national

Study links Go To Travel campaign to increased COVID-19 symptoms

70 Comments
By Rocky Swift

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

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

70 Comments
Login to comment

There seems to be a distinct lack of the ability to discern the link between cause and effect in Japan-it is astounding!

35 ( +37 / -2 )

In literally every other country in the world, including every banana republic, people with these kinds of symptoms would be encouraged to get immediately tested. In Japan, the situation is better understood by internet surveys, instead of public health policies and responses.

Truly shameful.

Even so, the nation has weathered the pandemic better than most major economies, with more than 165,000 cases and 2,417 fatalities.

Yes, see above. But even with no testing, Japan is still worse than all its peers in East Asia. And Japan is the worst among all island-countries with a closed border.

34 ( +40 / -6 )

I guess there was some connections between the increase of patients and the GO-TO campaign but it is difficult to test and lock down 12 hundred million population Japan.

No need lockdown but also not to incentivize people using government money to move arround cities and prefecture that could increase infection.

30 ( +30 / -0 )

Some point of time, Japan needs tobcome out of the denial mode, stop window dressing the numbers and start testing people.

No...this is not the magical land which the virus has not affected "somehow".

If the government continues their economy first stuff, it's going to hurt their party in the long run... They should have realized this by now... But who controls them..and who is prompting them to keep numbers low, when their own people aren't buying their narrative?

Look at many other nations... They have come out of their lockdowns..and they also have huge numbers. But their markets are improving. If the jinxed Olympics is the only thing they want to save, then they are going too far for it, I am afraid, at their own cost.

19 ( +20 / -1 )

Nobody saw this coming.

/s

19 ( +22 / -3 )

Researchers in Japan found a higher incidence of COVID-19 symptoms among people who have participated in a domestic travel campaign promoted by the government, suggesting that it is contributing to a spread in the virus.

Huh? Researchers got paid for something that everyone knows? Dumbing down or what?

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Researchers in Japan found a higher incidence of COVID-19 symptoms among people who have participated in a domestic travel campaign promoted by the government, suggesting that it is contributing to a spread in the virus.

The findings will make dismal reading for Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who has defended the travel campaign, saying it was needed to stop many small businesses in the hospitality sector from going bust due to the lack of customers as a result of the virus scare.

Japan with its very very unique plan to combat coronavirus . Instead of for example extending unemployment benefits to part time workers as other countries have done, use precious public funding to subsidize the the very industry responsible for the initial spread of the virus. Bravo, and witness the results.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Researchers in Japan found a higher incidence of COVID-19 symptoms among people who have participated in a domestic travel campaign promoted by the government, suggesting that it is contributing to a spread in the virus.

And they needed a panel of “expert” to reach such conclusion that even a ten years old kid knows?

I wonder how many meetings did they need to get into this.

And then some fanboys wonder why Japan is seen by the west as weird.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Researchers in Japan found a higher incidence of COVID-19 symptoms among people who have participated in a domestic travel campaign promoted by the government, suggesting that it is contributing to a spread in the virus.

The findings will make dismal reading for Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who has defended the travel campaign

That's obvious the more mobility, the more infection you have. It's not about study at the end, it's about action will be taken or no.

"The subsidy program may be incentivizing those who had higher risks of COVID-19 transmission to travel, leading to larger cases of infections," according to the authors, who included researchers from the medical schools of the University of Tokyo and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

Small portion of those subsidy money can be useful for PCR test, This young professor died because of covid only being found that after he died.

https://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/165411

Medical center said he need a referral, while he suffering fever. This wouldn't happen if they got plenty PCR test and so medical professional wouldn't hesitate being afraid to test him, due limited PCR test kit.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

So, if I go travel on my own yen, and if I go travel in taxpayer yen, there will be a difference in my fever with statistical probability?

It sounds like utter hogwash.

No, it means that if you were a non-user you were less likely to have travelled in the first place and therefore less likely to have been infected.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

The best way to curb the spread of the coronavirus and help stop small businesses from going bankrupt is a total ban on domestic travel for a month and full compensation for businesses for lost sales. But the Suga government is reluctant to do that because they still believe in balancing the budget.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

They actually needed a team of researchers to make that connection...

