national

Japan starts 4th COVID vaccine shots for seniors, at-risk groups

63 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

63 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

*Overseas studies have shown that fourth vaccine shots can prevent severe COVID-19 symptoms from developing in people over 60 for *a certain period of time.

What does that mean? Can prevent...

They are not sure if it really prevents severe symptoms???

Then why should I take take it?

What does that mean? a certain period of time...

One day, one week, one month???

Many open questions.

My answer; No thank you!

9 ( +33 / -24 )

Are people really still doing this, I stopped after two.

5 ( +30 / -25 )

People who received third shots are lower than expected, now fourth? Because Japan ration their vaccines, people who willing to receive shot need to register and make reservation. More complicated they make, less people they'll get. What will happen to those vaccine, it will be expired.

https://asianews.network/large-amount-of-japans-moderna-vaccine-stock-to-be-discarded-due-to-expiry/

9 ( +20 / -11 )

How about helping other countries that still are mostly unvaccinated? Pandemics, as the name implies, are a global phenomena ...

0 ( +14 / -14 )

*The studies, however, did not show sufficient data for effectiveness for those under that age*.

And that says everything about the 4th shot for people under 60.

Therefore,..4th shot, No thank you!

6 ( +25 / -19 )

The studies, however, did not show sufficient data for effectiveness for those under that age.

Why should the 4th injection not be effective in lower age groups but the 3rd injection was?

Something doesn’t add up, does it..,

23 ( +30 / -7 )

Japan began offering fourth coronavirus vaccine shots Wednesday to older people, and those with underlying medical conditions.

An unnecessary and expensive process that will necessitate more money being printed. Pharmaceutical companies receive more money. You receive... higher food prices. Yay.

14 ( +27 / -13 )

The narrative is eating it's own tail at this point.

If a 61 year-old needs a 4th it means the initial 3 jabs aren't sufficient.

But a 59 year-old shouldn't take the 4th because it's useless, in fact it's better to let the vaccine expire and throw it away than to jab it into a 59 year-old's arm.

19 ( +29 / -10 )

The narrative is eating it's own tail at this point.

says the kettle to the pot

-17 ( +6 / -23 )

Come post July elections I think the Covid news will drop off dramatically. When the Govt no longer requires the sky is falling narrative the media will no doubt dutifully comply!

13 ( +19 / -6 )

I just received a notice from my city office allowing me to get the 4th shot but I'm under 60 and have no medical conditions. I've decided to pass on it though.

15 ( +20 / -5 )

This is going to be a big decision to take a fourth shot. The first three gave me hives which I’ve never had in my life before this.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Travel back home requires the jab.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I got the first two jabs because we were told it was necessary to get life back to normal. But we still can't fly out and return without apps, paperwork, PCR tests, long waits, and all the rest. Get a third jab, or a fourth? No way!

13 ( +19 / -6 )

What does that mean? Can prevent...

It means the same as everything else in medicine, that it has proved to be useful even if not to a 100%, having a transfusion can prevent a patinent from dying from blood loss, having antibiotics injected can prevent a bacterial infection from complicating etc.

It is not that nobody knows if there is an effect or not, just that the effect is not guaranteed to 100%, again the same as everything else in medicine.

And that says everything about the 4th shot for people under 60.

Therefore,..4th shot, No thank you!

Why should the 4th injection not be effective in lower age groups but the 3rd injection was?

Something doesn’t add up, does it..,

In Japan you could not get the shot even if you wanted if you are not part of the target population, that is the whole point of recommending the vaccine only for those for whom the effect can be confirmed, this of course can change in the future because the main reason why there is no effect confirmed in young healthy people is that the previous vaccinations already protect this population to a degree that a booster does not make a difference, if this protection drops with time then a benefit could become apparent. It is as "suspicious" as not recommending sun blocking to people that spend all day indoors.

The narrative is eating it's own tail at this point.

If a 61 year-old needs a 4th it means the initial 3 jabs aren't sufficient.

To reduce the risk to background levels? yes, that is why boosters are being recommended, against that what do you propose? letting people assume those extra risks for no reason?

But a 59 year-old shouldn't take the 4th because it's useless, in fact it's better to let the vaccine expire and throw it away than to jab it into a 59 year-old's arm.

Young people without special vulnerabilities are already protected to a degree that a booster becomes unnecessary and there are many things to do that are better than throwing it away, like donating it to populations that are still unvaccinated.

Come post July elections I think the Covid news will drop off dramatically. When the Govt no longer requires the sky is falling narrative the media will no doubt dutifully comply!

Pretending the media is coming out with things and not the experts that are the ones doing the recommendations based on evidence is obviously invalid. The reason why covid is becoming less relevant is precisely because following recommendations and measures have helped reducing the risk from the disease.

-14 ( +13 / -27 )

The ministry suggests people receive the booster shots at least five months after receiving their third inoculation.

Anyone else here smirking at the thought of following what the ministry suggests?

 The reason why covid is becoming less relevant is precisely because following recommendations and measures have helped reducing the risk from the disease.

Any statistical data to support your opinion? No.

Covid infections are by far from their lowest, worldwide. And with more infections there are more risks. And large populations are still not vaccinated.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

I will not take any "emergency use" vaccines any longer. The "big Pharma" companies needed the governments to change the definition of what a vaccine does. Prior to covid, a vaccine prevented 100% the infection of a virus. Now, the definition of a vaccine is to prevent severe symptoms of virus. Without changing the definition of a vaccine, the US government could no longer have given "emergency use" authorization of the covid vaccine. Ask yourself a question, with Japan having a very high vaccination rate why are new cases of covid sky rocketing? These new type of dna manipulating vaccines are ruining our bodies natural immunity in my opinion. Look at all the people vaxd and multi-boosted getting the same covid mutant virus multiple times.

13 ( +19 / -6 )

Any statistical data to support your opinion? No.

https://covid19japan.com/

It is evident for anybody living in Japan that the risk from the disease has been dropping lately and that is why the government has relaxed measures, which has not resulted in a new peak. Vaccination and nearly universal obedience to the most basic precautions have been enough to control the negative aspecs of the pandemic even when the government has repeatedly fumbled with their measures.

Covid infections are by far from their lowest, worldwide

That does nothing to negate the fact that the risk in Japan has decreased very importantly since Omicron first entered the country. If the measures are enough to reduce the risk for the health and lives of the population then an increase of the number of infections (which in fact are decreasing) do not have to mean an equal increase of hospitalizations or deaths. On the other hand wild exaggeration of the measures that interrupt access to health services can produce extra deaths (related or unrelated to covid) without reducing the rates more than a rational approach would, thus higher cost for no extra benefits.

-15 ( +9 / -24 )

I will not take any "emergency use" vaccines any longer. The "big Pharma" companies needed the governments to change the definition of what a vaccine does

That is false, antivaxxer disinformation misrepresenting what vaccines are was the reason to modify the definition to avoid this.

Prior to covid, a vaccine prevented 100% the infection of a virus.

Completely false, no vaccine has ever done that, infection happens with all vaccines used in humans, even disease, hospitalizations and deaths, this is just clear disinformation.

Without changing the definition of a vaccine, the US government could no longer have given "emergency use" authorization of the covid vaccine

Also false, because the factor that allows for the EUA is that the medical intervention demonstrate to lower the risk from the health problem which is something the covid vaccines do without doubt. This is also just disinformation (including the fact that vaccines have already received full approval).

Ask yourself a question, with Japan having a very high vaccination rate why are new cases of covid sky rocketing?

For the same reason infections "sky rocketed" all over the world (in vaccinated and unvaccinated countries), the appearance of a variant that is much more easily transmitted than the previous ones. This is already common knowledge, the same as seeing how hospitalizations and deaths did not increase in the same way part because the variant is less prone to cause complications and part because the population has been immunized efficiently.

Look at all the people vaxd and multi-boosted getting the same covid mutant virus multiple times.

