reference proves he now accepts HCQ is worthless.

No it only proves how selective you are when looking at data. That was his first clinical trial, with only 42 patients (18 control, 16 HCQ only, and 8 HCQ+azythromycin). From that initial small scale study they found no difference in death or ICU admittance.

But for some inexplicable reason you chose not to notice the next sentence: "Length of stay at hospital and viral persistence were significantly shorter in the treated patients." In other words, HCQ works, quite well actually, especially with azythromycin.

That was their initial clinical trial and they are now preparing to publish the results of their treatment of several 1000's of patients. If you go to their institute's site you can watch their presentations, they are very open about their data. Most of their presentations are in French, but many of their slides are in English. You could actually learn something useful if you wanted to:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFaPzuoXcACu7jplePDfXmA

If HCQ worked the pharmaceutical companies would be the first to be pointing it out as profit is their number one motive for everything.

HCQ has been widely used for several decades. Generic versions are very cheap to make. That is why only big pharma-linked studies and "experts" say it does not work. Hundreds of studies not linked to big pharma show positive effects.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No it only proves how selective you are when looking at data. That was his first clinical trial, with only 42 patients (18 control, 16 HCQ only, and 8 HCQ+azythromycin). From that initial small scale study they found no difference in death or ICU admittance.

That is not relevant, the main point is that the study that he published had to be re-analyzed after a very valid outcry of lousy methodology and scientific malpractice and now he had to accept that his conclusions were false, mistaken, wrong. He now openly accepts that the critics were right and his study reached the wrong conclusions either because of sheer incompetence or because he purposefully tried to mislead everybody else. He accepted HCQ had no use at all after the reanalysis. There is nothing selective with this interpretation.

Length of stay and viral persistence are much less important findings, which is why not even he is trying to focus on them, they are much more likely to be affected by background noise (and since you say this study is in only 42 patients that can explain it). If the much more important, obvious and significative findings points clearly to a lack of effect (and specially this is found after he was forced to follow proper scientific standards) that means the lesser ones are even more likely to be insignificant.

What would you say if a vaccine maker says that his vaccine cannot prove to make people survive or have less need to visit an ICU but can make the fever last 2 hours shorter? would you say "wow, this surely points out the vaccine is super effective"?

Dexamethasone is also in use for decades, generics are dirt cheap to produce, nevertheless it is also accepted as very safe and effective, this again proves the "big pharma hides cheap drugs" conspiracy is false, If it were not false Dexamethasone would have never been accepted as an effective therapy. HCQ on the contrary shows a very clear correlation to apparent effects and low quality of studies, the best designed and conducted ones consistently prove it is useless.

On these studies now it is included the Raoult's study, that prove that people die as easily with or without using it, something that should be impossible if it had any kind of efficacy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

That is not relevant, the main point is that the study that he published had to be re-analyzed after a very valid outcry of lousy methodology and scientific malpractice and now he had to accept that his conclusions were false, mistaken, wrong.

No, his "mistake" (outcry???) was focusing on the effects on viral load rather than the clinical outcome. That was his first clinical trial, with only 42 patients (18 control, 16 HCQ only, and 8 HCQ+azythromycin).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No, his "mistake" (outcry???) was focusing on the effects on viral load rather than the clinical outcome. That was his first clinical trial, with only 42 patients (18 control, 16 HCQ only, and 8 HCQ+azythromycin).

False, his "mistakes" (as in plural, and not likely to be without intention) were hiding patients when their outcome was not favorable even after treatment, "curing" patients that were not even infected in the first place, falsifying the ethical approval, changing the protocol he promised to follow without any justifications, etc. etc.

In this huge correction only the methodology mistakes were corrected, which was still enough to prove HCQ has not value, the ethical problems are still hanging over him.

-1 ( +1 / -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