9 ( +10 / -1 )

This news got in my country as well,and we know Japan is not an example to take.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

So how many of the 1.1% who (by the way, may not have had covid) should have made the travel without the goto scheme?

It's not only that the GoTO traveler may or may not have COVID, but that they spread the COVID around to other people who are not travelling. Is this such a difficult concept to understand?

5 ( +12 / -7 )

High fever was reported by 4.8% of users of the Go To Travel campaign compared with 3.7% for non-users, according to a preprint of a study that examined data from an internet survey of more than 25,000

A tabloid study. More than 50 million have joined GoTo Travel campaign since July. Of them about 25,000 voluntarily responded in the survey, of whom only 4.8 % reported high fever. The sample size is too tiny, non-randomized, insignificant, suffering serious misrepresenting bias. I would feel like throwing it away should I be asked to peer-review it.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Studies show you reap what you sow.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The problem is not the Campaign itself, the problem is the behavior of the people.

The problem is both, if the people are unable to behave responsibly there is no justification to complicate things even more with a campaign that rewards that behavior with something that will make it have bigger consequences. If you know people are not doing what they have to do to remain healthy that is a reason why you cannot put forward a measure that will increase spreading even more.

It makes no different if I travel from Shinagawa to Shibuya or Ginza, or from Tokyo to Osaka.

When the place you depart and where you arrive have different rates of incidence it definitely do so. Because increasing the movement inevitably causes the place with less cases to have more of them.

If you also increase the crowding in the transport and places being visited you are also increasing the probabilities of transmitting the infection. This is something well known already, even if you try very hard to ignore it it does not make it disappear.

As long as you continue with your best personal preventions, traveling is fine.

But since people are obviously not doing their best you are only writing precisely the reason why travel cannot be supported.

The campaign is not a good thing, because it is not like its the only way to support local economies, it is only preferable when you want big travel related companies to get their share. It wastes the huge amount of effort that was done to keep the situation controlled, precisely at a timing where other factors also increase the spreading, so in the long term it will hurt more than help the economy.

Don't help people traveling, directly support the business. People are not taking enough personal care to stop the spreading, so let them spread locally.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

Go figure. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Got to is promoting the pandemic and giving the false impression that Japan is safe from the CCP virus.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

the Suga government is reluctant to do that because they still believe in balancing the budget.

The Suga government doesn't believe in balancing the budget.

They spent 100 trillion last year on tax revenues of around 65 trillion.

This year they are spending about 160 trillion ? on revenues now expected to be around 55 trillion.

They don't believe in balancing the budget at all, but nor do the voters. It looks likely to be a massive failure of democracy at worst, or if we are fortunate merely a massive generational inequality.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I am traveling every other month for the last two years to and from a city in the metropolitan where total positives exceed 700 and a small city in Akita prefecture where total positive is only 70. I and my mother remain safe until now from COVID-19.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

That is correct, but that is also for traveling inside Tokyo.

And so for travelling inside the same ward, or the same block, etc. The narrower the geographic distribution the easier is to control it. It should be obvious that having 100 cases in one place is much better than having 100 places with one case each. Limiting travel as much as possible is good precisely because of that, and promoting travel is bad for the opposite reason.

But, Virusrex, people will travel anyway...if it is supported or not.

But will travel less if there is no support, and less traveling means less spreading, which is what is necessary right now. You just keep explaining why your position is not valid. Absolutely no travel is better than a little travel, and a little travel is still better than a lot of it. Whatever can be done to reduce it will help controlling the spreading, whatever is done to promote it will make things worse, for the public health in the short and long term and for the economy in the long term.

My opinion is, that as long as people are behaving well and doing their best personal preventions, traveling is no problem.

And since it became obvious that people are not behaving then there is no justification in promoting travel, thus the government should not be promoting travel, you just proved why your position is wrong.

And I am feeling more safe in a Shinkansen, than in the local morning train.

But you are increasing the risk to spread the infection, including to places where the health services infrastructure is much less able to absorbe any extra weight compared with Tokyo, are your feelings of safety more important of the health of the people you put at risk? both by riding and by trying to defend a measure that is obviously contributing to the problem.

Here I completely agree with you.

But we all know that this will not happen.

So instead of supporting a measure that will alleviate the problem without increasing risk you support a measure that objectively is increasing the risk? that is not a rational position, not doing nothing would still be better, because the problem would still be there, but at least it would not grow even more thanks to the counterproductive measure you try to support.

There are good measures, no measures and bad measures, why conform so easily into supporting the bad measures as if there was no other option available.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Conclusions were a surprise to a grand total of around half a dozen people in the whole country.

Huh? Researchers got paid for something that everyone knows? Dumbing down or what?

No, researchers are paid to prove even thing everyone think they know. There is a huge difference from something being expected, a logical conclusion, and something being proved with evidence. Having the scientific studies to prove something help when criticizing those that want to be in denial.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Ya think?!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Who could have predicted...?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Study links Go To Travel campaign to increased COVID-19 symptoms

surprise surprise

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The problem is the behavior of the people!

What you apparently have trouble understanding is that this problem is what makes the promotion of travel unacceptable.

You offer no solution to this problem, so you tacitly accept that promoting travel should not be done (since it depends so strongly on people doing what they are not doing), but then you break logic and still want the program to continue, without solving the problem that makes it wrong to do it.

If you want to solve the problem of a building being literally on fire right now you don't solve it by sending people to install water sprinklers right then, that would only increase the number of victims. If your solution depends on the situation being different from what actually is, then it is not a valid solution.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

What a mess the government has made screw the Olympics or maybe they are trying to take the burden off the national pension system...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Why disregard other illnesses that could be the cause of the symptoms? Flu, for one, is expected to be prevalent this time of year.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The campaign began long before the current wave, while the previous wave was subsiding. The wave clearly is seasonal. It is therefore still worthwhile promoting the maintenance of businesses which would otherwise suffer—poor livelihood will harm more than the virus.

However, the methodology used in this study, as others have noted, is not sound. Less than 1% increase in reported symptoms is not statistically relevant—no tests involved, no mention of peer review, and the text of this "study" which is quoted cannot be found when it is searched online except for the NYT.

The quoted conclusion, moreover, is not that the "study links" the campaign to infection, but that it "may" be incentivising higher risk individuals into travelling—these are not the same thing. The reporting here is pretty shoddy and essentially tabloid quality.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No link to the research paper

The author's names are absent from the article

No background information

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Study links Go To Travel campaign to increased COVID-19 symptoms

> Researchers in Japan found a higher incidence of COVID-19 symptoms among people who have participated in a domestic travel campaign promoted by the government, suggesting that it is contributing to a spread in the virus.

What is "No sh*t sherlock?"

I'll take "NO DUH a.k.a. Things everyone OUTSIDE of the Japanese Government knows already." for $1000, Alex.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It’s interesting to notice that this report only ‘suggests’ a link between the spike in infections and the Go To campaign. It could be proven with source tracing, but they have conveniently left this out so the J-Gov can dodge any bullets and disregard it as a coincidence.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Study links Go To Travel campaign to increased COVID-19 symptoms

Atarimae! They should've kept this an in-prefecture campaign to dissuade long distance travel from highly infected cities. This way hotel and restaurants would've seen increased business but by those that live nearby.

My prefecture went from 3 cases a week and half ago to over 100 today just after this stupid campaign brought a billion out of prefecture people to my town on Labor Day weekend.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@Nihonview

It's not a "so-called study" it's preliminary research carried out by two of the most respected tertiary institutes in the world.

Of course there is no mention of they were positive or not. That is in the study design. I'm not going to even bother explain why. If you don't understand that at face value you never will.

Don't use terms like statistical significance if you have no idea what they mean. Read the paper and look at the results. They were statistically significant. You obviously lack a working knowledge of scientific research and public health.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

All I can say is Govid campaign has proven successful in transmitting the illness to more and more people.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

PLEASE stop to travel.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No, it means that if you were a non-user you were less likely to have travelled in the first place and therefore less likely to have been infected.

I grant you that!

And that is the point.

Go To is a distraction. This should be about travel, and eating out, in general. Not Go To specifically.

A subsidy programme like Go To is stupid and wrong in the first place, but the true issue here is not the stupid subsidy programme, but whether people should be travelling and eating out at all, under the circumstances.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Because in my opinion GoToTravel is not only a bad measure.

And I have already explained to you why your opinion can easily be demonstrated as mistaken. Persevering in supporting an option full of troubles instead of others that don't have those negative points indicate that your interest is not in having a good measure, but the measure you like the most, even if its the worst.

If people behave well by doing their best preventions, The Virus will not spread more than without the GoTo Travel Campaign, and the small businesses will be supported

And if humans suddenly evolved to not have ACE2 receptors then the pandemic would be defeated overnight,

I mean, if your solution to justify a measure that is objectively worse than others is magical thinking then anything would be justified. In reality people are not doing everything possible, so it is not valid to defend a measure that should be put in order AFTER this very important condition is first met. Measures are justified or not according to what is happening in reality, not what you wish were happening.

Again, you are explaining repeatedly why nobody that is rational should be supporting the campaign.

In short, if people were not doing what they do then go to travel would be good,

but people are doing what they are doing, so go to travel is bad.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Korea Today: The country’s caseload is now at 39,432, including 556 deaths. The agency said 149 among 8,699 active patients were in serious or critical condition, a group that is being closely monitored amid concerns about a possible shortage in intensive-care beds.

Why doesn't Japan show active cases in stats to the public and among those the critical case numbers?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Nihonview

Ok I'll ignore the first point because your patently wrong.

In very basic terms, there is not enough data with regards to testing to give any kind of useful information. Regardless of that, in the middle of a pandemic, the people who are traveling are sicker. There is a causative link with the inference being related to covid.

Yes I did, here's the title. Association between participation in government subsidy program for domestic travel and symptoms indicative of covid-19 infection.

Thanks for asking, yes I do. I have a Master's of Public Health and I'm working as a registered dietitian here in Japan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

First point, the so called study has not been Peer reviewed, which means you take it with a grain of salt.

Of course, if you have any problems with the methodology that would be a reason, but it doesn't mean it has been done badly.

Second, " Researchers in Japan found a higher incidence of COVID-19 symptoms among people who have participated in a domestic travel campaign promoted by the government," but there is no mention if they tested positive for Covid 19

Because that is not the purpose of the study, to point towards increased transmission it is enough to demonstrate the difference of rates of symptoms, after all there is no reason why only other infections could be transmitted but only COVID-19 not following the pattern.

Third, "High fever was reported by 4.8% of users of the Go To Travel campaign compared with 3.7% for non-users, " Which means that 95.2% of users of the campaign reported no symptoms and the difference between the users group and non users is only 1.1%, not statistical significance from public policy point of view.

That makes no sense. The difference (between the groups) is actually close to 80%.

For example there are 230,000 cases of lung cancer in the US per year, for a total population of 330 million that means that only a 0.06% of the population gets this cancer.

out from 34 million smokers 184,000 get lung cancer on a given year. (0.5%)

out from 300 million non smokers 46,000 get lung cancer per year. (0.02%)

Since the difference is only 0.48% between those two groups, according to you smoking would have "no statistical significance from public policy point of view".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@i@n

Indeed. But COVID is in fashion now so there is nothing else but it. Those who don’t agree are wrong by default.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Kokomo: "The campaign began long before the current wave"

Yeah, and when it began, Go To was panned as "the GoTo (thievery) campaign", and fobbed off as a ridiculous thing to do because it would spread the disease. People shunned it. Then a few careless souls took part, and no immediate problems were reported to have resulted from that, so everyone jumped on the bandwagon. The Go To Campaign and subsequent cities/prefectures' own Go To campaigns (Go To Eat, etc.) led to absolutely ridiculous restaurant reservations and capacities that owners were on the air, being interviewed and saying they were at 120 - 200% NORMAL capacity in some cases, and had been far busier than pre-pandemic times. People here were FAR more concerned about not being able to stay at a 4-star hotel for a cheap price, or not getting their Go To Eat points and/or using coupons than they were catching/spreading the disease. The current peak is the result of those crammed tourist spots during the changing leaves, and people all around saying, "I'm worried about Corona, but tomorrow I'm going out to lunch with my mamatomo friends -- 11 of us -- in the city!". It is ABSOLUTELY the result of the Go To Campaign. The seasons DO play a part, but only because more people taking advantage of the campaign are spreading it indoors instead of being outdoors when it's warmer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To know that needed to get-study...OMG

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Mendokusai.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"It's not a "so-called study" it's preliminary research carried out by two of the most respected tertiary institutes in the world."

In other words, its not peered review and its not worth a grain of salt.

"Of course there is no mention of they were positive or not. That is in the study design. I'm not going to even bother explain why. If you don't understand that at face value you never will."

So they designed a study not knowing if the subjects were positive or not? If someone had a high fever in the study but was negative it invalidates the conclusion of the study, does it not?

Did you read the paper? Do you have a background in Stats or public health? You sing the ABC song for a living. LOL

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

First point, the so called study has not been Peer reviewed, which means you take it with a grain of salt.

There is nothing to peer review. This was a survey and not a study.

not statistical significance from public policy point of view.

Are you a statistician? My guess not, because if you were, you would know that this can be significant depending on the number of answers given.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What I want to know is how they found out it was covid19 symptoms and not other illnesses' symptoms.

Maybe they should have interviewed those who tested positive instead?

Or in this study maybe at least included in the questions if the traveller got sick with covid19.

Of course the issue of sampling raised above by @noriahojanen

is probably a bigger problem than this

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Another expensive study just to proof what we already knew?

That's quite some easy money made for those responsible!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Probably not but its simply NOT a major source of clusters or expansion. Well, yet anyway.

You have no information to make this assertion.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Virusrex

In short, if people were not doing what they do then go to travel would be good,

*but people are doing what they are doing**, so go to travel is bad*

You always confirm what I am saying:

The problem is the behavior of the people!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Virusrex, Sorry but I have to stop here...

My shift starts soon, so I have to go to work.

Thanks for discussion Man!

Stay safe|!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

surprisedpikachu.jpg

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Hogwash study. Having some symptoms without a positive test result does not mean you have it.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

13 hotels in the last 5 months using GoToTravel, and only came across one where I had to talk to the management about lack of plastic disposable gloves at the buffet drink counters. People were pushing buttons for coffee left and right.

Otherwise everything has been safe and great.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"evidence that proof dangerousness of travel campaign is nothing" that Suga says is equal to "no evidence that proof dangerousness of cigarette".

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

70 positive is the total figure for entire Akita prefecture and at my home town is it nill.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Zoroto.... yes it is easy to understand, and yes, as I said people using the Goto travel WILL add to the covid-19 cases.... BUT not by very much. That is the point.

Is Go to travel the best way to help the economy? Probably not but its simply NOT a major source of clusters or expansion. Well, yet anyway.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

why conform so easily into supporting the bad measures

Because in my opinion GoToTravel is not only a bad measure.

Go to travel is good:

If people behave well by doing their best preventions, The Virus will not spread more than without the GoTo Travel Campaign, and the small businesses will be supported.

Go to travel is bad:

If the people behave bad and they ignore the personal preventions, the Virus will spread more than without the campaign.

But both points are everywhere and in all daily situations the same.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

First point, the so called study has not been Peer reviewed, which means you take it with a grain of salt.

Second, " Researchers in Japan found a higher incidence of COVID-19 symptoms among people who have participated in a domestic travel campaign promoted by the government," but there is no mention if they tested positive for Covid 19

Third, "High fever was reported by 4.8% of users of the Go To Travel campaign compared with 3.7% for non-users, " Which means that 95.2% of users of the campaign reported no symptoms and the difference between the users group and non users is only 1.1%, not statistical significance from public policy point of view.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

If you also increase the crowding in the transport and places being visited you are also increasing the probabilities of transmitting the infection

That is correct, but that is also for traveling inside Tokyo.

Some trains are more crowded, some areas of Tokyo are more crowded...that's why I said it is the same if you travel in Tokyo and visit places like Ginza or Shibuya, or if you travel to Osaka and visit Dotonbori.

The probability to get infected in Ginza or Shibuya is much higher than in whatever p.e. Koenji.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

So how many of the 1.1% who (by the way, may not have had covid) should have made the travel without the goto scheme? It would seem obvious that travel and exposure to more people WILL increase cases but not by that much according to these results.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

A complete ban on domestic travel for a month and maximum refunds for companies for missed revenue is the perfect way to curb the spread of the coronavirus and help save small businesses from going bankrupt. But since they also believe in balancing the budget, the Suga government is hesitant to do so.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@vanityofvanities

I and my mother remain safe until now from COVID-19.

It is nice to hear that!

I guess you are doing your best personal prevention.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

But since people are obviously not doing their best

That is exactly what I said. You just confirmed it.

The problem is the people's behavior.

But, Virusrex, people will travel anyway...if it is supported or not.

Therefore in my upper post, I showed the examples from the US and Europe, where traveling is NOT supported and how the people behave.

My opinion is, that as long as people are behaving well and doing their best personal preventions, traveling is no problem.

And the probability to spread the Virus, this situation you have everyday in your daily life.

And I am feeling more safe in a Shinkansen, than in the local morning train.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

The problem is not the Campaign itself, the problem is the behavior of the people.

It makes no different if I travel from Shinagawa to Shibuya or Ginza, or from Tokyo to Osaka.

You can spread the Virus on both “travel” if you behave not in a correct way according the virus.

The problem is that during a free-time travel, the people lose their sensibility according their personal preventions. People want to have fun, so they don’t want to wear mask all the time, or wash hands every 10 minutes and use sanitizers. In tourist sightseeing spots they don’t want to keep social distance. Because that is no fun for a travel.

As long as you continue with your best personal preventions, traveling is fine.

People always compare Japan with other countries. How bad is Japan according other countries to handle the Virus.

But look what happened during Thanksgiving in the US!

Look now at Europe, Wintersport season starts. Everybody is going to travel.

Czech Republic was in a Lockdown a few days ago. What did the Czech Republic people do? They travel to Germany and made shopping there, because there was just a partly lockdown.

And 80% of these Czech travelers didn’t wear a mask.

And now in that area of Germany the cases increased.

My opinion:

The GoTo travel campaign is a good thing to help the small businesses to survive and keep peoples jobs and life existence. And travelers get support with money. No other country is doing that. For your thanksgiving travel or your wintersport travel you have to pay for your own.

The bad point for the GoTo Travel campaign is that the travelers lose their sensibility for personal preventions.

As long as you keep on with your best personal preventions, it makes no difference if I travel from Tokyo to Shibuya or Ginza and walk around there, or travel from Tokyo to Osaka and walk around there.

Without any personal prevention, the virus will spread, wherever I go or travel.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Don't help people traveling, directly support the business.

Here I completely agree with you.

But we all know that this will not happen.

The amount that Japan is paying for restaurants, bars and whatever is too small.

In my home country, the government is considering now to stop all the support for restaurants and hotels.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

I have been saying that over and over again since it started!!! And every time I say it, my posts get down voted, pathetic!

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

High fever was reported by 4.8% of users of the Go To Travel campaign compared with 3.7% for non-users,

What is this.

So, if I go travel on my own yen, and if I go travel in taxpayer yen, there will be a difference in my fever with statistical probability?

It sounds like utter hogwash.

-19 ( +7 / -26 )

I guess there was some connections between the increase of patients and the GO-TO campaign but it is difficult to test and lock down 12 hundred million population Japan.

-24 ( +5 / -29 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites