national

Tokyo reports 434 new coronavirus cases; nationwide tally 1,695

19 Comments

The Tokyo metropolitan government on Thursday reported 434 new cases of the coronavirus, down 57 from Wednesday.

The number (225 men and 209 women) is the result of 11,237 tests conducted on Feb 8.

The most number of cases were 79 people in their 20s, followed by 78 in their 30s, 64 in their 40s, 57 in their 50s, 37 in their 70s, 28 in their 60s and 27 in their 80s. Fifty cases were aged 20 or younger.

The number of infected people hospitalized with severe symptoms in Tokyo is 103, unchanged from Wednesday, health officials said. The nationwide figure is 713.

Nationwide, the number of reported cases was 1,695. After Tokyo, the prefectures with the most cases were Kanagawa (178), Saitama (172), Osaka (141), Chiba (127), Fukuoka (110), Hokkaido (920), Aichi (80), Hyogo (53), Ibaraki (47) and Ishikawa (25).

The number of coronavirus-related deaths reported nationwide was 78.

© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

I have no comment to make.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Wow... today's number is even more cynical than I predicted. Less than 3% positive after more than 30% positive the day before? I'd laugh if I wasn't crying.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Less than 3% positive after more than 30% positive the day before

It's this that doesn't make sense and, I'd guess, is one of the main reasons people don't trust the official numbers of positive cases reported each day.

The swing from 3% to 30%, and some days closer to 50% is just too high. That's when you notice that it's usually 50% of a really small number of tests, and then 3% of a really high number of tests. The day to day number of positive cases don't fluctuate so dramatically though - why is that? We are either on a slight upwards trend, or a slight downwards trend, but the day to day numbers are usually relatively close.

The fact that we never see an 'X' fold increase or decrease in positive cases on a day to day basis, yet we can see a ten fold increase in the % of positive cases quite regularly is highly suspicious. What are they saying - that on some days (50%) doctors are unbelievably accurate in their diagnosis, but on other days (3%) they are abject?

5 ( +10 / -5 )

The absurdly high positivity rate days are always weekends, particularly Sundays. I would assume this happens because most clinics are closed on Sundays and thus only the sickest are able to get tested anywhere, whereas during the week, people who wouldn’t have qualified to be tested on a Sunday do get tested. With this said, the number of tests performed daily is still a joke, but it would explain why Sundays are the outliers.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I would assume this happens because most clinics are closed on Sundays and thus only the sickest are able to get tested anywhere, whereas during the week, people who wouldn’t have qualified to be tested on a Sunday do get tested.

I understand that Sundays should have a lower overall number of tests than other days because fewer places are open, but this doesn't explain the fact that more often than not the overall number of positive cases ends up being extremely close to the previous days figure.

You can't just select the 500 sickest to test, because you don't know if the next patient is going to be sicker than the previous patient, or if the current patient is the sickest you'll see all day - yet the numbers always end up being close.

You'd expect Sundays numbers to be complete outliers in terms of both testing and positive cases.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

We reached the bottom of the curve. 400s in Tokyo and more than 1500s nationwide

0 ( +3 / -3 )

These results are too selective to believe they are accurate. They are only based on those with symptoms that attended public hospitals and clinics. They do not include those who attended private medical facilities. It’s all a big sham!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

All is well. Live with it.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Whether or not these numbers are accurate or not doesn't really matter. I think we all know they're not accurate. The real question in my mind... is the methodology by which they are calculated consistent? If the methodology is consistent, then by zooming out and looking at longer term trends we can see if things are improving or not. If the methodology is not consistent, then the numbers are about as significant as a roll of the dice.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

We reached the bottom of the curve. 

Yeah, the bottom of the testing curve.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Aaa think we all know they're not accurate. The real question in my mind... is the methodology by which they are calculated consistent?

I'd say yes.

The restrictions on pcr testing until now is the very indication of that.

Japan is following an action plan that according to a news item ive read before did not anticipate the need for large scale pcr testing.

But that they have a plan already in place for an anticipated pandemic is one reason Japan has done well as it did

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@i@n

I would tend to agree. Except for the recent move away from contact tracing, I think the methodology has been fairly consistent. While I do not believe the absolute numbers (vastly understated I believe), I have some degree of confidence in the trend.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Thankfully the beginning of the end of this nightmare is in sight and the Olympics will be held. Thank you Mr. Suga for your determined and earnest leadership.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I would tend to agree. Except for the recent move away from contact tracing, 

@Fuzzy

That can't be helped due to the exigency of the situation at the time it was implemented, they cannot handle the contact tracing load due to the great increase in case numbers so they had to concentrate on the most at risk groups to contact trace.

I dont know if that was what you meant also but they didnt stop contact tracing, merely concentrated on said vulnerable groups.

I expect that when case numbers decrease enough and they can again handle contact tracing for all cases they will do so

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ian

Let me make my position clear on this. In my statement above I am not commenting on how the J-gov has handled this situation (that is a whole different topic). I am only talking about the numbers we see printed each day and all the conjecture that comes with it. My only point (on this occasion) is that I think we can get some insight into the general trend based on these numbers, assuming of course there is some consistency in what is being counted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Read through your post but still, not quite clear on your position..it is somewhat @Fuzzy

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That's very clear to me @Fuzzy,

What i quoted from your post in my first post was specifically the question regarding that and i answered what i believe is true regarding consistency.

Cheers

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The swing from 3% to 30%, and some days closer to 50% is just too high. That's when you notice that it's usually 50% of a really small number of tests, and then 3% of a really high number of tests. The day to day number of positive cases don't fluctuate so dramatically though - why is that?

Because reported positive tests are not exactly the one from the tests done 3 days before, but 1 or 2 days before. Otherwise, it won't be any fluctuation. As simple as that.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Because reported positive tests are not exactly the one from the tests done 3 days before, but 1 or 2 days before. Otherwise, it won't be any fluctuation. As simple as that.

if you're right that implies two problems.

this article is lying to us.

the gov doesn't even know the date of the test data they are gathering.

I hope you're wrong.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

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