Without being hospitalized nor dying, which is the whole point. If unvaccinated people still have higher rates of complications and deaths that means vaccines are doing their job.

-14 ( +11 / -25 )

There's a well-known "expert" nearby (not my doctor) that I'll need to consult with prior to getting a 4th jab.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for modifying its definition of the words “vaccine” and “vaccination” on its website.

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

Some people have speculated that the unannounced changes were the CDC’s attempt to hide the fact COVID-19 vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing coronavirus infection. U.S. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky said in a popular tweet the CDC has “been busy at the Ministry of Truth.”

11 ( +18 / -7 )

If the vaccine is safe then lift the liability protection from "Big Pharma".

13 ( +17 / -4 )

Oh god no, preventative medicine. I'd much rather be a burden on the public health system when I get covid, spread the virus, utilize badly needed resources and prevent others from accessing a hospital bed when I'm admitted.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

ore the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

Yes, again because antivaxxer groups misrepresented the word immunity as if it mean perfect, absolute and guaranteed lack of infection, which obviously is false since no vaccine has ever done that.

The fully approved covid vaccines are still a product that stimulate the person's immune system against an specific disease, so there is no problem there either.

Some people have speculated that the unannounced changes were the CDC’s attempt to hide the fact COVID-19 vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing coronavirus infection

Yes, irrational people that do not know the first thing about vaccines and think this is something that has ever been achieved for any vaccine, the real reason why covid vaccines are not 100% efficient is because no vaccine has ever been. When confronted with this evidence the people promoting this false idea just pretend they never said it in the first place, but that completely disproves their claims.

If the vaccine is safe then lift the liability protection from "Big Pharma".

There is no "liability protection" companies can still be made responsible for problems with the vaccine even with criminal charges if necessary, that is the reason governments still check every lot of vaccine for efficacy and safety, if companies were not liable there would be no need to do it.

What governments absorbed was the compensation from particulars, so instead of risking a very likely defeat in court (that would only make lawyers rich) people that want compensation no longer have to prove above any reasonable doubt that the vaccines are the only reason possible for their problems, they only have to prove this is possible (much easier) this comes as a benefit not only for public health but also for the claimants.

-12 ( +10 / -22 )

that it has proved to be useful even if not to a 100%,

You and all the experts told us nonstop the vaccine IS effective.

And now the study shows that the 4th shot CAN prevent severe symptoms.

Do you understand the difference between IS and CAN?

Can prevent completely contradicts IS effective.

So that means that all the comments and reports that the vaccine IS effective are losing all their value because now the study says only it can prevent....

But I guess they are talking just about the 4th shot.

If so, then why should someone take the 4th shot that is proven as "not effective" and just as "can prevent".

"Can prevent" means there is a possibility of prevention, but nobody knows how high is that possibility?

1%? or 2%?

Therefore, what also comes out here in the comments and if you talk with people out there, people who took the 3rd shot...almost everyone will refuse to take the 4th shot.

3 ( +14 / -11 )

Additional...

The status "CAN prevent" is still experimental.

Because nobody knows if it really does prevent.

The status "DO prevent", that is effective.

Because the prevention is proven.

But how high is the percentage of prevention or effectiveness must be investigated too.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

that it has proved to be useful even if not to a 100%,

You and all the experts told us nonstop the vaccine IS effective.

What is it with all these people that try to use an argument that if something is not 100% effective then it must be 0%?

Is everything in their life black and white?

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

But a 59 year-old shouldn't take the 4th because it's useless, in fact it's better to let the vaccine expire and throw it away than to jab it into a 59 year-old's arm

I interpreted this to mean that the government have excess shots they need to get rid of, so instead of putting them in the trash, they will innoculate the over 60s.

You need three shots to travel abroad, and even then there are quarantine restrictions upon coming back to Japan.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

gov have invested a lot of cash from taxpayers to vaccines so these need be used.

just simple business matter.

dont look for anything else behind that decision.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

*that if something is not 100% effective then it must be 0%?*

Can you please show where someone is saying that?

Nobody is saying that!

But would you take a vaccine or a medicine with an effectiveness of 1%?

I don't think so.

Therefore I said in my comment...But how high is the percentage of prevention or effectiveness must be investigated too.

In some comments from the past and links and reports, it was shown that the 1-3 shots have an effectiveness of about 70%. (something like that).

But for the 4th shot, here in the article, it doesn't say anything about percentage of effectiveness. It just says, it can prevent.

And additional for people younger than 60, it says clearly here in the article*, The studies, however, did not show sufficient data for effectiveness for those under that age.*

Me and all the people all over the world who are using their brains, would never put a fluid in their body, which only "can prevent".

If the effectiveness is clearly proven, then yes, we can talk about the fourth shot again.

And Keep in mind, we are talking here about a fluid which will be injected in your body, and you can not reverse that procedure after it is inside your body.

We are not talking here about a sun blocker which can be washed away, or a seat belt which can be take off easily...or whatever strange comparissons people bring up.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

People need to remember the point of the vaccine is to help avoid serious complications, hospitalizations and death. It has never been to protect 100% from catching it. No vaccine does that.

My 84 year old mother was diagnosed just 4 days ago with Covid in the San Francisco area where cases are shooting up now, but hospitalization numbers are flat. She got 4 doses and says she just feels a little fatigued with a sore throat. Without the vaccines I fear her condition would be much worse.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

You and all the experts told us nonstop the vaccine IS effective.

The vaccines are effective, they greatly reduce the risk specially on the most vulnerable population,

Do you understand the difference between IS and CAN?

Apparently the one that does not is you, this is the same that happens with all other vaccines, polio vaccine CAN prevent deaths from polio, or hospitalization, or even infection. But it will not do it 100% of the time, the same as every other vaccine. Pretending that saying vaccines are not 100% effective means they are useless is a deeply irrational position, because that has never been what "effective" means.

Your false dichotomy is the one that is invalid, a booster can prevent problems and be effective at the same time, even if you personally misunderstood what it means for something to be effective.

Additional...

The status "CAN prevent" is still experimental.

No it is not, aspirin CAN prevent a headache, there is nothing experimental about it, it is simply that nothing in medicine is 100% effective. Once again you are misunderstanding saying that something is effective even if not guaranteed to work every time (what is happening) and saying that nobody knows if that something actually works or not at all (your misunderstanding).

That the vaccines reduce risk has been proved, that the second booster decrease the risk in vulnerable population has been proved.

gov have invested a lot of cash from taxpayers to vaccines so these need be used.

just simple business matter.

If that were the case they would recommend the vaccine for everybody, but this is not happening, the actual reason is that the boosters have shown to reduce risk for some populations which is why they are to be used only on them.

No need for this shot or any of them.

"No need" to recieve any kind of medical treatment either if you don't want to, but both things greatly improve your chances of living a long and productive life, which is something most people consider desirable.

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

 It has never been to protect 100% from catching it. No vaccine does that

Absolutely!

Everyone knows that!

Nobody is expecting a 100% effectiveness, but everyone is expecting a certain range of effectiveness.

What range of effectiveness people accept before taking the vaccine varies from person to person.

Some say a effectiveness of 30% is OK for me, some say I expect at least 70%...and so on.

Everybody decides by themselves..

But taking a vaccine which has just the status "can prevent" and "did not show sufficient data for effectiveness for those under that age", sounds really foolish to me.

But like I said, everybody is free to decide that by themselves.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

other vaccines, polio vaccine CAN prevent deaths from polio, or hospitalization, or even infection

aspirin CAN prevent a headache

All these preventions are proven by studies and reality.

So we can clearly say, they DO prevent whatever they are made for.

But of course not 100%.

But here for the 4th shot, read again please the article...

Overseas studies have shown that fourth vaccine shots can prevent severe.

These studies show "can Prevent". Nothing is proven here as effective.

Therefore again....I said...But how high is the percentage of prevention or effectiveness must be investigated too.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Didn't other countries prove this doesn't have a significant increase in efficacy? Guess its more of a "feel good" or "feel bad" (side effects) just in time for the July elections for a key demographic.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

The vaccines are effective, they greatly reduce the risk specially on the most vulnerable population,

So does living a healthy lifestyle devoid of constant anxiety and fear...

In fact, many EXPERTS have been pointing this out. It's a great way, perhaps the BEST, to minimise risk and severity of viruses!

But let's focus on tanking the world's economy even more eh. It's been working great up until now, obviously...

10 ( +12 / -2 )

But like I said, everybody is free to decide that by themselves.

I wish they were, but as is evident here - the demonization of those who question the narrative still exists due to an outspoken, online minority.

Most of us just want to rebuild and get on with life. But we keep getting pulled back under...

10 ( +12 / -2 )

If the vaccine is safe then lift the liability protection from "Big Pharma".

Indeed, that is never a good sign. But they might end up being held liable after all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTzHJfXMx3Q

7 ( +11 / -4 )

It is interesting that people who don't want the vaccine need to seek validation by telling everyone.

Well, Elvis gives you all the green light is that makes you all feel better.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

There is a group in japan that doesnt need any shot (it is optinal not force)

It is a pitty that the rest of Japan needs to get the shots for work and other social activies.

If you ask your self how these people are .. hint you can see one in the picture of this article.

If you realize what this means .. you understand the real problem ..

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Well, Elvis gives you all the green light is that makes you all feel better.

Thanks Elvis...I am feeling much better and safe now.

It is interesting that people who don't want the vaccine need to seek validation by telling everyone.

It is not that people don't want to take the vaccine.

It is that people want to be sure that what got injected in their bodies brings the expected prevention and effectiveness.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Thanks Elvis...I am feeling much better and safe now.

Good to hear Monty. Please keep us updated on how things are for you.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

But taking a vaccine which has just the status "can prevent" and "did not show sufficient data for effectiveness for those under that age", sounds really foolish to me.

That is because you keep insisting in your misunderstanding, if someone says "a blood transfusion can prevent death from blood loss, but it is not effective for people with normal levels of hemoglobin" does it sound foolish to you? it is the same situation, if people are already well protected then it is much more difficult to provide more than that.

Therefore again....I said...But how high is the percentage of prevention or effectiveness must be investigated too.

That is another problem, you think that if you ignore something then it must mean nobody knows this. The experts of the world have data to prove the reduction is significative (different from people already well protected) if the booster was being recommended blindly (as you think) why do you suppose it is not done so for everybody? the answer is that the effectivenes has been already investigated and found significative for some people.

But like I said, everybody is free to decide that by themselves

The problem is when people want to do that but others pushe their own misunderstandings to them so they end up making worse decisions because of this.

Didn't other countries prove this doesn't have a significant increase in efficacy?

For people without special vulnerabilities? yes, that is why this is not recommended for them.

Indeed, that is never a good sign. But they might end up being held liable after all:

Pharmaceutical companies have always been liable in many different forms, what you are discussing is a strawman from antivaxxer groups that is used to criticize an imaginary situation.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

Wow long discussion.

So what's the issue now, antivaxers don't want the target groups to get the second booster?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

That is because you keep insisting in your misunderstanding

It is not missunderstanding.

It is reading between the lines and understand the reality behind the things.

Always when you are going out of argues according the vaccine, you come up with other strange comparissons like blood transfusion, seat belts, sun blocker...

The topic here is a vaccine with a 4th shot, which shows in a study, can prevent for people over 60 and

did not show sufficient data for effectiveness for those under that age.

Let me explain to you for the last time:

Can prevent, means Yes it does prevent, or No it does not prevent.

Does not prevent means no effectiveness.

If a study shows, it does prevent means, it is effective. At least 1%.

And then each person, should decide how high is the value of effectiveness they expect to take the vaccine.

1% is enough...or better 20%....or 80%?

But this study shows, by saying can be prevent, that the prevention and the effectiveness can be zero.

So it is not yet proven as effective.

Another study you showed before, said 70% effeciency.

That is a clear outcome.

But this study here shows, can prevent and did not show sufficient data for effectiveness for those under that age.

That makes this 4th shot very very suspicious.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

So what's the issue now, antivaxers don't want the target groups to get the second booster?

I believe that anybody who wants the 4th shot should get it.

But anybody who doesn't want it or any other invasive medical procedure should not be forced, pressured or coerced in any way.

And moreover, companies should be liable for their products, no more blanket immunity for multibillion dollar corporations.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

So what's the issue now, antivaxers don't want the target groups to get the second booster

I think we don't need to explain again and again about the difference between an antivaxxer and a person who is just careful what he puts, or in this case got injected, into his body.

Wow long discussion

Anyway I am out.

Have to go to work.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

At risk groups and seniors are the groups that would likely not be able to handle the adverse effects of the jab. This survival of the fittest is the frame of mind of the transhumanists, eugenics, and globalists who want to depopulate the world to 500 million people as inscribed in the Georgia guidestones.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I think we don't need to explain again and again about the difference between an antivaxxer and a person who is just careful what he puts, or in this case got injected, into his body.

No need to explain Monty, non antivaxers feeling the need to explain themselves muddle the issue anyway.

Have a good day

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

And moreover, companies should be liable for their products, no more blanket immunity for multibillion dollar corporations.

This part is not clear to me.

Are you saying that if a particular vaccine has proven to cause harm to citizens the government will not sue / make liable its manufacturer?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Tldr but I would assume that if there's any opposition to take the 4th it would for the reason "marginal additional protection".

Not a reason for me because the target groups are where the fatalities mostly occur so they need all the protection they can get.

Marginally useful is acceptable as long as it's not harmful.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

virusrexToday  10:55 am JST

You and all the experts told us nonstop the vaccine IS effective.

The vaccines are effective, they greatly reduce the risApparently the one that does not is you, this is the same that happens with all other vaccines, polio vaccine CAN prevent deaths from polio, or hospitalization, or even infection. But it will not do it 100% of the time, the same as every other vaccine. Pretending that saying vaccines are not 100% effective means they are useless is a deeply irrational position, because that has never been what "effective" means.

Polio vaccine is actually 99-100% effective in prevention infection, and the protection lasts several years. (CDC website)

For this covid vaccine, record number of people are dying around the world who have had 2-4 shots. Some people would say it does not prevent serious complications or deaths.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

It is not missunderstanding.

It is very clear that you would not have understood lack of efficacy from the same expression used in other medical interventions, you make an special case for the covid vaccines (and read between the lines) because of personal bias against them, which makes you interpret things differently but only for them.

Can prevent, means Yes it does prevent, or No it does not prevent.

means Yes it does prevent, [a seat belt can prevent your death in a traffic accident]

But this study shows, by saying can be prevent, that the prevention and the effectiveness can be zero.

No, it does not, that is the missunderstanding, it only means that it is not 100%.

So it is not yet proven as effective.

Yes it has, for people with special vulnerabilities against covid.

But anybody who doesn't want it or any other invasive medical procedure should not be forced, pressured or coerced in any way.

Saying this decision can be proven irrational or based on false information that can be proved so is not forcing people, anybody is free to make any decision they want, even irrational ones, as long as the valid consequences of that decision are also assumed.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Marginally useful is acceptable as long as it's not harmful.

So these "vaccines" are not acceptable then...

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I used yahoo search. Here is the link:

https://drzelenkonews.com/vaccine-death-report/

Almost every single piece of information of the site can be proved false very easily, the only usefulness of the site is to know for sure anything said there is wrong. It is a well knon source of disinformation.

If a McDonald's hamburger makes a person who eats it sick, that person can sue McDonald's.

We should have the same right to sue Big Pharma.

The government absorbed that (and only that) responsibility to make it easier for claimants to receive anything

If you accept the chances of becoming sick by eating the hamburger when you buy it (explicitly) and you have no way to prove it was the hamburger the government still makes sure you get the money, otherwise the only ones getting any money would be the lawyers for everybody.

This is done so something effective and safe can still be used even if false claims are routinely done, no need to pay lawyers of both sides so the claimant is rejected at the end, if it is realistically possible then the money is paid.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Marginally useful is acceptable as long as it's not harmful.

So these "vaccines" are not acceptable then...

Yes, according to 3 posters so far if we include the upvotes

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@virusrex

There is no "liability protection" companies can still be made responsible for problems with the vaccine even with criminal charges if necessary, that is the reason governments still check every lot of vaccine for efficacy and safety, if companies were not liable there would be no need to do it.

Then the vaccine waiver form every individual must sign when you get the vaccine administered is meaningless? The vaccine waiver form says that you have read and understand all the risks and benefits of the vaccine and waive any rights to hold the vaccine companies, government, and the companies that administered the vaccine liable for any adverse effects.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

https://covid19japan.com/

It is evident for anybody living in Japan that the risk from the disease has been dropping lately and that is why the government has relaxed measures, which has not resulted in a new peak. Vaccination and nearly universal obedience to the most basic precautions have been enough to control the negative aspecs of the pandemic even when the government has repeatedly fumbled with their measures.

This source shows deaths are higher this year than last year.

It doesn't, as you claim, show that it is evident for anybody living in Japan that the risk from the disease has been dropping lately.

There are more people infected. And the source doesn't show the positivity rate, which is increasing. So, more people infected, more people at risk.

It is very clear that you would not have understood lack of efficacy from the same expression used in other medical interventions, you make an special case for the covid vaccines (and read between the lines) because of personal bias against them, which makes you interpret things differently but only for them.

No, it is you who does not understand. Your "claim" is based entirely on your unfounded non-medical opinion.

"No need" to recieve any kind of medical treatment either if you don't want to, but both things greatly improve your chances of living a long and productive life, which is something most people consider desirable.

This is a strange statement and a failed analogy, as a vaccine is not medical treatment.

And now you are speaking for "most people"??

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This source shows deaths are higher this year than last year.

It shows a descent preceding the current relaxation of the measures, thus proving why the virus is becoming less relevant than in January-February where much more stringent measures were in place. So yes it has been dropping lately.

There are more people infected. And the source doesn't show the positivity rate, which is increasing. So, more people infected, more people at risk.

And the more people vaccinated and the less virulent the variant the less people at risk, focusing in cases is also irrelevant because the rates have been decreasing and this includes the positivity rate, contrary to what you said it is NOT increasing.

As an example Tokyo https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/cards/positive-rate/

No, it is you who does not understand. Your "claim" is based entirely on your unfounded non-medical opinion.

The examples used speak for themselves, if your only argument is trying to guess what other people qualification may or not be you are recognizing it is baseles.

This is a strange statement and a failed analogy, as a vaccine is not medical treatment.

Yes it is, a vaccine is a preventive treatment, the same as giving vitamin supplements or prescribing a diet to prevent future health problems. Is now your argument that most people do not want to live long productive lifes?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Then the vaccine waiver form every individual must sign when you get the vaccine administered is meaningless? 

No, but companies are still liable of many things that are not included in the waiver, for example if a company gets approval by using false data, or if the vaccine is contaminated for lack of expected control, if the vaccine loses efficacy for being kept improperly by mistake, etc. etc.

There are many kinds of liabilities that companies are still completely subjected to, the one the goverment assumed works much better for public health and the particulars because it no longer requires a trial that claimants have a very real risk of losing because it can be extremely difficult to prove any negative outcome was not waived or happened without doubt from the vaccine.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

How long has it been since Japan started vaccinating one year year and a half?

Almost everyone who's eligible has been vaccinated at least twice, now there's a fourth.

It's well past the time antivaxers post data to support their assertion that the vaccines are more harmful than the virus.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites