COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
national

Japanese data on cruise ship coronavirus infections backs quarantine strategy

140 Comments
By Rocky Swift

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

140 Comments

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

Sorry, these just seems like the government is in a rush to put out something to make themselves look right in the wake of the video by out by another doctor yesterday.

Newly released data from a Japanese research institute appears to back the government's case that its quarantine strategy for the Diamond Princess cruise ship was successful in stemming contagion of the coronavirus among passengers.

Today is February 21, the ship was quarantined on February 3rd, and there are STILL people on board!

Dont be fooled people! That doctors information and video seems to me at least, hit too close to home to the government that they felt the need to rush this information out to the public!

THey are going to attempt to flood the media with "data!" and talking points, to drown out everything negative!

16 ( +32 / -16 )

"We can say the quarantine has been done as we planned," said Wada, who has worked as an advisor on site at the Diamond Princess. "I'm not sure if I can say it's a success."

There you have it.

24 ( +29 / -5 )

LOL, you can't have your covid19 and eat it as well. So if the infections were present prior to quarantine, THEN testings (of 300 per day) was wildly inadequate or negligent. IF you haven't tested everybody, why confine them together in an incubation station? OR WORSE, not provide treatment to those already infected but not yet tested?

Stop making excuses and start bowing deeply and resign before your tourism industry is decimated from lack of confidence in your ability to keep Japan safe.

18 ( +28 / -10 )

Wow propaganda much? Iwata statement reads like he was pressured

17 ( +27 / -10 )

I saw new video by Dr. Iwata and he seemed sincere.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

They were following the guidelines the CDC, but the US State Department was not.

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

There were no infection containment procedures on board the ship when Iwata made his observations. Authorities chose to confine those aboard as if a leper colony or POWs in a state run experiment.

What laws are applicable when litigation begins? Maritime?

1 ( +10 / -9 )

The NIID is Japan's top research institute of infectious diseases

And the funding is from ?

15 ( +21 / -6 )

Data can be written anyway you want but the fact is clear that the Diamond Princess docked in Yokohama is one of many cruise ships that entered a port with one infected passenger but the only one that had an increase of infection.........now, in less than a month over 600!!!!!

6 ( +13 / -7 )

And the funding is from ?

It's a government agency: https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Procedures were certainly not perfect but put a quarantine on the ship was the right thing. Would have Japan let all people out without everyone checked, it would just have spread the disease and would have been a nightmare.

40-50 were already infected from the first batch of 250, something like that. Infection was already spreading well before the quarantine.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Dont be fooled people! That doctors information and video seems to me at least, hit too close to home to the government that they felt the need to rush this information out to the public!

For good or for bad this is scientific data, if your only reason to reject it is that you want to believe other things then that is not a logical position to take, it was irrational to expect people in incubation time to stop being sick just because they were put on a quarantine.

 IF you haven't tested everybody, why confine them together in an incubation station? OR WORSE, not provide treatment to those already infected but not yet tested?

Do you know what a quarantine means? the whole point is the passengers are not confined all togheter but in a realistic degree of isolation, what kind of treatment do you expect to give to people that have not symptoms? Sorry but your criticism makes absolutely no sense, why not treat all humans being? theoretically anybody can already be exposed, and obviously not tested for this infection.

Wow propaganda much?

Focus on the data, what part of it do you think is false or mistaken?

There were no infection containment procedures on board the ship when Iwata made his observations. Authorities chose to confine those aboard as if a leper colony or POWs in a state run experiment.

So the new infections got reduced even if everybody is free to roam aboard the ship without problem? how do you explain the observations published if confinement was not done?

And the funding is from ?

The japanese taxpayers, is this a conflict of interest? well that would explain if the data presented is false, but then again that would save face for a couple of days and then inevitabily ruin the careers of the director of the institute, the virology, emerging diseses, epidemiology deparments, etc.

Is easier for you to believe that dozens of people would throw away the work of their lives for 2 days of good image? Or that simply too many people did not understand how and when the effects of a quarantine are to be observed?

Its fine not to believe blindly on things said by anybody, but saying everything you don't agree HAS to be false is not productive and leads to mistakes. The data is completely believable and what would be expected from an imperfect and rushed but relatively effective quarantine measure.

-12 ( +11 / -23 )

Koji Wada, "I'm not sure if I can say it's a success." Whoop there it is.

But, NIID (a government agency) is touting success of the government decision.

And of course the media here is right on board.

And both government and media just can't figure out why people do not trust either.

12 ( +18 / -6 )

Japan is in damage control mode.

17 ( +21 / -4 )

 quarantine strategy for the Diamond Princess cruise ship was successful in stemming contagion of the coronavirus among passengers.

Successful? Except for the 20% of passengers that contracted the virus while under quarantine, of course.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

Government agencies can't say anything else than what the government wants them to say.

Conceal, deny the facts and hope that people after many repetitions believe it.

Worked years ago, still works today.

And never say something that contradicts the government's point of view!

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Though far from perfect, the quarantine basically worked. Those going down with the virus were already infected or were sharing cabins with those already infected before arriving in Yokohama.

The alternative to quarantine on the boat was...?

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

So if the chance of catching a disease is 20% from just one initially infected person on a ship... I'm quite happy to avoid cruises in future.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

With 620 infections I'm not buying it. I'm not that dumb. The last line of this article says it all.

"I'm not sure if I can say it's a success."

13 ( +18 / -5 )

Well. I am no expect but let's say all the sicks were infected with the virus when the ship reached Yokohama. There is no cross infections onboard since the quarantine is put in place. However, how about those government officials that got infected after getting on the ship? They may have already passed the virus around people on Japan's soil. Any words on how that can happen?

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Cases among crew were observed to steadily increase, peaking on Feb 13.

Of course they did, if as Iwata reported they were eating their lunches with their gloves on and freely moving about without consideration for the non-existent red and green zones.

The NIID report was "very reassuring," said Kentaro Iwata.

Well you don't need a degree in rocket science to realize everything that he did not say.

He did not say that the report was true. 2. He did not say that he withdrew his earlier criticism or that it was mistaken because of this new report. 3. He did not say that he had any faith in the NIID report. 4. He did not say that there was any real reassurance in the report. He merely describes it as reassuring.

Of course, that is exactly what the NIID wishes the sheeple to feel--reassured--as in there, there. everything in the nanny state is just fine. The facts? Not important. Only face.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

The videos got over a million views before Iwata took them down, saying at a press briefing on Thursday that the new data and reports of improved controls on the ship convinced him that the government had responded to his criticism.

Nice get the government and media support to back up data convenient for the Olympics and elections coming up but what was the root problem that seems to be taking a way way back seat? The country where it all started, aside location: a military bio terror lab. This country is responsible and needs to be help accountable and accept responsibility and pay compensation for causing a major economic disruption. The world is after business yet this paranoid country continues its brash military buildup in the name of peace. Not buying and simple put they need to accept their role for damages caused to all countries.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

You’ve got to admit it though, the most urgent question in all of this is whether or not the decision to quarantine the ship was successful. We can always deal with the virus later.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

So far around 20% passengers on the ship get infected and the count is still going , if this is called a success then what is failure?

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Koji Wada, "I'm not sure if I can say it's a success."

Translated into English, “No respectable virologist in the field would say it’s not a failure.”

3 ( +8 / -5 )

The videos got over a million views before Iwata took them down, saying at a press briefing on Thursday that the new data and reports of improved controls on the ship convinced him that the government had responded to his criticism.

Oh they responded to his criticism alright.

CCP style.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Hahaha,

Tell that to all the global broadcasting companies, they saw how J. government handle this situation 24/7, and Dr's video did not help the government either.

Can you government workers/politicians focus on this situation first? If you manage the infection, number will tell if you succeed or not. Also do not make mind blowing mistakes such as have the ship passenger take taxi, public bus, train at Yokohama station by themselves. Please loose your purse strings and have government pay for the ride home in isolated transportation.

you already saved money be not putting them in facilities for 14 days so you can give them a private bus ride, wont' you..................

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Successful? Except for the 20% of passengers that contracted the virus while under quarantine, of course.

You mean the passangers that became positive on the tests and became symptomatic, you cannot say they adquired the virus after being on quarantine and that is an extremely important difference.

However, how about those government officials that got infected after getting on the ship? They may have already passed the virus around people on Japan's soil. Any words on how that can happen?

The officials were obviously not part of the quarantine, they had frequent contact with contaminated spaces and sick people during their work, they cannot do their work if they are isolated as the people in the quarantine are.

He did not say that the report was true. 2. He did not say that he withdrew his earlier criticism or that it was mistaken because of this new report. 3. He did not say that he had any faith in the NIID report. 4. He did not say that there was any real reassurance in the report. He merely describes it as reassuring.

well, he did not say that it was false, did not have faith on it, find it un-reassuring nor that he confirmed his criticism, if you want to put words in his mouth that he did not said the possibilities are endless.

he country where it all started, aside location: a military bio terror lab.

That is false, the pathogen is a natural as rain and exactly as experts predicted from decades ago. The full genetic sequence is known and there is nothing suspicious or artificial about it, there is simply no need for humans to do what nature has always done without problems.

So far around 20% passengers on the ship get infected and the count is still going , if this is called a success then what is failure?

A quarantine is not meant to magically cure patients infected before it was put in practice, or "quarantined" with people that were infected but asymptomatic. A failure would be that a person isolated had the same chances of being infected as if he was roaming free.

-5 ( +10 / -15 )

Data is not peer reviewed and they included less than a third of cases in analysis.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Sorry, these just seems like the government is in a rush to put out something to make themselves look right in the wake of the video by out by another doctor yesterday.

yes, it's all just fake news when you don't believe in something anymore these days. it's better to believe in conspiracy theories and preconceived negative views of the japanese gov't.  nothing new here.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Data is not peer reviewed and they included less than a third of cases in analysis.

Data is not supposed to be peer reviewed, nor field briefings, you are thinking of a full manuscript. The only parts of the report that would benefit from peer review are the conclusions (preliminary here) and the statistical methods used. What are your criticisms about them?

The analysis include all cases where the information being analyzed is available, since those cases are the most pertinent to the quarantine efficacy it is still adequate, the only part of the conclusions dealing with what happened before the quarantine is the degree of transmission before initiating it, and for that the basis is the analysis of febrile cases report on the clinic, which is the best source of information available until serologic tests are developed.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Government cover up.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Newly released data from a Japanese research institute

Stopped reading right there.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

If you read Japanese

https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/gaku-hashimoto_jp_5e4e1c0ec5b6a8bbccb8b038?fbclid=IwAR2K3XiGfPXsovdNXS65Djxo_KVj54LvPji8-L7Tz-U24dCLw_qqFYujs4w

Good strategy there. Jesus.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Anybody believing this SUDDEN data release...…..well I have got some earthquake & tsunami proof coastal land for sale for you!!!

Once again Japan's extremely poor handling has left it inept & now looking to BS its way out a a really poorly handled ""quarantine""

0 ( +7 / -7 )

So a govt agency releases data that are favorable to the govt facing a crisis of confidence...

Yep, Abe Inc has a flawless record when it comes to handling data doesn,t it?

No doctoring , omissions and selective info release by the bureaucrats at all ,ne...fool me once...

2 ( +10 / -8 )

The NIID is Japan's top research institute of infectious diseases

And the funding is from ?

The Japanese taxpayer

and the

CDC

and the funding is from??????????

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Political cover from getting lambasted by the public for lack of preparedness. To my knowledge, Japan doesn’t have an equivalent of a CDC to manage infectious diseases. This questions the government’s credibility and accountability on preventing an outbreak. Again another example of reactive versus proactive countermeasures.

If the government wanted to seem more credible, they should have an equivalent of a CDC and/or a surgeon general who can coordinate with ”trained boots on the ground” healthcare professionals (who could provide a more ”real picture” of what’s going on). It’s hard to believe a minister who is NOT trained in medicine briefing the public about health issues that should be left to the doctors.

Was a cost-benefit analysis at a minimum considered to the threat to public health? An interesting point on quarantine procedures in terms of duration is based on the last potential exposure to infection. If the conditions were as bad as reported and people weren't following strict protocols after testing, who ones the the number of cases that were released into the public.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The ship was in locked to protect Japan from the Ship. The US and every other would have done the same thing.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

The article seems extremely biased with no opposing opinion.

However, Mr Alan Steele,

a UK passenger described the experience as,

The quarantine process was a joke. The quarantine people and the crew actually spread it. They exacerbated the problem.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

So far around 20% passengers on the ship get infected and the count is still going , if this is called a success

How people from the ship infected people in Japan? That is success.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

it's better to believe in conspiracy theories and preconceived negative views of the japanese gov't. nothing new here.

Those "preconceived views " are well founded, based on a long history of selective information release at best and outright lies at worst on part of the J-govt.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Ignorance and arrogance are dangerous mix.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

First, force the removal of negative reports by a professor. Next, use the government funded agency to act as Abe’s propaganda machine. Straight from lesson 101 in Communism.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

the new information, even the reassurance from Iwata, have no effect on people's thinking. it's very clear where the problem lies.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

NEWS FLASH!

Government agency releases data supporting the government.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

and it's actually not newly released information. it's posted on the NIID website and updated as new data comes in. but i sincerely doubt more than a few on this thread has the capacity to understand it.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

zettaiEngineerToday  07:22 am JST

There were no infection containment procedures on board the ship when Iwata made his observations. Authorities chose to confine those aboard as if a leper colony or POWs in a state run experiment.

Authorities chose to isolate the entire ship in quarantine, thereby placing a priority on some 127 million people over 3700. That's how quarantines work.

The quarantine of specific passengers and crew onboard was insufficient and lacking. But the ship was neither prepared nor equipped to handle an outbreak on this scale.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

@virusrex

Do you know what a quarantine means?

No, but to the Japanese authorities:

quarantine = eventual infection of everybody under quarantine. That's what the data was telling the authorities, each and every day test results came back. It never sank in until over 500 was tested positive, from one original carrier of the virus. Each and every day, the authorities also ignored the data and only tested a maximum of 300 (maximum...).

Note: there exist a sound protocol for cruiseship, the Italian authorities tested and sent passengers on theur way. 0 infection.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Still waiting for the alternative solution to ship quarantine...

Where would YOU have sent them? 3600 people?

How would you get them there?

Which facility? Hotel? Which law would you use to force hotels to cancel bookings?

And finally what would the difference be between a hotel and a cruise ship.. (a hotel on the sea)

1 ( +7 / -6 )

@virusrex

you cannot say they adquired the virus after being on quarantine and that is an extremely important difference.

Yes it is very important. So why didn't the authority test everybody on board 'before' confining them to that ship? For the two who died, it meant the difference between lufe and death based on a 'hunch'.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

I certainly did not see any data in the article that supported anything at all.

Anyway, you don't quarantine people over a cold virus. That's something PRC does. I wish people would stop begging government to have more power over a cold virus. If you want a government that can lock you up over a cold virus (or whatever it deems an emergency next) there are places you can move for that.

The virus cannot be and was not stopped. We can see people calling themselves scientists who cannot even keep such things in the lab.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The alternative to quarantine on the boat was...?

Split them up into the smallest groups possible, perhaps 100 ea and quarantine each group, separately, elsewhere for 14 days. Release everyone in groups with no signs of the virus.

In the groups with any sick people after that period, break them up into smaller groups, separately, and quarantine another 14 days. Release everyone in groups with no signs of the virus.

Keep splitting, quarantining and releasing groups.

Or

Have a big party with everyone, ensure they all interact enough to be exposed, quarantine them all, but let them mix as much as they like. The people who get sick, even just a little and recover can be released 2 days after they are better. Suggest that people over 75 or with health issues avoid the party, but expect to be quarantined longer. Most of the passengers would have left after being sick, making quarantining the remaining few easier.

You asked for options.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Australia just found two more with the virus after releasing them from the plague ship. They had been cleared before leaving. So the release of Japanese nationals into the population might have been a little premature.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

@virusrex

A failure would be that a person isolated had the same chances of being infected as if he was roaming free.

Then it's a massive failure based on the data, whether absolute or comparative.

Time for a lot of people to bow deeply.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

The JP agencies can spin this outbreak all manner they want,  numbers don't lie : 542 infected out of 3711 is 15% infection rate - That is the highest rate of infection ever recorded, more than double from what Time reported of (6%)  6 days ago. : https://time.com/5783451/covid-19-princess-diamond-cruise-ship/ . They failed to contain the virus in and out of that ship, how is that a success?

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

It's a government agency: https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/

A.K.A. taxpayers!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

No, but to the Japanese authorities:

quarantine = eventual infection of everybody under quarantine. That's what the data was telling the authorities, each and every day test results came back. It never sank in until over 500 was tested positive, from one original carrier of the virus. Each and every day, the authorities also ignored the data and only tested a maximum of 300 (maximum...).

Note: there exist a sound protocol for cruiseship, the Italian authorities tested and sent passengers on theur way. 0 infection.

That explain your complete misunderstanding.

A quarantine do not magically make infected people stop being infected, if a lot of people were exposed to the virus before being quarantined they will end up becoming positive on the test and develop symptoms, even if they are in an isolated island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

The disease incubates for up to 2 weeks, so even in perfect isolation you will have more and more cases until you run out of those people that were actually infected (but not symptomatic or positive on the test).

So, if the people under quarantine were already infected that means you will get new detected cases without that meaning the quarantine was compromised.

Neither is the case where you get cases from people that are obviously not quarantined (such as health or cruise personnel)

There is absolutely no protocol for a quarantine in any environment that can prevent people that were already infected from developing symptoms and becoming positive on the tests, that is not the purpose of a quarantine.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

The officials were obviously not part of the quarantine, they had frequent contact with contaminated spaces and sick people during their work, they cannot do their work if they are isolated as the people in the quarantine are.

[...]

A failure would be that a person isolated had the same chances of being infected as if he was roaming free.

[...]

Neither is the case where you get cases from people that are obviously not quarantined (such as health or cruise personnel)

If I sum it up correctly : their only concern was the paying passengers. They did not give a crap about the crew. Them and the official were put at risk without a care in the world because well, they had to do their work and them being infected is no problem. (and crew bashing is on its way).

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@virusrex

A quarantine do not magically make infected people stop being infected, if a lot of people were exposed to the virus before being quarantined they will end up becoming positive on the test and develop symptoms, even if they are in an isolated island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

I never said this ^.

Read what I posted, I merely stated the facts. Tell me which part is disputable.

The disease incubates for up to 2 weeks, so even in perfect isolation you will have more and more cases until you run out of those people that were actually infected (but not symptomatic or positive on the test).

So, if the people under quarantine were already infected that means you will get new detected cases without that meaning the quarantine was compromised.

Neither is the case where you get cases from people that are obviously not quarantined (such as health or cruise personnel)

There is absolutely no protocol for a quarantine in any environment that can prevent people that were already infected from developing symptoms and becoming positive on the tests, that is not the purpose of a quarantine.

All this just sounds like yoy're making up ridiculous hypotheticals just to dig your way out of a poorly contrived narrative.

It's very simple. Could the authorities done anything else? Yes, test everybody, at least it 'could' mean the difference between life and death for some. My biggest gripe is, they saw the data everyday, for weeks, and still change nothing.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

I posted this link yesterday, as well. It's the NIID's data referred to here, and what Dr. Iwata appears to have seen after his first videos.

https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e.html

6 ( +8 / -2 )

"2 new cases in Australia, passengers of the Diamond Princess cruise ship".- Oops,is this true?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Now, I’ve been usually quite defensive of what the Japanese government has been doing as of late, particularly of improving labor laws. But I have to say, even I am decrying this new “study” that they put out. And for the doctor to take down the video criticizing the way that it was handled, I immediately called BS on that one.

it was such a shame, because the act of quarantining people, is something that I clearly support. I mean you don’t want people who are infected going around spreading the disease any further. But apparently, they didn’t handle the quarantine itself very well. Which like I said, is really a shame.

Well, let’s just hope that the effects of this are short term, except for the lessons learned, which definitely need to be long term.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

If I sum it up correctly : their only concern was the paying passengers. They did not give a crap about the crew.

For that you would have to ask the crew, were there available space to quarantine them? was it feasible to bring health specialist to fulfill all their duties? did the crew that was infected recieve medical treatment? what else could have been realistically possible to do?

Not being able to do everything is very different from not doing anything, at this point the information released includes patients from both the passengers and crew.

Now you're making stuffs up. I never said this ^.

Directly not, but that is the only possible explanation for your mistaken belief that people were still getting infected during quarantine. What else did you thought would happen with the infected people after being put on quarantine, you either understand they would eventually become positive and symptomatic or that they would not just because they were put on quarantine.

Tell me which part is disputable.

Specfically this part that I included in my previous quote

quarantine = eventual infection of everybody under quarantine

Having people developing symptoms during quarantine is NOT the same to being infected during quarantine, your expectation that all new cases are from people being actively infected during the quarantine is mistaken, false because of the reasons that I already explained.

All this just sounds like yoy're making up ridiculous hypotheticals just to dig your way out of a poorly contrived narrative.

They seem ridiculous because as you accepted you have no idea what is a quarantine. It is how it works and what is expected to happen when done to a population heavily exposed to an infectious agent.

It's very simple. Could the authorities done anything else? Yes, test everybody, at least it 'could' mean the difference between life and death for some. My biggest gripe is, they saw the data everyday, for weeks, and still change nothing.

one, people do not become positive to the test immediately after being infected, that is also a mistaken belief you have.

two, the goverment could NOT teste everybody, the appropriate places and professionals that can perform the test so it have the adequate sensitivity and specificity are very limited, there is no point in running test in an environment where you put in risk the population or where the results are meaningless, that is why a limited number of test are being done every day.

This belief that thousands and thousands of tests could be done immediately is also a mistaken belief you have.

10 ( +17 / -7 )

the act of quarantining people, is something that I clearly support. I mean you don’t want people who are infected going around spreading the disease any further. But apparently, they didn’t handle the quarantine itself very well.

+1, this ^ is the gist of it for me too. Going by the doctor's comments, I read it as they didn't follow quarantine protocols at all (chaotic), no complete testing at the start, looks like no testing at the end either...

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

@changamangaliay

So far around 20% passengers on the ship get infected and the count is still going , if this is called a success then what is failure

20% of Greater Tokyo. That's what.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Shouldn't the woman on the left also be wearing gloves?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

+1, this ^ is the gist of it for me too. Going by the doctor's comments, I read it as they didn't follow quarantine protocols at all (chaotic), no complete testing at the start, looks like no testing at the end either...

How do you explain then that the number of new symptomatic cases decreased as expected from a functioning quarantine? People were not quarantined but the disease spread stopped as if they were?

Again, "new" cases that were infected from the beginning, or "quarantined" with positive cases are what is expected from this approach.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

https://twitter.com/JadeMacmillan1/status/1230640604708622342

There you go !

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The number of infected do not back up the assertion that it was a success. While Quarantine is the best defense it was not done correctly in this case which allowed more people to become infected. I would call it a failure for those onboard.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

Virusex is clearly the one person on this site who has a clue of what they're talking.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

The number of infected do not back up the assertion that it was a success. While Quarantine is the best defense it was not done correctly in this case which allowed more people to become infected. I would call it a failure for those onboard.

How can you say that people were being infected while quarantined?

The data makes it clear people were infected from the beginning or by being in close contact with an infected person (thus not actually quarantined).

What did you expect would happen with the hundreds of people exposed but not yet symptomatic?

9 ( +16 / -7 )

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/21/coronavirus-two-australians-evacuated-from-diamond-princess-test-positive-in-darwin

reports coming in now.

The Japanese media is conveniently ignoring this.

More and more countries should report in later. Wondering how Japan government plan to spin this? Block internet and mass arrests?

-9 ( +9 / -18 )

i admire your patience and efforts @virusrex. i believe you know that the one you are replying to cannot understand but you explain everything thoroughly for the benefit of the rest of us

8 ( +16 / -8 )

The data makes it clear people were infected from the beginning or by being in close contact with an infected person (thus not actually quarantined).

What did you expect would happen with the hundreds of people exposed but not yet symptomatic?

When the quarantine was started, they would have all magically been healed of course. Then they got re-infected.

That's logical right?

11 ( +16 / -5 )

Time will tell.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

The protocols for separating passengers on the ship were not adequate and led to more infection ie a failure.

Patients released from the ship have been found to be still infected ie another failure.

The quarantine is a failure as disease was not contained.

And furthermore,

There have been cases of infection all over Japan which have been ‘brushed aside’

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

Japanese data on cruise ship coronavirus infections backs quarantine strategy

Where is the data backing up the title?

5 ( +12 / -7 )

the only truth here is in the comments but not all of them. I see already manufactured posters trying to support this sham of a quarantine. it was a joke from the start. No organized supervision just free chaos aboard and the government testing a tiny portion when everyone on the ship needed to be tested immediately and then removed to a secure facility at the expense of the cruise line which is responsible for events aboard their ships. Simple and workable. Was it done? no

the result was a huge incubator for the virus which is now being distributed to the world becaues NO one has the foresight and courage to quareantine everyone who may be infected NOW so we will have to deal with milliions instead of thousands.

it is going to be a tough time. I am not sure theJapanese Government could have stopped it. Few governments have the strength to do it. the UN should have tried.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

How do you explain then that the number of new symptomatic cases decreased as expected from a functioning quarantine? People were not quarantined but the disease spread stopped as if they were?

Without full testing to begin with, the data on rate of infections is completely unreliable.

The only useful data is how many were tested positive, and it says no of infected doubling every day (exponentially).

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

The protocols for separating passengers on the ship were not adequate and led to more infection ie a failure.

What are you basing this on? It wasn't written in the article. What qualified person who has reviewed the facts of the quarantine came to the above conclusion?

1 ( +11 / -10 )

blahblah222Today  10:45 am JST

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/21/coronavirus-two-australians-evacuated-from-diamond-princess-test-positive-in-darwin

reports coming in now.

The Japanese media is conveniently ignoring this.

More and more countries should report in later. Wondering how Japan government plan to spin this? Block internet and mass arrests?

How is this the fact that 2 Australians who tested negative, chose to be evacuated by the Australian government, now showing up testing positive in Australia any responsibility of the Japanese government? What is there to spin?

6 ( +14 / -8 )

@Strangerland

I am basing my opinion on there being,at least a 20% rate or above of infected people.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

No organized supervision just free chaos aboard

Nothing I've read has said either of these things? Where are you getting this information?

everyone on the ship needed to be tested immediately

To what end - people early in the incubation would not test positive.

It's a failure because the authorities acted without full data.

So they should have waited until they knew everything until they acted? Does that include until they knew the cure?

7 ( +14 / -7 )

NYT article adds some missing information to this account:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/world/asia/japan-coronavirus-clusters.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

4 ( +4 / -0 )

2 people died and 634 are now currently infected, and counting.

And you're claiming all of these happened after quarantine. So how did the first person on the ship get it in the first place?

7 ( +14 / -7 )

I am basing my opinion on there being,at least a 20% rate or above of infected people.

Ah, so you weren't there, don't know how things were run, and clearly are not an expert, yet you know better than the experts.

Seems legit. Carry on.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

GWToday  08:43 am JST

Anybody believing this SUDDEN data release

It's not sudden. I posted a link to it on JT yesterday. Have any of you besides VirusRex actually read the Field Briefing or looked at the data?

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Without full testing to begin with, the data on rate of infections is completely unreliable.

Scientists say otherwise, but I'm sure you know better than them. Please tell us, what are your qualifications to be better at evaluating this than the people who were actually there? Specifically, how do your qualifications outrank theirs to the degree that without even knowing the specifics of how things were run, you know better than they do?

8 ( +13 / -5 )

What are you basing this on? It wasn't written in the article. What qualified person who has reviewed the facts of the quarantine came to the above conclusion?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/scientist-decries-completely-chaotic-conditions-cruise-ship-japan-quarantined-after

"In his video, Iwata painted a disturbing picture of conditions on the Diamond Princess. “The cruise ship was completely inadequate in terms of infection control,” he said. There was no distinction between infection-free “green zones” and potentially contaminated “red zones,” Iwata said, and people were coming and going between the zones with and without personal protection equipment, eating lunch and handling smartphones with their protective gloves on. The lack of zone separation extended to the ship’s medical center and even to the medical officer. “She was saying that she was already infected; she was giving up protecting herself.” "

Now that the NIID report has said many people were 'already' infected. What does that say about the authorities confining everyone on the same ship. Surely if the data says infected were present (from day one), and doubling every day, why keep everybody mixed up?

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

freedom-of-speech

Where is the data backing up the title?

Here it is:

https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e/9407-covid-dp-fe-01.html

As you will note, it is not sudden. It was published Feb 19th.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

To what end

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-health-and-safety/what-is-the-difference-between-isolation-and-quarantine/index.html

So you can decide whether to isolate or quarantine?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Without full testing to begin with, the data on rate of infections is completely unreliable.

The only useful data is how many were tested positive, and it says no of infected doubling every day (exponentially).

That is also another mistaken belief you have, morbidity rates are a perfectly valid rate to evaluate infections, we are not talking about a diseases that is usually asymptomatic, maybe not even rarely, so if your alternative is a number impossible to determine (because testing everybody is not possible) it is still a much better proxy.

The number of new cases is also not "doubling every day" as you say, 16,31,18,24,10,18,12,16,5,1,0,0 is completely different from an exponential growth (16,32,64,128,etc) why would you lie if the numbers are there to prove you wrong?

No body ignores the fact some could have been infected. But, all 634 of them?

From a cruise ship with thousands of people exposed heavily to a very easily transmitted pathogen? yes, it is completely possible, it is also much more likely than your assumption that all were infected in spite of the quarantine instead of before. 

Just look at the number of new cases in land originated from a single business meeting or a party, the pathogen is clearly very easy to transmit, so in what do you base your assumption that any significant amount of the cases were produced after the quarantine instead of before?

You just have to look at the curve of new cases, is it a peak with a diminishing distribution? that points clearly to infection before the quarantine, infections during it would lead to a plateau. 

Maybe the problem you have is that you think there was a perfect solution that could be at the same time realistically possible to implement and that would reduce the risk to an absolute 0, that is something on par with your beliefs that testing was easy and quick to do.

Now that the NIID report has said many people were 'already' infected. What does that say about the authorities confining everyone on the same ship. Surely if the data says infected were present (from day one), and doubling every day, why keep everybody mixed up?

Again, because there was no realistically possible option that would not increase the risk of exposure to a bigger population. The ship quarantine worked according to the data, specially because contrary to what you say the numbers were NOT doubling every day.

And no, not everybody was mixed up, that is incompatible with the data obtained, where new symptomatic cases decrease as expected from isolation (even if incomplete), once again the data contradicts your beliefs.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Yes, some Australians and Americans released from the Diamond Princess have arrived in quarantine areas back in their respective countries with coronavirus.

It appears they were cleared as negative upon leaving the ship.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

How is this the fact that 2 Australians who tested negative, chose to be evacuated by the Australian government, now showing up testing positive in Australia any responsibility of the Japanese government? What is there to spin?

https://japantoday.com/category/national/passengers-begin-leaving-after-ship's-virus-quarantine-ends

The timing. Australian did not cut japanese set quarantine period contrary to the US or Korea.

They took their people after the end of it and after they were tested negative thus free of japanese quarantine.

The minimum incubation time is 2 days. The people started showing symptom when landing in Darwin thus at most 1 day after being freed of japanese quarantine. So as for now, the information point in the direction of a contamination during the quarantine period on board.

The data makes it clear people were infected from the beginning or by being in close contact with an infected person (thus not actually quarantined).

So, we come again to the same stuff. You do not consider the crew as part of the quarantine. If this choice was made, they should just state it clearly. And state which measure were taken to reduce the risk of contamination on board for the non quarantined people and the explanation of why they were not successful (without free bashing the crew).

You can not go around saying people are wrong by considering the quarantine was a failure when it is stated everywhere that it concerned the 3711 person on board crew included.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Newly released data from a Japanese research institute appears to back the government's case that its quarantine strategy for the Diamond Princess cruise ship was successful

and where exactly is this data? How exactly did the publish results indicate a success?

I would argue that given the fact that most foreigners basically require another 14 day quarantine after they return to their home country would indicate that this quarantine was not needed. They should have just asked for the respective country to charter flights initially. But with that said, hindsight is 20/20 so I don't think its right or productive to blame the Japanese government, as the decision didn't seem that outrageous initially and there is limited information to work with.

Hopefully another case like this does not arise, and they use this "successful" example on what to do.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I am very surprised that this Japanese agency is so satisfied with their quarantine management...

AFP press agency just announced that 2 Australian passengers who were tested negative in Japan and been released , have been tested positive at their arrival in Australia...

Something wrong ???

0 ( +8 / -8 )

many people clearly thinks that ways to address the situation can be done instantaneously or in a very short time, they have not considered the logistics involved. 2 options were to quarantine people in the ship or turn the ship away. even in hindsight, what else could have been done?

5 ( +10 / -5 )

So as for now, the information point in the direction of a contamination during the quarantine period on board.

Yes, this indicates the quarantine was not 100% effective in preventing new cases, but that is different from saying it was a failure, in medicine as in the rest of biological sciences 100% efficiency is not a realistic goal, specially when you have to deal with many kinds of limitations. A realistic goal for example is to reduce the risk of propagating the epidemic to levels comparable from all other sources.

So, we come again to the same stuff. You do not consider the crew as part of the quarantine. If this choice was made, they should just state it clearly. And state which measure were taken to reduce the risk of contamination on board for the non quarantined people and the explanation of why they were not successful (without free bashing the crew).

For anybody that knows what a quarantine is it should be obvious that nobody that is in contact with other people (that could be infected) and with contaminated spaces is being quarantined (at least with respect with their individual case). It is perfectly fine to ask for explanations about what those exposed people were doing to reduce their risk, but not to say that their contagion reflect the efficacy of what is being done to the people that are actually being in quarantine.

You can not go around saying people are wrong by considering the quarantine was a failure when it is stated everywhere that it concerned the 3711 person on board crew included.

Yes of course it is valid to say it, if people want to arbitrarily consider a perfect efficacy including people that were not being isolated as the only possible result that would not be considered a "failure" they would be wrong. The objective is to isolate people and reduce as much as possible the presentation of new cases, the data makes very clear the case that the reduction is very important. This reduction also includes new cases on the crew, so to a certain degree they were also being protected.

Perfect results or complete failure is a false dichotomy.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

many people don't even understand what quarantine is and what it is for. "many passengers got infected during the quarantine! clearly, it was a failure! "

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Still no alternative suggestions to Ship quarantine?

Not letting the ship dock? Great! Just think that through....

I find that rather odd considering all the experts posting here.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

How is this the fact that 2 Australians who tested negative, chose to be evacuated by the Australian government, now showing up testing positive in Australia any responsibility of the Japanese government?

Don,t think he is saying they are responsibility of Japanese govt, he is implying ( correctly ) that the decision to let the Japanese who tested negative and were allowed to just catch taxis and go home, was wrong and we can expect that some of them will turn out to be infected hence spreading the virus in their communities. The spin will be taken into overdrive  once this starts happening.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Two elementary school students in Hokkaido have now been confirmed to have the virus. That scares me more than anything, to be honest.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yes, as long as it is a 1% success, you can call it a success.

So if 99% of the Japanese population died, and 1% survived, including all the ruling politicians of course, Japan government can claim success. Got it.

What data? Japanese government data cannot be trusted. Of course the Japanese government data will ALWAYS back whatever the Japanese government says. You are talking about a government which did not even admit that the virus can spread H2H as late as Jan. 24th press conference. This data will be proven to be doctored data/analysis within a month by independent foreign third party analysis.

Probably don't need to wait that long, all those people in quarantine in US, etc. will soon begin showing symptoms and testing positive.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Perfect results or complete failure is a false dichotomy.

That I never used.

For anybody that knows what a quarantine is it should be obvious that nobody that is in contact with other people (that could be infected) and with contaminated spaces is being quarantined (at least with respect with their individual case).

That just include all the people on board as they were in contact with the crew that could be infected (most of the crew was most likely part of the first or second circle of contamination from patient 0) (and potentially went through contaminated space when going in and out of their cabin - this one is based on the recent video).

It is perfectly fine to ask for explanations about what those exposed people were doing to reduce their risk.

Thanks for the paternizing, when I am it. I am not asking what they were doing but the procedure put in place to reduce the risk of the people on board to not be contaminated, that is not restricted to what they were doing to reduce their risk. And, is it also perfectly fine to ask for explanation about what was the procedure to reduce the risk of them contaminating the passenger (which according to your previous sentence were not quarantined).

You understand, that I already know the content of the data and understand it. Do not invent a stance I did not take, if that not too much of a bother to you.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

In an interview with NHK, the chief of the quarantine team working on the cruise ship stated that the crew of the cruise ship may have mistakenly handled the special mask ('very stuffy') called 'N95'.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20200218/k10012290711000.html

Field Briefing: Diamond Princess COVID-19 Cases | NIID

https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e/9407-covid-dp-fe-01.html

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Three new cases of coronavirus in Hokkaido today including two elementary school children under 10 years of age.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

There has never been a precedent set for such a crisis. It is so easy for others to criticize, but do they have a better alternative? The answer is no. I thought that it was handled quite well as they prevented infected individuals from passing along the virus to those in the country. Sure, it was unpleasant for those stuck on the ship, but I think they can understand the severe risks involved.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

marcelitoToday  01:05 pm JST

Don,t think he is saying they are responsibility of Japanese govt,

Yes he is. Otherwise why and what would the J-govt have to "spin"?

And he's not "implying" anything else. Read the post.

blahblah222Today  10:45 am JST

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/21/coronavirus-two-australians-evacuated-from-diamond-princess-test-positive-in-darwin

reports coming in now.

The Japanese media is conveniently ignoring this.

More and more countries should report in later. Wondering how Japan government plan to spin this? Block internet and mass arrests?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Yes, as long as it is a 1% success, you can call it a success.

The reduction of the trend of new cases is much higher than 1%, as anybody seeing the numbers can see.

What data? Japanese government data cannot be trusted. 

Then why are you having an opinion about it, for the rest of the people for which scientific data has value unless contradicted by better evidence this is a very positive development, what other source of information that is more reliable and as detailed can you use to say this data is wrong?

That I never used.

Of course you did,

You can not go around saying people are wrong by considering the quarantine was a failure

It is wrong to consider the quarantine a failure when it has demonstrated a very strong effect interrupting the spread of the epidemic aboard the ship, there only way this would not "be wrong" is by the false dichotomy of considering only perfect results the only non-failure.

That just include all the people on board as they were in contact with the crew that could be infected 

No, if that were true then there would be no single case of quarantine in history, if all humanely possible efforts are done to isolate a person from every known source of infection that person is considered to be quarantined, even if not inside an sterile plastic bubble.

The crew was not included in this category because there was still need to provide necessary services, but even then their rates of infection also went down with the rest of the people on board, showing that they were not just ignored.

 I am not asking what they were doing but the procedure put in place to reduce the risk of the people on board to not be contaminated, that is not restricted to what they were doing to reduce their risk.

A procedure is precisely "established or official way of doing something" or "a series of actions conducted in a certain order or manner" so you do are asking what was being done to reduce the risk, if you want to ask about things differently to what is being done you need to ask different questions.

My point is that asking is fine, but automatically assuming everything was wrong is just an illogical position, specially when it shows an extremely importan effect towards their goal.

You understand, that I already know the content of the data and understand it. Do not invent a stance I did not take, if that not too much of a bother to you.

If you understand the data why persist on making unjustified assumptions contrary to what was observed? Why ask questions if you are not going to give any value to the answers? There is no rational way to reconcilie thinking a procedure is a failure and understanding it largely accomplished its goal. You either failed to understand the meaning of the data or willingly are ignoring it for no logical reason.

In an interview with NHK, the chief of the quarantine team working on the cruise ship stated that the crew of the cruise ship may have mistakenly handled the special mask ('very stuffy') called 'N95'.

All personal protective equipment for biohazards is very difficult to use properly for an extended amount of time, proper training is long and consist mostly on identifying mistakes that everybody does without thinking, removing things on the incorrect order, touching things with and without gloves, etc. Trained professionals dedicated to work on outbreaks make mistakes, its only natural to expect that people with only elementary preparation on this kind of situations would make much more.

They of course would still have more protection than using nothing, but never to the degree obtained with a couple of days of training with someone shadowing them and correcting every little mistake as it happens.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

 Sure, it was unpleasant for those stuck on the ship, but I think they can understand the severe risks involved.

I think I was hoping the quarantine was for the people in the ship, that they may stop spreading the virus among themselves - whilst others believe the quarantine was for the rest of Japan - outside the ship.  Why are there two sets of people here?  Suffer the few for the sake of many?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Japan's government is becoming another China..tsk, tsk

Be honest and state you screwed up instead of covering up and or if you cannot do that say, nothing!!!!

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

The data which you are referring to is a carefully selected data of ~150 cases out of 600 confirmed cases, cut in a way to back the governments message.

It is in no way a scientific data, just a bunch of data analysts manipulating the data until they get the results they wanted. Would any clinical study be valid if 75% of the target population is removed from the final analysis???

NIID data is not reviewed by any independent 3rd party and cannot in any way or form prove this operation is successful. The people Japan released into the public will undoubtedly cause thousands of additional infections within a month. In this next 2 weeks time will more additional cases from people currently quarantined overseas will occur. I wonder if you will still back the government’s cover-up.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

The empirical fact is that the ship was not an isolation war but an incubator.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

morbidity rates are a perfectly valid rate to evaluate infections,

This is exactly what I said ^ to dispute your assertion that just because symptomatic cases appears to decrease (despite morbidity rate increasing) that sonehow the quarantine was effective, and there was no need to change tack.

The number of new cases is also not "doubling every day" as you say, 16,31,18,24,10,18,12,16,5,1,0,0 is completely different from an exponential growth (16,32,64,128,etc) why would you lie if the numbers are there to prove you wrong?

Ok, it's not doubling every day 'exactly'. It's actually more than double.

from 1 to 634 in 10 days. That's the official, tested data. Hate to think how much worse it is if more testing was done.

That is also another mistaken belief you have

You keep saying thism followed by making somethung up about what I haven't said. On this occasion, you basically repeated what I post, only to somehow claim it supports your narrative. I don't have to believe anything, I merely posted the official result, government numbers, AND disputed how they can be proud of this.

Anyway, If you think being on a cruise and be managed by Japanese authorities in such a way that after 10 days 20% of the population is infected, is effective, then you and I aren't on tge same page.

Note, without testing, we are none the wiser as to how the other 97 infected persons on dry land got infected either.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The data which you are referring to is a carefully selected data of ~150 cases out of 600 confirmed cases, cut in a way to back the governments message.

The data accounts for all the confirmed cases during the quarantine, with the limited data that can be obtained from the full population.

Presenting all the data that is available is not wrong, and its much better than presenting unconfirmed data from before the health experts were aboard.

What are the cuts and how are they biased? this is a very specific accusation so it need to be backed out by data to prove it. What information pertinent to the incidence while in quarantine was left out, specifically?

It is in no way a scientific data, just a bunch of data analysts manipulating the data until they get the results they wanted. Would any clinical study be valid if 75% of the target population is removed from the final analysis???

The target population in this case is the people in the ship at the time the health intervention began, all the population is included and the data also contains every new detected case during the whole period.

What are the manipulations? what effect do they have on the results? vague accusations without any evidence are not valid.

NIID data is not reviewed by any independent 3rd party and cannot in any way or form prove this operation is successful.

So you think more cases were detected and hidden so it would look better? There is absolutely no value on doing this if the cases were to appear two days later. It stretches the imagination that every single person on the NIID would choose to hide positive cases to make the government look better knowing they would be putting their families health on danger, as well as their professional reputation, specially when that lie cannot be sustained for longer than a few days. It would be the worst attempt of cover-up ever, done precisely by the people that know this has no meaning.

Also, if the data has not been reviewed by an independent 3rd party it cannot in any way be discarded as a proof that this operation is successful.

You don't want to believe the data? that is fine, but if you want to say the data is wrong you need evidence to prove it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

The quarantine was for both the people on the ship as well as the rest of Japan

and you think the ship passengers are happy?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

V : Perfect results or complete failure is a false dichotomy.

F : That I never used.

[...]

V : Of course you did,

F : You can not go around saying people are wrong by considering the quarantine was a failure

Where did I said it was a complete failure ? From the beginning, you are the one considering that a failure can only be complete.

F: That just include all the people on board as they were in contact with the crew that could be infected 

V : No,

I was replying to your word : you were the one which stated that nobody in contact with the people that could be infected is being quarantined, here :

For anybody that knows what a quarantine is it should be obvious that nobody that is in contact with other people (that could be infected) and with contaminated spaces is being quarantined (at least with respect with their individual case).

I never claimed that. And, I am still waiting for the government about if they considered the crew are part or not of the quarantine. If you made a mistake, you are free to correct yourself (I should not have to state the obvious).

A procedure is precisely "established or official way of doing something" or "a series of actions conducted in a certain order or manner"

As I was asking the government, I thought it was obvious I was asking about procedure and so on. Sorry, that it was not clear enough for you.

If you understand the data why persist on making unjustified assumptions contrary to what was observed?

What are my "unjustified assumptions contrary to what was observed" ?

Trained professionals dedicated to work on outbreaks make mistakes, its only natural to expect that people with only elementary preparation on this kind of situations would make much more.

Thanks for not bashing the crew.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Yes, this indicates the quarantine was not 100% effective in preventing new cases, but that is different from saying it was a failure,

How would you put it then?

From 1 infection to 634 in 10 days and counting.

vs the Italian cruise ship, no increase.

vs on land in Japan, for the period of the ship quarantine, where on land infection was not rising exponentially.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The empirical fact is that the ship was not an isolation war but an incubator.

And then the quarantine began.

This is exactly what I said ^ to dispute your assertion that just because symptomatic cases appears to decrease (despite morbidity rate increasing) that sonehow the quarantine was effective, and there was no need to change tack.

This belief is also mistaken, the morbidity rate cannot be increasing while symptomatic cases decrease by definition. Both things decreased.

Ok, it's not doubling every day 'exactly'. It's actually more than double.

That is false, doubling did not happen in most days, much less more than double.

from 1 to 634 in 10 days. That's the official, tested data. Hate to think how much worse it is if more testing was done.

That is also a lie. From the beginning of the quarantine to 10 days 151 cases appeared, a period that is perfectly coherent with the incubation of infections happening before the quarantine was put in order.

You are free to imagine any scenario you want, but there is simply no way for more testing to be done, so its just an exercise in futility.

I don't have to believe anything, I merely posted the official result, government numbers, AND disputed how they can be proud of this.

I already said, you don't have to believe anything, but you are choosing to do it, I am only clarifying the reasons why these beliefs of you are mistaken.

The figures you post do not mean what you think they mean, the thinks you wanted to be done are not possible to be done, your conclusions are based on erroneous beliefs that can be proven false. You persist on those mistakes even when corrected by your own free will, nobody has said you have to keep believing false things, just that you are doing it.

Anyway, If you think being on a cruise and be managed by Japanese authorities in such a way that after 10 days 20% of the population is infected, is effective, then you and I aren't on tge same page.

This belief of yours is mistaken, 20% of the ship population was not infected in 10 days, they were just detected as infected which is a completely different thing. Isolation cannot change the status of someone that has already been infected for several days. The health intervention is done so these already infected patients do not spread further the pathogen to non-infected people.

Note, without testing, we are none the wiser as to how the other 97 infected persons on dry land got infected either.

The general mechanism is well known and the same for most other respiratory viruses, testing have no role in this understanding, and once again, since testing is not possible in the general population it has no value to insist on how useful it could be. You can keep that argument for the next time a new BSL3 or BLS4 lab in Japan wants to be put in order and the people oppose it because "anything done there can just be brought from overseas" at that time you can remind people why it is very convenient to have lots of places to process emerging pathogen samples and it will be useful.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

VIrusRex,

I admire your patience. Keep up the good work.

https://xkcd.com/386/

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Where did I said it was a complete failure ? From the beginning, you are the one considering that a failure can only be complete.

It is wrong to call it a failure, complete or not, you are the one that gives any importance to the word "complete"

I was replying to your word : you were the one which stated that nobody in contact with the people that could be infected is being quarantined, here 

Common sense, absolute and complete isolation is obviously impossible, quarantined people are those whose contact with infected people was reduced as much as practically possible, the crew (and the health workers) are not included because their contact was not reduced as much as possible.

I never claimed that. And, I am still waiting for the government about if they considered the crew are part or not of the quarantine.

Yes, and that is why I am clarifying it to you, that wanted clarification about something that should be crystal clear.

What are my "unjustified assumptions contrary to what was observed" ?

That I cannot say that people that classify this as a failure are wrong, it is perfectly valid to call wrong the people that do that when the purposes are apparently being achieved at least in the most part. This assumption is wrong and contrary to what the data shows.

Thanks for not bashing the crew.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding that people trained to do very different things are not able to do what experts with years of experience and careful training sometimes also fail to do. The crew did not have those years and training, so why would anybody expect them to perform flawlessly?

If the crew was forced by the situation to assist as surgical nurses and caused contamination, would you consider it is "bashing" to say its understandable they could not perform as well as professionals?

saying people are not prepared to do something is the opposite of criticizing them for not doing it perfectly.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

don't see how they can be sure when it remains logistically impossible to test everyone on the ship inside the same time frames.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Says the government. Unfortunately we will never know as there is no 2nd chance and an open and honest debate is rather difficult

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japanese data always backs up Japanese strategy.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

you are the one that gives any importance to the word "complete"

Your word, not mine : you stated that I used the dichotomy that I did not use. Stop back tracking :

V : Perfect results or complete failure is a false dichotomy.

F : That I never used.

[...]

V : Of course you did,

F : You can not go around saying people are wrong by considering the quarantine was a failure

You are the one going all around being complete, total, perfect, ... and so on.

quarantined people are those whose contact with infected people was reduced as much as practically possible, the crew (and the health workers) are not included because their contact was not reduced as much as possible.

So you made a mistake in your previous statement. Is it so difficult to say ? (I will pass about the joking part of "reduced as much as possible").

Yes, and that is why I am clarifying it to you,

Are you the government ? If not, I will pass, you should be able to get why without me stating it.

This assumption is wrong and contrary to what the data shows. it is perfectly valid to call wrong the people that do that when the purposes are apparently being achieved at least in the most part.

What is "this assumption" ? That I consider the quarantine failed ?

Please link to the official statement at the start of the quarantine (and date as traceable) by an officially mandated person about the precise objectives of the quarantine. If not, we can go with the definition :

*"A quarantine is a restriction on the movement of people and goods which is intended to prevent the spread of disease or pests."* https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quarantine

You agreed that the quarantine was not 100% effective, you just want to sugarcoat it has not failing because what ? Do you think saying it failed is the same as saying it was totally ineffective. Why are you making a big deal out of it ? It failed so what ? It is not like government can not pop up some back up measures just in case the fail was big and not small to prevent further spread. They do not even have to say it failed, they did something wrong, or whatever they are imagining people are expecting they say. I am pretty sure people are expecting a big deal of sugar coat, that was planned from the beginning and/or stuff like that.

saying people are not prepared to do something is the opposite of criticizing them for not doing it perfectly.

So you did not bash the crew and I thanked you. What was unclear in my sentence ?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Your word, not mine : you stated that I used the dichotomy that I did not use. Stop back tracking :

Saying that is not valid to criticize those that qualify not a perfect success only as a failure is your false dichotomy, being complete or not is not the important point. You were the one that said being "complete" was why it does not apply, it is irrelevant to the point.

You are the one going all around being complete, total, perfect, ... and so on.

No, I am the one saying that it is not a failure, and that not being a perfect success is not an argument to call it a failure, you were the one that said it was not valid to criticize this (thus indirectly supporting the point that only a perfect success stops being a failure).

If you now accept that is wrong to call a failure an effort that actually had very positive effects that is fine.

So you made a mistake in your previous statement. Is it so difficult to say ? (I will pass about the joking part of "reduced as much as possible").

It is not a mistake to assume people have common sense and understand its impossible to avoid completely every kind of contact to an isolated person, you apparently did not understand that for the passengers this effort was done as much as possible while for the crew this was obviously not the case. You needed the clarification, other people usually don't.

Are you the government ? If not, I will pass,

That is your privileged, but so is my to keep doing it, after all this is not a private conversation and other people may have the same problem.

What is "this assumption" ? That I consider the quarantine failed ?

No, that is inappropriate to criticize the people that do consider it a failure, it is a perfectly valid critic based on data that definitely indicate this is far from a failure.

You agreed that the quarantine was not 100% effective, you just want to sugarcoat it has not failing

Your definition do not include 100% as the only successful result, that is a false dichotomy that you are introducing invalidly in your comment. it can be demonstrated that the quarantine actually diminished quite importantly the spreading of the disease, both for passengers and crew. So it is invalid to qualify it as a failure. It did apparently prevented the spread of the disease, so saying it failed is a mistake.

So you did not bash the crew and I thanked you. What was unclear in my sentence ?

I apologize, took it as sarcasm.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

How can you say that people were being infected while quarantined?

Because while they were Quarantined on the ship, the vessle is not designed to be used as such. Ventilation systems connect cabins allowing the infected to transmit to the cabins next to theirs. In addition it has been revealed that the virus remains active on surfaces for up to nine days. The passengers were allowed one hour periods of exercise every couple of days on a rotation basis. They used the same exercise areas which were not disinfected after each use allowing further breach of quarantine and a path for additional infections.

True quarantine conditions were not used and as such more people forced into close proximity with infected passengers guaranteed that more would catch the virus.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

in all my dealing with any kind of Japanese management, bureaucrats and directors here will never ever admit any fault... or take responsibility.. this is unthinkable for them .. they will fake anything until caught with direct evidence and then bow... havent you seen it enough here... why would it be any different...

That is why most international firms here employ foreigners, it aint for the english, it is because otherwise nobody would deal with them.

any gov reports here are absolute fake, that is a certain.

most people off that ship are infected.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

My question, has anyone heard or read if Princess Cruises Inc. was consulted/offered idea(s) or help, was in contact with the Japanese govt?

My Monday quarterback response would have been to demand Princess Cruises immediately send another empty ship with a skeleton crew loaded with infection/quarantine procedures and supplies while outfitting as much as possible along the journey to Yokohama, etc.

Invalid CSRF

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Japan is about as bad as CNN with Fake News. We all know the truth. The Infection Specialist already spilled the truth before he deleted his videos after severe pressure from "Someone". I am sure he will disappear just as the whistleblowwr Dr. did in China. Suddenly he will get the Coronavirus and die at a healthy young age. Is this Japan, China or North Korea?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

You were the one that said being "complete" was why it does not apply, it is irrelevant to the point.

Where ?

No, I am the one saying that it is not a failure, and that not being a perfect success is not an argument to call it a failure, you were the one that said it was not valid to criticize this

No, I didn't. I said :

You can not go around saying people are wrong by considering the quarantine was a failure when it is stated everywhere that it concerned the 3711 person on board crew included.

And I stand my point, as you are still falling to show any proof. You just try appeal to authority (which you do not have) and other nice stuff.

It is not a mistake to assume people have common sense and understand its impossible to avoid completely every kind of contact to an isolated person, you apparently did not understand that for the passengers this effort was done as much as possible while for the crew this was obviously not the case.

So I guess, you effectively can not assume making a mistake. Do not remember touching the subject of : if it was possible or not to "avoid completely every kind of contact to an isolated person". You were the one saying that these people were non quarantined. Once again :

For anybody that knows what a quarantine is it should be obvious that nobody that is in contact with other people (that could be infected) and with contaminated spaces is being quarantined (at least with respect with their individual case).

You even stated at some point that the person in close contact with a contaminated person was not quarantined.

Your definition do not include 100% as the only successful result, that is a false dichotomy that you are introducing invalidly in your comment.

Where ?

it can be demonstrated that the quarantine actually diminished quite importantly the spreading of the disease, both for passengers and crew. So it is invalid to qualify it as a failure. It did apparently prevented the spread of the disease, so saying it failed is a mistake.

Can you please provide the source requested earlier stating that the objective was to diminish the spread of the mistake.

"Diminish" is not synonym of "prevent".

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Where ?

here

Where did I said it was a complete failure ? From the beginning, you are the one considering that a failure can only be complete.

You were the only one to give any importance to the word.

And I stand my point, as you are still falling to show any proof. You just try appeal to authority

That is false, the data is the one that proves that the quarantine cannot be validly qualified as a failure, an appeal to authority would be to say the reason is because an authority says it so. You need to research your fallacies before trying to say a valid argument is one.

You even stated at some point that the person in close contact with a contaminated person was not quarantined.

Yes, that is the part where you demonstrate a lack of common sense, thinking that this applies even to the very limited, indirect contact that is inevitable to quarantined people, as opposed to the much greater degree of the people not included in the quarantine.

But then again, you keep making this mistake even after repeated clarifications, apparently only because is not the government the one doing these clarifications, so at this point its very clear who is the one that is unable to accept making mistakes.

Where ?

You really need to put more attention to what you write, it is there for anybody to read.

You agreed that the quarantine was not 100% effective, you just want to sugarcoat it has not failing

How else can this be interpreted if not a false dichotomy? according to you if something is not 100% effective then saying that is not failing means sugarcoating (as if these where the only two valid options, they are not).

Again, this requirement of being 100% effective was not included even in the definition you provided yourself.

Can you please provide the source requested earlier stating that the objective was to diminish the spread of the mistake.

"Diminish" is not synonym of "prevent".

Yes, It can be, but once again only for people that can use common sense and don't try to shield their mistaken opinions on pure semantics.

Vaccines are used to diminish/prevent the appearance of infections

Helmets diminish/prevent serious injuries to the head

etc. etc.

There are uncountable examples where both terms can be used as synonyms, that is because "prevent" do not necessarily includes the mean of "100%" or "perfectly" this is only the excuse you want so you can try to introduce the false dichotomy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You were the only one to give any importance to the word.

Your word, not mine. I am according importance to the fact that you change meaning of word.

V : Perfect results or complete failure is a false dichotomy.

F : That I never used.

[...]

V : Of course you did,

F : You can not go around saying people are wrong by considering the quarantine was a failure

I am still waiting for proof on this one. You can not prove that I said it was a complete failure because, I didn't say it (prior to this) ; you can not prove I used the dichotomy "perfect results or complete failure" because I didn't.

That is false, the data is the one that proves that the quarantine cannot be validly qualified as a failure

The data do not include the purpose of the quarantine, thus can not be regarded as a valid point to argue if there was failure or not.

don't try to shield their mistaken opinions on pure semantics

I am not, words have a meaning. You really do not get the difference of meaning is obviously for each and the implication too ?

Yes, It can be, but once again only for people that can use common sense and don't try to shield their mistaken opinions on pure semantics.

Does this mean no ?

And what is my mistaken opinion ?

How else can this be interpreted if not a false dichotomy? according to you if something is not 100% effective then saying that is not failing means sugarcoating (as if these where the only two valid options, they are not).

No, that is the fact that on several occurrence you posted sentence implying that the objective stated in the definition were not reached (I took the 1st one I came across). As you failed to provide the source needed to back up claim that the objective of this quarantine were different, I clearly stated that I used the definition as a premise.

What do you think the word "failure"&co mean ?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/failure#synonyms

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/failure

You look like you think failure amount to the same than complete failure.

Do you consider antonymy as the same as dichotomy ?

Lets put it simple : What do you think were the objective of the quarantine ? And do you think they were achieved ?

Me :

What do you think were the objective of the quarantine ? - prevent the spread of the disease (based on the definition)

Do you think they were achieved ? - no

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e/9407-covid-dp-fe-01.html

errr, am i reading the data correctly? of the 531 confirmed cases, 40 were crew, leaving 491 passengers, and they only know the onset dates of 111 of that group? And most of your conclusions were drawn from that group. Sounds a little fishy

Not to mention the protocol changed around half way through, no mention of how many were tested and their demographic and onset date... just happen to not know?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Your word, not mine. I am according importance to the fact that you change meaning of word

And I told you that it had no importance, you are the one insisting that it has, it does not.

you can not prove I used the dichotomy "perfect results or complete failure" because I didn't.

Again, the dichotomy is between 100% results or a failure (complete has no importance here) that I have already clarified for you several times, this false dichotomy you keep repeating and its wrong.

The data do not include the purpose of the quarantine, thus can not be regarded as a valid point to argue if there was failure or not.

For someone who base his sole defense on semantics you are quick to forget the definition of a quarantine, if the data supports the efficacy of a process by its definition definitely it can be used to prove it was not a failure.

I am not, words have a meaning. You really do not get the difference of meaning is obviously for each and the implication too ?

That IS grasping at straws with semantics, I proved to you that words that you tried to force into different meanings actually can be used as synonyms, yes words can have different meanings, that does not mean they HAVE to.

Does this mean no ?

And what is my mistaken opinion ?

As I told you, it means that yes, they can be used as synoyms

once again your mistaken opinion is to qualify as a failure something that accomplished a goal, by the definition of a goal.

No, that is the fact that on several occurrence you posted sentence implying that the objective stated in the definition were not reached

My point is that it was reached, the objective of this quarantine is still the same as in the definition, the one that says that this is different without proving it has been only you (because for you its objective is not to prevent, but to prevent to a 100%) that is mistaken.

You look like you think failure amount to the same than complete failure.

Since the only one giving importance to the word "complete" has been you, that is also a mistake, I have repeated several times that the word complete has no importance, and that the false dichotomy you are trying to use is between absolute/complete/100%/perfect results on one side and failure on the other. That is still invalid.

Me :

What do you think were the objective of the quarantine ? - prevent the spread of the disease (based on the definition)

Do you think they were achieved ? - no

My whole point is that yes, the objectives were achieved, therefore it cannot be validly be qualified as a failure, EVEN in the case the objectives are not reached to a perfect degree.

From where did you get the mistaken idea that I was thinking there were not achieved? specially since I have repeated frequently that they do? the straws you are grasping are running low.

errr, am i reading the data correctly? of the 531 confirmed cases, 40 were crew, leaving 491 passengers, and they only know the onset dates of 111 of that group? And most of your conclusions were drawn from that group. Sounds a little fishy

What is fishy about it? they have the information from the point they began collecting information, is not like they can have a time machine to go back in time to have specific data on the previous days.

Also, what kind of data on the days before the quarantine do you think have importance in respect with the effects of the quarantine? do having more or less cases before changes in any possible way the total number of detected patients on each of the days?

Not to mention the protocol changed around half way through, no mention of how many were tested and their demographic and onset date... just happen to not know?

The protocol did not change, that is a mistaken assumption, and again, the limited information they had before boarding the ship (the incidence of fevers) is included in the data very clearly, and none of the information that you want would have any importance above background for the total numbers of positive patients per day, which is the information that supports the positive effect of the quarantine.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The protocol did not change

Protocol as in the data collection protocol. As per the site,

Initially, only symptomatic cases and close contacts were being tested for COVID-19. This was changed on 11 February, due to the expansion of laboratory capacity, with quarantine officers systematically collecting respiratory specimens from all passengers by age group,

how they collect the data could impact the results, in this case it likely increased the ratio of symtomatic to asymtomatic cases in the results, which is roughly 50/50. But in reality this is likely unavoidable as they would of had to give priority to testing for those displaying symptoms.

What does "systematically" mean here? Was it evenly split between age group? Did they give priority to onset date similar to age group / symptom as they have been exposed for a longer time, but supposedly they only know 1/4 of the onset dates... There is no demographic of the tested population provided....

Sure, doesn't totally invalidate the results, but it does skew it.

What is fishy about it

Onset date (the date they boarded the ship) doesn't sound like something that can't be determined, or would be missing from over 75% of the possible population. Did they scrub the data for privacy purpose? Doesn't say so in the report.

If this is true, is less than 25% remaining reasonable? But this is literally the variable most of the conclusions are based on as far as "success" is concerned, so yes, i'd say that's fishy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

given that data collection protocol changed half way, doesn't provide the results by date tested positive either, only results based on onset date.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sure, doesn't totally invalidate the results, but it does skew it.

What ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic cases would affect the total number of positive cases per day? It is an expansion, not a replacement, so all symptomatic cases (most likely to be positive) are still getting tested.

Sure, doesn't totally invalidate the results, but it does skew it.

Skew in what way? how would the demographic of the tested population would affect the preliminary conclusion that the quarantine had a very important effect interrupting the spreading of the infection.

I mean, yes obviously all kinds of information would be nice and interesting to have, from simple viral titer to the full epidemiological analysis of the situation, but this is not a full manuscript and the authors were not trying to pass it as one. Its a field report with limited conclusions that are not skewed by this lack of data. And the article is focused in the decline of detected cases as expected from an effective quarantine.

None of the information that you are interested in changes these conclusions.

If this is true, is less than 25% remaining reasonable? But this is literally the variable most of the conclusions are based on as far as "success" is concerned, so yes, i'd say that's fishy.

Onset date is not data they can get for all passengers (and definetely is not the date they boarded the ship), fishy would be to have different standards (this group will be taken at their word about what they remember, this group by the ship records, this group left so nothing and this group by our records) by sticking to a single standard they can publish reliable information that they did collect, and more importantly that directly impact the effect of the quarantine. Previous records are obviously not complete and are given only as a background to give an idea of the situation in the ship before the quarantine.

Once again, having more data about the rest of the passengers does absolutely nothing to the number of patients becoming positive each day during the quarantine, which is the parameter used to say the quarantine was effective. The onset data before of the quarantine is NOT the variable for the conclusions, you can randomly assign a valid date to all the previously detected cases and it would not affect the limited conclusions of the report.

Your fixation to the data being to "only" 25% of the cases in not justified, that 25% is the population studied for this purpose (they are not making conclusions about the incubation times or severity correlated with the date of diagnosis for example) That 25% means each and every positive case detected under quarantine, so conclusions on the effect of the quarantine are perfectly valid.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If onset date is not the boarding date, then what is it?

I give up

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites