Voices
in
Japan

quote of the day

If I were absent from work due to side effects for two days, I would lose sales. If my job requires proof of vaccination, I would get inoculated, but I simply don't see any benefit in getting a dose.

24 Comments

A 23-year-old saleswoman working at a clothing shop in Osaka, who says she has not received a single dose of the coronavirus vaccine as she worries she would be forced to take a day off due to possible side effects.

© Asahi Shimbun

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

A 23-year-old saleswoman working at a clothing shop in Osaka, who says she has not received a single dose of the coronavirus vaccine as she worries she would be forced to take a day off due to possible side effects.

Disaster late stage capitalism on parade. Zero safety net for the working poor but businesses get bailouts as soon as their associations say they are struggling in a crisis.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Im so happy this guy is not a Doctor.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

If she's 23 there is practically no reason to get it

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

I wouldn't believe a single thing that comes from 'bitchute'.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Low resolution thinking from a country that struggles to explain situations, strategies, and main points in a simple and straightforward manner. They either do it too childishly with manga characters or the complete opposite with a barrage of over information poorly presented in monotones where the important points are hidden somewhere inside. ( these later sessions are when you get to nod off, and wake up when they are over, or daydream about what to have for lunch ) The education system unfortunately has much to answer for, and young people like this are the result.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

its everyones choice to check all available informations and weigh cons and pros.

this saleswoman did her choice.some other people may did other choice.

i see nothing bad on that since we live in free country when freedom is guaranteed by constitution.

pls correct me if i am wrong.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

100% on the choice factor Eastman, but you have to have the will and ability to navigate and make sense of the choice at hand for yourself. I suggest perhaps this young ladys reasons for not getting vaxxed didn't show a great understanding of the situation. She wasn't told to do it by anyone so she won't, and she is worried about having to have a day off after the jab rather than the week or so if she gets the virus never mind spreading it to customers and coworkers. Clothes sales mean talking in close proximity. Not at all into shaming anyone for their choices but after two years you'd think people would have a better understanding than this. You are right though, up to people.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

this saleswoman did her choice.some other people may did other choice.

i see nothing bad on that since we live in free country when freedom is guaranteed by constitution.

As if it is a choice to enter the labor force in these supposedly free countries with constitutionally mandated "freedoms ", which are what exactly? For an early 20 year old?

Maybe with the changes here the level of discourse could be elevated, or at least made more original?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And if she's unwittingly has Covid, but asymptomatic?

Gotta love fast fashion and unconscious consumption.

Duh!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If she's 23 there is practically no reason to get it

the opposite, there is practically no reason not to get it, 23yo healthy people have died from COVID, being vaccinated helps reduce this risk, it also makes it less likely she gets sick in the first place (and skip more than a couple of days because of that) and even reduces the risk of her spreading the disease to others, which is something important for anybody that has a conscience.

MRNA therapies are not trash, that's disrespectful to trash which has at least served some useful purpose in it's life cycle.

Sad you consider the countless lives saved by the vaccines as something that can be ignored, it is fortunate that most people (specially those involved in health care) think you are completely mistaken and the benefits of the vaccines something worth a lot of praise.

i see nothing bad on that since we live in free country when freedom is guaranteed by constitution.

Except that her choice puts her and those around her at a higher risk, so the consequences of her choice are not only for her, it is as wrong as choosing to drive even if the person feels quite sleepy.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Except that her choice puts her and those around her at a higher risk, so the consequences of her choice are not only for her, it is as wrong as choosing to drive even if the person feels quite sleepy.

Except in this case the "choice" is not really one, or an economic one.

For many "precariat" workers, this is a false dichotomy presented by late stage capitalism .

Those around her will not pay her rent nor put food on her table.

She is forced into making an egoistic choice by the oligarchic corporatist system.

Bad for her health and society, advantageous for the oligarchs.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If she gets covid she will need more than a day off

... regardless of whether she is vaccinated or not.

If she's 23 there is practically no reason to get it

That is especially true today with Omicron.

Except that her choice puts her and those around her at a higher risk, so the consequences of her choice are not only for her,

The vaccine does so little, if anything, to reduce infection or viral load. At most it will decrease her Covid19 symptoms.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

regardless of whether she is vaccinated or not.

According to the best available scientific data you are wrong in your beliefs. People are at a lower risk of being infected at all if vaccinated, and from the subgroup that get the infection even less get any symptom at all. This means that "regardless" is invalid. Being vaccinated lowers that risk.

That is especially true today with Omicron

Even with Omicron healthy young people die, which means this is still false. The risk from vaccines on the other hand are a tiny fraction which still means she have much more reasons to vaccinate than not.

The vaccine does so little, if anything, to reduce infection or viral load. At most it will decrease her Covid19 symptoms.

That is false and well debunked with scientific studies,

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.44.2100977

Over 60% reduction even against a variant for which the vaccine was not designed for is not "so little" but the opposite, which means your opinion can be demonstrated as false.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

If she gets covid she will need more than a day off

... regardless of whether she is vaccinated or not.

According to the best available scientific data you are wrong in your beliefs.

If I am wrong, then please inform Pfizer's CEO (about the infection) and Fauci (about the viral load), they seem not to be aware of your data...

and from the subgroup that get the infection even less get any symptom at all. This means that "regardless" is invalid.

Yes, I did say they (at most) reduce symptoms, but are you suggesting that if an infected person is asymptomatic, they will not need more than a day off from work?

You keep on referring to that same paper, of which I and others have already pointed out the serious faults...

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

virusrexToday  02:31 pm JST

According to the best available scientific data you are wrong in your beliefs. People are at a lower risk of being infected at all if vaccinated, and from the subgroup that get the infection even less get any symptom at all. This means that "regardless" is invalid. Being vaccinated lowers that risk.

Where is "the best available scientific data"? Just because you say something doesn't mean it is even scientific.

Even with Omicron healthy young people die, which means this is still false. The risk from vaccines on the other hand are a tiny fraction which still means she have much more reasons to vaccinate than not.

No, the healthy young people who die from Omicron are a tiny fraction. You have it backwards,

If I were absent from work due to side effects for two days, I would lose sales. If my job requires proof of vaccination, I would get inoculated, but I simply don't see any benefit in getting a dose.

Absolutely correct. It is this person's choice to what they deem best for themselves.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Where is "the best available scientific data"? Just because you say something doesn't mean it is even scientific.

Is there in the comment, read it until the end for a scientific refeence that prove it. Making empty criticisms that do not apply only make you look as uniformed.

No, the healthy young people who die from Omicron are a tiny fraction. You have it backwards,

That still means the comment is right because that is what is written, that young healthy people die from omicron, exactly as you said, it is not backwards unless you can provide a valid source that says vaccines are related to more hospitalizations and deaths than infections by omicron.

Do you have that reference? or is it once again something you just "know"?

Absolutely correct. It is this person's choice to what they deem best for themselves.

The criticism is not if this the person choice or not (it is not illegal) the problem is that is a decision that is not rational on the face of the evidence and that increases the risks for others as well as for her. She is not doing what is best for her, just what she mistakenly thinks is.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

If I am wrong, then please inform Pfizer's CEO (about the infection) and Fauci (about the viral load), they seem not to be aware of your data...

Both are well know examples of disinformation that antivaxxer groups like to promote, put an original source so it can be clear how the source do NOT support your mistaken interpretation of what is actually said, and definetely do not contradict the scientific evidence that proves you wrong.

Yes, I did say they (at most) reduce symptoms, but are you suggesting that if an infected person is asymptomatic, they will not need more than a day off from work?

It is not me but the scientific data that proves that people are much more likely to not develop symptoms when vaccinated, or even infected. which means she is at a higher risk of needing days off when unvaccinated.

You keep on referring to that same paper, of which I and others have already pointed out the serious faults.

The only fault you have "found" with that paper is that is disproved what you believed, that is not a criticism of the paper, just evidence that you try to ignore anything that you don't like and pretend it does not apply when it is perfectly valid.

Again, what are those "serious faults"?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Again, what are those "serious faults"?

Well, in the authors' own words:

"Differences in testing behaviour between contacts of vaccinated and unvaccinated index cases could bias our VET estimates."

"The current vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are likely to be different in multiple aspects, such as risk behaviour, willingness to test and adherence to quarantine."

"Furthermore, vaccinated and unvaccinated people were strongly clustered within households. This reduced the power of our analysis."

And other posters brought up additional problems with that study.

If I am wrong, then please inform Pfizer's CEO (about the infection) and Fauci (about the viral load), they seem not to be aware of your data...

Both are well know examples of disinformation that antivaxxer groups like to promote,

The Pfizer CEO did say on multiple occasions that the vaccines do little to prevent infection against Omicron and Fauci did say that vaccinated and unvaccinated have identical viral loads (against Delta). The first couple of times I brought them up, I provided the video links and exact quotes; I will not go searching for them again. I guess these two guys are not part of your consensus...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Currently it is not mandatory and it is a personal decision, and she so decided.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Well, in the authors' own words:

None of what you quote can be characterized as "serious faults" they are limitations and included in the statistical analysis and calculation of the intervals of confidence. Responsible and serious scientists have to list anything that could ever have any effect on their conclusions even if remote, because that is how science advances, but that do not make the study mistaken nor flawed as you misrepresent it, it makes it as precise as they could make it. The conclusions stand and are valid until disproven by bigger or better studies.

The Pfizer CEO did say on multiple occasions that the vaccines do little to prevent infection against Omicron and Fauci did say that vaccinated and unvaccinated have identical viral loads (against Delta).

This is not what "original source" means, you are just saying they said something, but several times in the past you have misrepresented what was told so that is why it is necessary to have it as they said it, not as you say they did.

For example, what data thid the CEO of pfizer referenced? without any data to substantiate a declaration there is no value as evidence. And before you tried to misrepresent what Fauci have said so it is likely the same false interpretation again.

Vaccinated people have lower rates of infection, that means the viral loads are lower in the vaccinated group even if this was the only effect, but vaccinated people have also lower rates of symptoms that require medical attention, and for shorter times.

This means that comparing the much greater group of infected and heavily symptomatic unvaccinated people with the much lower group of infected and heavily symptomatic vaccinated people you can find equivalent viral loads, but that do nothing to deny the fact that those that were not infected nor symptomatic thanks to the vaccines obviously have lower levels. So if you compare all the members of both groups the difference is obvious.

This is precisely what misrepresenting a source means, hiding information from the original so you can mislead people pretending something was said when in reality something completely different was.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

A selfish 23 y.o

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The scientific evidence, in peer-reviewed academic and professional journals states unequivocally: the Moderna & Pfizer vaccines and single booster shot are highly effective in preventing infection and spread of SARSCoV-2. A study in Switzerland among the entire population reveals a rate of hospitalization or need of medical treatment among those vaccinated and receiving the booster is: 0.014%.

An unvaccinated individual has a rate of spread three times those who are vaccinated.

One can read such in JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet among other journals. There are also professional journals in the field of virology and immunology.

Two examples:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787929

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01973-21

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