Hotels, Japanese inns hit by cancellations after megaquake alert

Love getting last minute cheap deals, bet there were a few about and I missed them, dang it

All that thanks to an alert that scientists say has been issued with zero scientific evidence to back it up.

Of course the hotels, inns, etc. are all prepared for this and it will not represent a danger to the industry, right?

The covid pandemic already demonstrated that the travel industry was extremely vulnerable to natural disasters, so anyone that responsibly manage these kind of business would understand it would happen again in the future without any warning.

Virus

The pandemic was great for cheap deals, 80% cheaper price for 4 star hotels than now, had a wonderful time then. Of course it was bad for the industry but that wasn’t my fault, least I gave them and local business some dough.

Blame lands solely at the feet of the fear mongering government who made people live in fear during Covid and now in fear of a big earthquake that more than likely will not happen during their lifetimes.

All that thanks to an alert that scientists say has been issued with zero scientific evidence to back it up.

What scientist are saying this? specifically that the Japan Meteorological Association warning as in the rules after 2011 has no scientific evidence behind?

The pandemic was great for cheap deals, 80% cheaper price for 4 star hotels than now, had a wonderful time then

I am sure the industry feels much better that you could take advantage of the disaster for personal entertainment. I am sure you are cheering for things to go out of business all around so you can buy things cheaply in the liquidation sales. Personal benefit first, second and only.

Blame lands solely at the feet of the fear mongering government who made people live in fear during Covid and now in fear of a big earthquake that more than likely will not happen during their lifetimes.

Unless you can prove the scientific advice given was not correct, and that it did not prevent much more damage than what it caused then your accusations of it being fear mongering are invalid and baseless.

Virus

Eem, I was helping these business stay afloat by giving them business, if nobody went to them maybe they would actually have had to close down, what a ridiculous comment to make.

Virus

The advise was not correct

The government will have known this would happen. Can cry wolf here again and again and again and people still panic.

Compensation will follow. Sick of my taxes being used for such nonsense.

Eem, I was helping these business stay afloat by giving them business

At a full price? oh no, you help by taking advantage of the situation right? Which is the whole point of the comment, you also help by wishing things to go under and buying things they will no longer need. So according to you hotels closing down would alloy you to help (yourself to nice pillows or something) more.

The advise was not correct

The scientific consensus says it was, isolation prevented countless cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

Obviously anonymous people on the internet trying to make an appeal to their own authority are not arguments that demonstrate the science was wrong.

Japan top heads well aware of the impact on economy , due to the mega earthquake announcement.

Guys seems scientists had a concrete theory or evidence found.

we really pray for safety to all residents in Japan.

@virusrax Unless you can prove the scientific advice given was not correct, and that it did not prevent much more damage than what it caused

As far as "scientifically proving" anything, one must rely on what is being told by the government, or more specifically, the Japan Meteorological agency (JMA).

Last Thursday the JMA gave the mega-quake warning soon after the Kyushu quake... based on their concerns (note, the warning wasn't based on actual data). Predictably, people freaked out, and predicting such a public reaction is much more reliable than ever predicting any earthquake. Accordingly, those in coastal tourism were badly affected with cancellations. So those businesses are now damaged... even though there was no actual quake damage. The damage was from the overly-hasty warning.

And then two days later, the same JMA announces that after reviewing the actual scientific data that "there was nothing to indicate a huge earthquake is in the offing after the one in the Hyuganada Sea off Miyazaki Prefecture in southern Japan."

And that "Despite some changes due to the shaking of the Hyuganada earthquake, no unusual changes were observed afterward."

So therefore, "Based on the observation results, the JMA concluded there was nothing to signal an earthquake was imminent at the plate boundary east of the Hyuganada Sea."

So there's your scientific proof that the warning was merely speculation right from the same agency that made the warning, and that the risk of any future mega-quake did not change and it is just as possible as before this more recent quake. But again, with those businesses the damage is done.

Causing unfounded public panic should not be blithely brushed aside. Its akin to screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre when no actual fire is occurring

You can read the JMA announcement quoted above here:

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15384654

Could the Govt. back an insurance plan for this.

Accommodation buy insurance for cancellations caused by factors out of their control.

But admit, "Acts of God " disasters not covered in Australia.

"Acts of Government Advisory Boards " may be.

The fear mongering panick JMA advisement was issued for the next 30 years. So are Japanese people going to stop traveling for the next 30 years and no more hotel reservations?

This situation is so absurd is laughable.

Did the NHK or Kyodo news actually twisted this announcement and made it sound more panicking, like is going to happen in the next days or something??

It seems like gullible people are doing panic shopping and canceling reservations based on the Media brainwashing...

And I probably should have added this quote as well:

Naoshi Hirata, a professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo who chairs the JMA’s Nankai Trough earthquake assessment study group, said at a news conference on Aug. 9, “At this point, we have not obtained any data that indicates a change in plate movement that would trigger a Nankai Trough earthquake.”

You have more chance of winning the Lotto than predicting where and when an earthquake will happen somewhere in the Japanese archipelago. I admire their diligence but this has cost the tourist industry ￥￥￥￥.

Virus

So everyone that takes a bargain price for anything is taking advantage. You don’t have the ability or dignity to admit you are wrong, I lay full whack when I have to and like 100% of others I take a bargain. I run a business and if I was running a service one I’d prefer less than usual than nothing. How much did you support local businesses then and if a place offers a discount do you refuse and pay full price? Being a hypocrite isn’t clever mate, eat some humble pie and be a better person.

I’m going to say, probably nothing is going to happen. Humans have a very poor record predicting earthquake. We know it’ll come but in reality we have now clue when.

So there's your scientific proof that the warning was merely speculation right from the same agency that made the warning, and that the risk of any future mega-quake did not change and it is just as possible as before this more recent quake.

Your own quotes say the change in the warnings came after new data confirmed there was no further developments to indicate a higher risk. That is not the same as saying it was pure speculation from the beginning.

There was a scientific basis, the need for a warning after a big earthquake became fixed as a rule so it was followed, afterwards there was a review and specially after obtaining new data it was determined that the risk of a bigger earthquake was not higher at least now. That is a completely different thing that claiming there was no data to indicate it from the beginning. That is a normal part of anything that is based on science.

Causing unfounded public panic should not be blithely brushed aside.

To err on the side of caution is not "causing unfounded public panic", that is a huge misrepresentation. Specially in the case of huge disasters even a small amount of evidence can justify giving a warning, and at least on public media it was done in a very minimized way (for example by focusing on the risk being still small)

Fear mongering would apply to something done without any scientific basis, not based on correcting or improving the advice that had an original scientific basis.

Pathetic...

As if it were possible to predict earthquakes...

This is not good for the country...

Just be prepared and live life..

So everyone that takes a bargain price for anything is taking advantage. 

Of course not, there are "bargains" that are nothing of the sort except on the name, and there are bargains that are used as tools to increase profits for example.

But taking personal advantage of a bad situation of a business and then bragging about how helpful you are by taking that advantage (and hoping for more of that bad situation so you can do it again) is a completely different thing.

You are free to wish bad for others so you can take personal advantage it is your right, but expecting people to congratulate you on that is forcing the issue a lot, specially when you try to shift the blame to effective measures that prevented countless deaths as if they were unjustified.

As if it were possible to predict earthquakes...

Nobody predicted an earthquake, the warning was about an increase of the risk of an expected huge earthquake without predicting when or how it would happen.

Wow, unbelievable.

I guess no one is going to be complaining about overtourism any more?!!

All that thanks to an alert that scientists say has been issued with zero scientific evidence to back it up.

He we go. The conspiracy cult lining up it invent something in their tiny minds.

No need for walls and fences, no need to print specially Priced menus for tourists, no need for tourists tax and extra fees, we can all go to sleep now until next summer.

All that thanks to an alert that scientists say has been issued with zero scientific evidence to back it up.

How have you concluded there was no evidence to back it up?

Having a complete list of hotels affected would make it easier for people who are not worried to take advantage of discounted rooms!

People who canceled still have to pay according to agreed upon cancellation policies so it could be a win-win for the hotels and newcomers!

I didn’t take advantage I helped them out and got a good deal for myself, simple as that.

You took advantage, denying it at this point makes no sense since you already accepted you did not pay full price.

 Places were crying out for punters at the time.

And people took advantage of that to pay much less than what they would have to in normal circumstances.

How did you assist small businesses around the nation during the pandemic?

Why? did I brag about how nicely I could take advantage of them when they were forced to reduce prices and expected people to congratulate me on doing it and wishing for this to happen again?

I never wish bad for others,

You just wish for others to have difficulties so you can take advantage for personal gain, right?

There is nothing wrong of of bad manners about making it clear that people may not take well how you help others by taking advantage of their situation, if anything the problem would be with trying to attacks isolation measures that saved countless lives, that can actually have a negative effect by misleading people into not listening to the advice thus increasing their risk.

Fear mongering would apply to something done without any scientific basis, not based on correcting or improving the advice that had an original scientific basis.

So what was the "original scientific basis"?

Just hours after the recent Kyushu quake JMA head Naoshi Hirata said:

"the probability of a major earthquake along the Nankai Trough has now increased by "several times" compared to usual."

https://japantoday.com/category/national/update3-japan-sees-higher-than-usual-risk-of-megaquake-off-pacific-coast

No sources to his claim were given. Was it speculation? Was it scientific? Was his "science" incomplete? or assumed? Was he just trying to be cautious, or maybe his agency is seeking more funding, or maybe he was pressured to say this by someone else?

Unless you work there, you do not know this any more than I do, but we do now know that this warning saying a mega-quake was "several times" more imminent was inaccurate at best according to the actual data which only they have.

So yeah, he may have simply "corrected" his initial statement now that they reviewed the full data (that sure is a nice way to put it...) but again, its the same as "correcting" one's screams of "fire" in the theatre only after the stampede crushed a slew of people. The damage is done.

So if actually trying to be cautious for all concerned, he should have originally said: "Based on an initial check of the still-incomplete data, there could be a heightened possibility of a Nankai earthquake, but in the coming days we will know more once we do a more thorough review, so lets not assume anything." But he didn't.

While I'm sure some hotels reduced their prices during the panedemic, the reason for the discounted prices was because the government spent tax money to give discounts. I, too, took advantage of this. I must have paid for 60 nights (30 x 2 people) during that time and it was a wonderful discount! Fundamentally, I was against the program as it was coming out of the taxpayer's pockets, but I also knew it was going to be used up if I didn't, so there you are.

Saying you traveled during the pandemic to "help the country" is not really true, but I said it as well - as a joke.

irusrexToday  09:04 am JST

How else can you interpret that one person considers great that the pandemic happened so he could enjoy from taking advantage of it, and how frustrated this person feels about losing chances to do it more?

I’d interpret it as someone being glad they were able to afford something previously unaffordable while still understanding the reason for that. I certainly wouldn’t lose my mind over interpreting it as them having nefarious thoughts with regards to it. You’re reading into it just what you want to and putting words where they don’t exist. But, hey, if you’re comfortable doing that, carry on.

So what was the "original scientific basis"?

The data that seismologists use for this purpose, the warning given was not something done by some anonymous bureaucrat but a scientific agency (and a TU seismologist)

https://www.youtube.com/live/yKVpXOcZisM

The megaquake in the Nankai Trough is still predicted to happen in the next few decades, this is not something just said without any scientific basis.

No sources to his claim were given. Was it speculation? Was it scientific? Was his "science" incomplete? or assumed? Was he just trying to be cautious, or maybe his agency is seeking more funding, or maybe he was pressured to say this by someone else?

Scientific authorities, scientists with names and positions supported the warning, on the other side the new declarations are also without scientific sources but you accept them at face value without any of the questions that you ask for the original.

Is the science of the new declaration complete, scientific, assumed, is he trying to please someone or avoid getting funding cuts? maybe the new declaration is a product from pressure from heavy economic interests being affected, right?

So if actually trying to be cautious for all concerned, he should have originally said: "Based on an initial check of the still-incomplete data, there could be a heightened possibility of a Nankai earthquake, but in the coming days we will know more once we do a more thorough review, so lets not assume anything." But he didn't.

And if he did then that would not be called fear mongering by anyone? Highly unlikely, this is a very easy to make assumption for any kind of scientific declaration, it applies for pandemics or weather predictions or earthquakes but yet you like to pretend they made a declaration saying with 100% certainty that something would happen for sure and without any qualifiers. They could have spend 10 or 20 minutes giving extra details about how the warning was determined as justified and some people would still have the same complains.

I’d interpret it as someone being glad they were able to afford something previously unaffordable while still understanding the reason for that

When the reason this becomes affordable is because a terrible situation for the people offering the service or product then the person is saying "I am glad the tragedy happened so I could enjoy something out of it" This is not about a business choosing to give advantages to people for promotion or improving a nice business but being forced to do that because of a global pandemic. It would be the similar situation as people being glad of an arsonist burning a building because you could by the plot a huge discount later or a group being subjected to heavily discriminating practices because you can then get cheap manual labor. You are free to gloat about it but understandably people would not feel inclined to congratulate you on your humane behavior.

virusrex

When the reason this becomes affordable is because a terrible situation for the people offering the service or product then the person is saying "I am glad the tragedy happened so I could enjoy something out of it" 

That’s not what he wrote. That’s completely your interpretation, a very liberal interpretation which assumes you know far more about a stranger’s mind and intentions that you really do. It’s bizarre how worked up you seem to be over this too. If you’re so sure that you’re right, revel in that and stop trying to convince others that you can read into people’s hearts.

That’s not what he wrote

So your argument is that he took the hugely reduced prices without knowing we were under a global pandemic and hotels were struggling? that does not make any sense.

Everybody knew why the hotels were running at a loss during the pandemic, the original comment even says it so explicitly "The pandemic was great for cheap deals"

No liberal interpretation at all, explicitly being glad for the pandemic that put hotels in a situation so desperate that taking advantage was easy. No need to read hearts, just what they wrote as a comment.

Ive blown the fella out the water by simply showing the facts in a decent manner, a thing no doubt millions of Japanese also did during that time. I find it’s just another chance to make a personal attack against my good character and try to portray me as a selfish chancer,

Repeating what you yourself wrote is not a personal attack, that would be you accusing others of having low IQ or making incoherent comments. You have not shown any facts that support your claim the science was wrong and millions of lives were saved by them. That is still a claim you made trying to justify bragging about taking advantage of business when they suffered because of the pandemic.

If you think you appear as selfish by calling the pandemic great because you could make cheap deals then that would be on you, not on the people that react to that.

virusrexToday  09:46 am

So your argument is that he took the hugely reduced prices without knowing we were under a global pandemic and hotels were struggling? that does not make any sense.

Not what I wrote but we’ve clearly established that you interpret things the way you like and misquote to further your point, so your argument is that no one should have stayed in any open hotels, eaten at any open restaurants, shopped at any open stores and so on because we were under a global pandemic? Your argument is that people should have turned down the prices offered and what, not patronized any businesses or given them money for pre-pandemic prices? Is that what you did?

"The pandemic was great for cheap deals"

No liberal interpretation at all, explicitly being glad for the pandemic that put hotels in a situation so desperate that taking advantage was easy. No need to read hearts, just what they wrote as a comment.

Really? That’s what you’re going to keep going with? You do know that most people can hold contradictory feelings at the same time, right? Not glad the pandemic happened but happy to have been able to afford something previously unaffordable? Not glad it’s raining but happy the flowers are being watered. Not glad my team lost but happy a team which had previously never won got to experience the joy of winning.

Your argument is what doesn’t make sense, but keep trying. It’s just humorous now. I’m off to enjoy the day and hope for the best for you.

Virus

Yeah, it was great for me and my partner. Empty places, cheap hotels, nobody to bother us. We went within the law because it was our legal right to, nothing wrong with that. Didn’t go around scaring people and stressing them out with exagerrated facts or anything.

Seems to me there’s anger and bitterness against those brave enough to go out those times explore and enjoy.

Stranger

‘It don’t mean I actually blew him up, it’s a figure of speech.

‘It don’t mean I actually blew him up, it’s a figure of speech.

My statement stands whether you were speaking literally or figuratively. Same response to both:

People of Intelligence know that if you actually had blown the fella out of the water, it would be apparent that the fella was out of the water blown, and wouldn't need to be said. The very fact that you felt the need to say it is a clear indicator that the fella, contrary to your opinion, has not in fact been blown out of the water.

Certainly, seismographs can detect earth movement.

However, NOBODY has managed to predict massive earthquakes ahead of time that cause great loss of life.

The cancellation of events and spreading ideas that an earthquake will occur at a certain time have no basis in fact.

Not what I wrote but we’ve clearly established that you interpret things the way you like and misquote to further your point

There was no misquote, just making obvious the logical consequence of your own argument since it required for the poster to be glad while ignoring the pandemic, something that was very easily disproved by the own comment that bragged about the pandemic being great. Your quote is exactly as you wrote why pretend it was misquoted? is it because you have no argument against mine?

so your argument is that no one should have stayed in any open hotels, eaten at any open restaurants, shopped at any open stores and so on because we were under a global pandemic? 

My argument is that bragging about how good the pandemic was because allowed to take advantage of the situation of the hotels can make the people think negatively about the poster because it tries to pass this personal benefit as if it was a some kind of extraordinary thing, specially because it came with the implicit advice the science based recommendations that saved millions of lives by pretending the science is wrong when it does not suit that personal benefit.

Really? That’s what you’re going to keep going with? 

That is what is written, why not go with it? is now your argument that people should ignore what someone wrote and instead reach the opposite interpretation just because you did? that is irrational.

Not glad the pandemic happened

The pandemic was great means he is glad it happened, no way of twisting it into any other thing. There is a point where trying to read the opposite meaning from a small sentence becomes irrational and obviously false.

Your argument is what doesn’t make sense, but keep trying. It’s just humorous now. I’m off to enjoy the day and hope for the best for you

Your rebuttals are all based on "ignore what is written and instead interpret it in the opposite sense" that is what makes no sense. Most people would find that humorous, not valid and clear arguments.

Yeah, it was great for me and my partner

Thanks for further disprove tooolonggone and clearly express how great for you that the pandemic happened so you could take advantage.

Now it remains to recognize you are wrong when you called justified measures that prevented deaths wrong just because you did not want to listen to them, and no, something being legal do not means the recommendations about doing the opposite become magically wrong.

When you shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre...

Because you see a column of smoke...

@virusrex

Q: So what was the "original scientific basis"?

Your answer: The data that seismologists use for this purpose

Umm, you're going in circles. Again, what data? (and please don't now say "The scientific data.")

As previously noted above, let's just have JMA chief Naoshi Hirata answer that: “At this point, we have not obtained any data that indicates a change in plate movement that would trigger a Nankai Trough earthquake.”

He is saying they have no new data now, and they had no new data before when they made the warning. He did not "correct" the data. He said there was no original new data to have based this claim on. So if there was no data, then it was either speculation or a willful lie (I am not suggesting the latter).

Just face it, the guy did a 180 (its not some "other side" saying this) and he now admits that the ridiculous initial warning they gave of a mega-quake now being "several times" more likely was scientifically unjustified according to their own lack of new data, and no lengthy garble of word twisting can change that.

The cancellation of events and spreading ideas that an earthquake will occur at a certain time have no basis in fact.

The government di not predicted an earthquake happening at a certain time, that is a completely misrepresentation of what the warning was, it just indicated an increase of the risk. The prediction that there is a significative risk for a big earthquake happening in the region in the next few decades is still valid.

There is enough magma inside Mt Fuji. As much magma as there was last time it erupted.

That said, I predict Fuji will go kaboom tomorrow... or in a five hundred years.

Is there any way to find the list of those hotels and ryokans that got so many cancelations?

Seems like a good time to go for some traveling. :)

Umm, you're going in circles. Again, what data? (and please don't now say "The scientific data.")

I am making it obvious the double standards you are using, for the modified declaration do you have access to the data? no, you just blindly trust the scientific authorities when the say the risk have not increased. For both instances the valid scientific authority was behind the declarations, but you are choosing to trust only one.

He is saying they have no new data now

No, that is not what he is saying, he is saying he has no new data that indicates a higher risk, that is completely different. In the event of a big earthquake vigilance would let scientist obtain new data that either points to a higher risk or not. In this case the new data (because seismographs don't stop registering things) are not congruent with what would be expected from a higher risk. Is like a doctor trying a patient recovering from a disease that could return saying "the new laboratories do not indicate higher risk of recurrence", that does not mean this possibility was always out of consideration.

Just face it, the guy did a 180

Surprise, that is what science do with better, newer data or methods. Professionals do not blindly commit to previous conclusions when new evidence points towards a different direction, that is completely different from not having any evidence for the previous conclusions as you are assuming. The risk of a megaquake is still there according to the scientists, and nobody knows if it will happen tomorrow, next year or by 2100, fortunately currently the risk is at "normal" levels, but it is justified to warn the public when there is a realistic possibility of this risk increasing as indicated by strong earthquakes.

Safety first.

Just for anyone saying this is fearmongering. This is from the 3/11 page on Wiki.

The main earthquake was preceded by a number of large foreshocks, with hundreds of aftershocks reported. One of the first major foreshocks was a 7.2 Mw event on 9 March, approximately 40 km (25 mi) from the epicenter of the 11 March earthquake, with another three on the same day in excess of 6.0 Mw.

After seeing all the landslides and blocked roads at Noto Peninsula earlier this year, it would seem foolish to make a point of going on holiday to the geographically similar Izu Peninsula when there is heightened earthquake/tsunami risk. Some evacuation centers in Noto had no supplies and received very little in the following weeks.

For both instances the valid scientific authority was behind the declarations, but you are choosing to trust only one.

Just "trust only one"? "misdirection"? "blind trust"? What are you talking about? There isn't one or another to trust. It's the same authority contradicting themselves! They announced two different things, with second one contradicting the first.

In the first JMA chief announcement (with the warning of multi-factor increased risk) didn't refer to any data, so it was probably only speculation (or a lie?). And the second JMA chief announcement a couple days later said that they didn't in fact have any new data to suggest there was ever an increased risk, neither now in this second announcement, nor before when they made the first announcement.

He clearly admits they never had any new data to suggest an increased risk. This is not an issue of trust one or the other. And its not a case of "newer, better data". According to the same person who made the warning of increased risk, there was in fact no new data and there is no increased risk. Period. What part don't you get? Its the same risk level as it was previously, but his hasty and incorrect speculation unjustifiably scared lots of people and damaged lots of businesses.

"Hotels, Japanese inns hit by cancellations after megaquake alert."

Caution is necessary but let me remind you all FEAR is not from God.

Just "trust only one"? "misdirection"? "blind trust"? What are you talking about? There isn't one or another to trust. 

That is exactly what you are doing, you have asked about the scientific basis of the declaration of no higher risk, you are blindly trusting the scientific authorities when they say so. Doing this for the second declaration and not the original warning denotes a clear bias.

In the first JMA chief announcement (with the warning of multi-factor increased risk) didn't refer to any data, so it was probably only speculation (or a lie?).

Completely unjustified assumption, scientific authorities do not do that, none of the announcement refer to intervals of confidence of the statistical methods for the determination of risk either, that does not mean they didn't use them, but you choose to believe they are incompetent in their jobs and would do something a first year postgraduate student would never do.

And the second JMA chief announcement a couple days later said that they didn't in fact have any new data to suggest there was ever an increased risk, neither now in this second announcement, nor before when they made the first announcement.

As clearly explained before that is not what this means, you misrepresent the declaration when the obvious interpretation is that they have new data just that it does not support the conclusion of higher risk. When your assumption completely depends on seismographs to not be continuously working (as they do) you are implicitly accepting this assumption makes no sense.

So no, nobody admits they never had data to suggest increased risk, they recognize the data that is continuously being collected no longer supports the conclusion of higher risk.

As far as I’m concerned, they can all go bankrupt. Bad service and crazy rules always discounted as being “Japanese culture”. Not to mention the crazy price hike we have seen in these past few months.

I heard somebody say 311 foreshocks… but I dont hear any tap dancers incomin,

must be missin the big chance.

So cancels the hotels the roykans better ring up the ol Genkai nuke plant and tell YOnden and kyuden to take a hint cause foreshocks mean panic time. Or maybe its not really panic time over there.

You said it Jim kirkT..

Sometimes "Safety first."

virusrexToday  07:59 am JST

The scientific consensus says it was, isolation prevented countless cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

There's something which is fundamentally flawed in all of your arguments whether related to earthquakes or health. Consensus is agreement, not science. Regardless who reaches the consensus (scientists, police officers, or janitors) it is still just agreement, not science.

Just unbelievable. People.

Just imagine looking forward for months, and saving up, and then cancelling your vacation because - who knows? - there might be “the big one” right when I’m there. So, I stay home.

What kind of person…

What kind of person…

It's pretty common in Japan, specially when some new "advisory" never heard before happens like this one.

It seems lime Tokushima was hit pretty hard by this, since it is the time of thr Awa Oodori, the biggest event in Tokushima thay brings a lot of people and money to one of the most poor regions of Japan.

I've heard that they are canceling some of the events over this.

The unintended consequences of making fear inducing declarations with very flimsy scientific ground.

People do not understand the actual risk, and like it always happens there is an exaggerated reaction from it that just creates extra damage.

I've experienced this just so many times that I've become numb.

Virusrex: "Unless you can prove the scientific advice given was not correct, and that it did not prevent much more damage than what it caused..."

Just as a point of order, there was no damage prevented, was there? Look, I agree it's better to be safe than sorry, and it would be far worse if they had this info and didn't give it (to help tourism) and then an actual disaster occurred, but the fact that no mega quake hit (yet) but there was even ONE cancellation is quite literally proof that it caused more harm than it prevented.

@smithinjapan

I don't wish to speak for others, but as Thomas Dolby can certainly attest, and as I tried to point out repeatedly above, sometimes the "science" can be blinding.

For the people interested, here are the publications by JMA. It give explanation and data about the earthquake thus why the first level was activated.

https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/press/kako.html?t=1&y=06

Fascinating that some seems to not think it is natural to go to the official announcement when they want data and just complain it is not available in a newspaper article aggregator.

My hotel was booked solid...until it wasn't. It's the only reason I was able to enjoy a sun-filled day on one of my favorite beaches yesterday.

My hotel was booked solid...until it wasn't. It's the only reason I was able to enjoy a sun-filled day on one of my favorite beaches yesterday.

Hmmm, maybe the "experts" made the announcement because they wanted to go on vacation but couldn't book any hotel.

I am making it obvious the double standards you are using, for the modified declaration do you have access to the data?

What is obvious is this is just your opinion.

no, you just blindly trust the scientific authorities when the say the risk have not increased. For both instances the valid scientific authority was behind the declarations, but you are choosing to trust only one.

Totally untrue and flies in the face of logic.

 It's the only reason I was able to enjoy a sun-filled day on one of my favorite beaches yesterday.

Lucky you. Many beaches were closed because of the alert.

For the people interested, here are the publications by JMA. It give explanation and data about the earthquake thus why the first level was activated.

It's just pure statistics.

I said it in a previous post, but the logic behind this is the idea that since statistically there could be a big earthquake in the region in the next 30 years, there is a non-zero probability that the previous earthquake was a foreshock of "the big one", so they are just "waiting it out".

In other words, from now on, every time there is a similar earthquake in the region, an alert will be sent, so prepare for more of these alerts in the future.

The risk is still very low, but people do not understand statistics, numbers or relative risk, they just listen that there is an alert that "there could be a big earthquake" and they panic.

Not only that, but I really don't see what is the big benefit of sending this alert, it's not as if they will be able to stop the earthquake, not to mention that "the big one" could happen without any foreshock, making the whole ordeal just a panic inducing experience that served no real purpose.

People need to be prepared at all times, without an alert, without panicking. Making "last minute preparations" because of an alert that has less than 1% of actually predicting an actual event is completely useless, and it just creates shortages at stores, and useless panic.

What is obvious is this is just your opinion.

And since you are unable to refute it with arguments also you are demonstrating the same.

Totally untrue and flies in the face of logic.

As Flute proved with the scientific data supporting the warning it is completely true and there is nothing illogical about it, which is why you don't argue anything against it.

It's just pure statistics.

The same as any prediction being done, from weather to the effect of pollution.

Not only that, but I really don't see what is the big benefit of sending this alert

Being warned about a huge earthquake can lead to people modifying their actions taking this into account. Not being a 100% sure prediction (including the chance of an earthquake coming without any warning) is not the same as being completely useless. Specially because it is not a flat less than 1% elevation of the risk but it depends on the strength of the previous earthquake.

The same as any prediction being done, from weather to the effect of pollution.

Yep, but when there is a 0.05% of rain, the weather service doesn't give you a "PROBABLE BIG RAIN" alert.

Not being a 100% sure prediction (including the chance of an earthquake coming without any warning) is not the same as being completely useless.

Erm... if we used that metric for every risk, then never go outside, because you can die from every posible risk.

Specially because it is not a flat less than 1% elevation of the risk but it depends on the strength of the previous earthquake.

Let me be very specific here. I'm just going to quote the USGS:

"Can you predict earthquakes?

No. Neither the USGS nor any other scientists have ever predicted a major earthquake. We do not know how, and we do not expect to know how any time in the foreseeable future. USGS scientists can only calculate the probability that a significant earthquake will occur (shown on our hazard mapping) in a specific area within a certain number of years."

Yep, but when there is a 0.05% of rain, the weather service doesn't give you a "PROBABLE BIG RAIN" alert.

Neither did the JMA, it just said the risk for a big earthquake elevated from undetectable to a 0.5%, criticizing the warnings for saying something they did not say is not a valid criticism.

Erm... if we used that metric for every risk, then never go outside, because you can die from every posible risk.

That is the opposite, your position is the one that calls for a false dichotomy where there is no value except for surely risky or else no risk ever. Real world predictions and warnings can be done taking into account the whole spectrum of possibilities.

Let me be very specific here. I'm just going to quote the USGS:

"Can you predict earthquakes?

The JMA did not predicted an earthquake, the warning never makes that claim, it just reported an increase of the risk, which is perfectly fine and scientifically supported. you know, the part where you quote "USGS scientists can only calculate the probability that a significant earthquake will occur" that was what it was done.

Neither did the JMA, it just said the risk for a big earthquake elevated from undetectable to a 0.5%, criticizing the warnings for saying something they did not say is not a valid criticism.

I'm not criticizing the JMA in that argument, I'm criticizing you.

your position is the one that calls for a false dichotomy where there is no value except for surely risky or else no risk ever

You can actually read my position, which is, everyone should be prepared at ALL times, so there is no need for a special warning. Those warnings the only thing are doing is create panic, which is obvious when you see things like panic buying, cancelation of vacations, cancelation of events, and all those things that point the reality that people are right now doing.

Real world predictions and warnings can be done taking into account the whole spectrum of possibilities.

Yes, like the reaction of normal people that do not understand the risk or what this actually means and acts irrationally to blanket government warnings.

The JMA did not predicted an earthquake, the warning never makes that claim, it just reported an increase of the risk, which is perfectly fine and scientifically supported. you know, the part where you quote "USGS scientists can only calculate the probability that a significant earthquake will occur" that was what it was done.

I'm going to quote the USGS once again:

"Observations show that the chance of an earthquake being followed by a larger one nearby and within a week is about 5%. "

This happens with EVERY earthquake. In other words, every time there is an earthquake, there is a 5% chance it is the foreshock of a bigger earthquake within a week, that's why they are using the 1 week timeframe.

But once again, it happens with ALL earthquakes, the only reason they single out this one, is because they are doing some very dodgy statistical manipulation in which they want to combine, for only this one earthquake, the 5% probability of this being a foreshock with the idea that a mega earthquake will happen within 30 years.

The main reason why they picked this one is because it had a magnitude of 7.1, so they think that if this is just a foreshock, and that the main one "could" be a mega earthquake, but even if this was just a foreshock, there is no real math or way to know what the main earthquake's magnitude could be. It could be just a 7.2 magnitude earthquake (which, in the moment magnitude scale would be twice as strong), and it wouldn't be "the one".

So, to be honest, the idea that the risk increased by 5% in the next week of there being a mega earthquake is not even correct. The statistical risk of the mega earthquake doesn't increase by 5% with a strong enough earthquake, so for the most part, this advisory is pretty speculatory and based in not that much.

I'm not criticizing the JMA in that argument, I'm criticizing you.

For defending the JMA since it did not make the false claims you say it made? Then you are invalidly criticizing the JMA, just making it appear as if their arguments came from someone else.

You can actually read my position, which is, everyone should be prepared at ALL times, so there is no need for a special warning. 

Which is not a useful position to take, there is not an infinite amount of attention or resources to be prepared, but there are infinite risks, so having enough information to prioritize is what is useful. Making scientific data based warnings measured and correct is not create panic. And definetely is much more useful than not making any warning as you suggest.

This happens with EVERY earthquake

That would not be true, the intensity of the earthquakes is what allows scientists to conclude there is a certain elevation of risk. The warning came because the earthquake that occured was above grade 7, the increase would not have been as significative with an earthquake of grade 3 for example. This is not a generalized situation in the world or the risk of a new earthquake of any intensity but the localized risk of an expected megaearthquake. Your position is like saying that a recurrence of cancer is of 5%, that is not a number you can apply to an specific situation that have its own determination of risk.

but even if this was just a foreshock, there is no real math or way to know what the main earthquake's magnitude could be.

The data of the JMA is already included in the comments, and it does not apply to the risk of a new earthquake of any intensity as you assume, but to the expected megaquake expected on this specific location.

So, to be honest, the idea that the risk increased by 5% in the next week of there being a mega earthquake is not even correct.

Of course it is not, because you are invalidly trying to apply a generalization to a specific situation with well defined parameters, the JMA did not make that mistake, you did. The increase of risk they predicted was of 0.5% after an earthquake of grade 7 which would be above 2% for an earthquake of grade 8. The increase is also not for "the next week" as you also assume, that is still you applying a generalization as if specific calculations were not available for this case.

For defending the JMA since it did not make the false claims you say it made? Then you are invalidly criticizing the JMA, just making it appear as if their arguments came from someone else.

You made a comparison of this advisory with a simple weather forecast, so I responded to your weather forecast comparison. I really doubt the JMA would make such a comparison.

I mean, I know you like to move the goal post all the time, but come on, try to be a little bit more honest when discussing.

Which is not a useful position to take

I'm not really asking your opinion about what you believe is useful or not, I was explaining my position since you made a strawman of my position. Once again, try to be a little bit more honest, and stop using logical fallacies to boost your point.

Not only that, according to the rule, the main point of this advisory is to "Recheck your earthquake preparedness", implying that people should be ready at any moment, and this warning is just to recheck that your preparations are in place. So yeah, the idea that people should be prepared all the time is already part of this advisory.

The warning came because the earthquake that occured was above grade 7, the increase would not have been as significative with an earthquake of grade 3 for example.

Actually, according to the rule, everything above 7 gets the advisory, everything above 6.8 is "investigated" and can get the warning, and everything below 6.8 also gets it if there is a "Slow sliding different to the norm".

 Your position is like saying that a recurrence of cancer is of 5%, that is not a number you can apply to an specific situation that have its own determination of risk.

That is absolutely not my position, it is not comparable, and your analogy makes no sense.

This isn't cancer, this is an earthquake, and the 5% is for the possibility of a stronger earthquake in a 1 week period, in a general statistical sense. To be honest, this 5% is so useless it has never really helped to predict a mega earthquake.

Even the JMA uses the more ambiguous terminology of "the chance of an 8.0 or stronger earthquake after a 7.0 or stronger earthquake is one in a few hundred" for its advisory.

The data of the JMA is already included in the comments, and it does not apply to the risk of a new earthquake of any intensity as you assume, but to the expected megaquake expected on this specific location.

Did you read the data you provided? It contains nothing that provide a solid prediction.

Not to mention that this was a rule based advisory.

From 2011 anything on that area above 7.0 gets a warning, and the area is actually pretty wide. The statistical logic is the same they used when they created the rule back in 2011, which by itself was actually a reactionary rule created immediately in the aftermath of the Tohoku Earthquake, mostly because of political pressure.

 the JMA did not make that mistake, you did

What are you even talking about? What mistake? Huh?

The increase of risk they predicted was of 0.5% after an earthquake of grade 7 which would be above 2% for an earthquake of grade 8.

I've read the documents, and there was absolutely nothing mentioning those percentages.

The increase is also not for "the next week" as you also assume, that is still you applying a generalization as if specific calculations were not available for this case.

According to the rule, the advisory is for one week.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I'm talking about the advisory (巨大地震注意)

A comparison for clarity is not the same as saying the JMA made a false claim of 5% risk, that is something only you said, there is no goalpost moving, the JMA and the many seismologists that have appeared in the media explaining the warning obviously think the warning was justified. Your position is still free of any usefulness while a warning so people can prioritize what to do is definitely useful, no panic just reasonable worry about a realistic possibility, instead of preparing against anything and everything at the same time as you propose. The 5% you keep trying to misrepresent has never been about the megaquake, the reported increase is from 0.1% to 0.5%. Making an appeal to authority saying the JMA is wrong based on the data they present is an obvious fallacy, the people that actually are experts have not made that claim, and as mentioned they have appeared in the media not to say this was unjustified but explaining the warning and how it applies. Obviously saying you know more about the warning than the experts is not a valid argument.

Virus

The ‘experts’ scared people for no reason again and caused chaos and loss of business, same as they did with Covid and the dangers it presented..

The government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was appropriate, leading to fewer than 100,000 deaths.

The ‘experts’ scared people for no reason again and caused chaos and loss of business, same as they did with Covid and the dangers it presented..

Neither case was unjustified, just because you personally don't agree that does not make you an authority on the field, if the experts say the warnings are justified they are a much more trust worthy source.

A comparison for clarity is not the same as saying the JMA made a false claim of 5% risk

Never said that, but thanks for yet another strawman argument

the JMA and the many seismologists that have appeared in the media explaining the warning obviously think the warning was justified.

Good for them, seismologists have little to nothing to do with the subject of disaster avoidance and preparations... so yeah, not really that relevant

no panic just reasonable worry about a realistic possibility

People did panic... so, I don't understand why you either ignore that fact, or pretend it didn't happened.

 The 5% you keep trying to misrepresent has never been about the megaquake

Never said it did. I said that this is the only reliable statistic for supposed prediction of stronger earthquakes in the future, and that it sucks. This megaquake thing is using even more ambiguous numbers, which I already explained, and you just ignored.

the reported increase is from 0.1% to 0.5%.

Source

Making an appeal to authority saying the JMA is wrong based on the data they present is an obvious fallacy

You are the only one using appeal to authority here. You just a few lines behind talked about the "experts in the media", so yeah...

 Obviously saying you know more about the warning than the experts is not a valid argument.

Never said I did. But "experts" are not demigods that understand everything. You can be an expert of whatever, but the facts remain in place, not to mention that once again, my main concern was over the problems a warning like this creates, which "seismologist" are never going to care, because they only care about quakes.

It is the social element what I've been calling. The warning itself is actually kind of harmless, which is why I thought it was kind of useless, because the warning was, as I already said, to just "recheck you preparedness for an earthquake".

But did the way people reacted reflected that? No.

How people reacted was by cancelling travels, cancelling events, closing beaches, panic buying...

The week passed, and as it was obvious, in the end nothing happened... so, I rest my point