Voices
in
Japan

quote of the day

We need to create guidelines to prevent discrimination against people who can't be vaccinated against COVID-19 because of allergies or other reasons.

38 Comments

Vaccination policy chief Taro Kono

© Mainichi Shimbun

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

@virusrex - There may be an answer to your concern coming soon.

CBS news reported that on 60 minutes the Pentagon (DARPA actually) has revealed that they have developed an implantable microchip which can detect Covid-19 infection.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/last-pandemic-science-military-60-minutes-2021-04-11/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7d&linkId=115939030

Dr. Matt Hepburn, the Director of DARPA discussed the chip, which detects the onset of Covid before symptoms show up, as a mechanism to prevent future pandemics.

Perhaps people should be offered the Chip instead of the vaccine?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Many of these allergies were likely caused by previous vaccinations.

Any data to support this? the most likely allergen in widely used for many products that people use on their daily lives.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

@virusrex

Ok, so do you want a scenario where vaccine refusers pay damages to families of those who suffer Covid injury, death, job loss etc, and people like you pay damages to those who suffer vaccine injury, death, job loss etc? Would that satisfy you?

You see where this is going? The only solution where everyone's rights are respected is if we all respectfully allow each other to make our own decisions and take our own actions according to our own conscience.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

What to do if the other reason is simply unavailable vaccinations? lol

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Agreed, although there are only a handful of people who genuinely cannot have the vaccine for medical reasons.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This is something that unfortunately is necessary and a good timing for the foresight.

Nevertheless it is also important to take into account how valid the other reasons are, many people cannot be vaccinated because of medical reasons, and they will be protected by everybody else's vaccination; but there will also be people that simply are not interested in contributing to getting life towards normality and will use as excuse irrational beliefs, there is nothing invalid for those latest people to face consequences of their choices, the same as people that choose for example not to have manners, or shower.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

We don't know the vaccines' long term effects.

And some experts have brought up some valid concerns, like Michael Yeadon and Geert Vanden Bossche.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

"other reasons"? If that means people refusing, then it's not a matter of discrimination. Allow vaccinated people to travel relatively freely and impose quarantine and other restrictions on those who aren't. Otherwise, this nightmare is going to drag on forever.

I find it problematic that some of those who are afraid of Covid are suggesting that those who are not be segregated out of society. If someone is afraid of Covid shouldn't THEY be the ones hiding?

I suggest a fair solution: Let everyone react as they feel best without any discrimination towards others.

Those who want to vaccinate, go ahead.

Those who don't, you're free not to.

Those who are afraid to go outside, mingle and use public transport, you're free to keep to yourself.

That's fair.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@virusrex

People that act irrationally

So you're saying that people who are aware of the fact of vaccine caused injury and death and want to avoid it are acting irrationally and should be punished?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You don't understand the potential long term risks to the many who will get the vaccine. Nobody can say that Covid is worse on average in the long term, nobody knows what happens in the long term. Or do you have a crystal ball?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

"other reasons"? If that means people refusing, then it's not a matter of discrimination. Allow vaccinated people to travel relatively freely and impose quarantine and other restrictions on those who aren't. Otherwise, this nightmare is going to drag on forever.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@virusrex

Don't you think that you should decide for yourself what your reaction should be and allow others to decide for themselves what thier reaction should be?

Everyone's human rights must be respected.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Medical reasons not to vaccinate includes the desire to avoid vaccine injury. This is a human right that cannot be denied.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@virusrex

science study the vaccines, and when they are found to be safe and effective above any rational doubt

I don't think those who have already died from the vaccine would agree with you. You need to give equal respect to the scientific fact of Covid vaccine injury and death as you do to your own concerns.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Mark my words, this is going to create a dual-caste system, and the people who haven’t taken the shot will be progressively more discriminated against.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@virusrex

I'll bow out from here. It's been interesting debating with you. Have a great day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What if you simply do not rust the vaccine !

The same as if you don't trust seatbelts, helmets, etc. You would have difficulties to do certain activities because of an irrational distrust in something clearly proved to be safer than the alternative.

Unvaccinated people are also guinea pigs, for comparison scientists are going to use the people that choose not to vaccinate even if they could, so any of the expected higher long time risks from the infection can be analyzed.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Wearing a seatbelt, helmet is proven over decades of results, this vaccine is not ! ! !

Your theory is irrational.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

@Bjorn Tomention

Wearing a seatbelt, helmet is proven over decades of results, this vaccine is not ! ! !

Exactly.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

That makes no difference, it is already scientifically proved to be safer than not being vaccinated, you not believing it so has no importance whatsoever.

Pfizer for one disagrees

We will track participants in our phase 3 clinical trial for the next two years following their second dose, in order to document the long-term effectiveness and safety of the vaccine.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/the_facts_about_pfizer_and_biontech_s_covid_19_vaccine

That's why it shouldn't be mandatory and nobody should be discriminated against for not having any of them because they're all still going through the same tests...

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Jefflee how about religious reasons ? You going to restrict some ones right to travel on religious belief? Interesting, just asking ?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

You all think the vaccine is the answer so everyone else must submit to your way of thinking , is that it?

here we go !

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

 The reality is that there is a safe and effective measure that reduces the risk of anybody using it, so there is nothing wrong with promoting it or making it a requirement for some activities, if you want to be irrational about it then you would have to live with the consequences of that decision.

You say that as if it was established fact. It isn't, it is just your opinion. Many do not agree with you, we are entitled to disagree and do as we see fit.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I don't think those who have already died from the vaccine would agree with you. You need to give equal respect to the scientific fact of Covid vaccine injury and death as you do to your own concerns.

Up until now there has been no demonstrated increase of risk for anybody being vaccinated, an emotional appeal does nothing to negate the very clear evidence that the vaccines are hugely less risky than getting COVID, there is no point in giving equal importance to something already known to be false as for the scientific knowledge.

Sure, as long as you also accept the consequences for vaccine injury and death for your choice to demand reluctant people to take the jab. Fair? Agreed?

You really need to focus, you have just said this is a terrible solution yourself, and again, reluctant people can remain reluctant, they will simply not get the deserved support from the community since they are rejecting something that objectively represent less risk for themselves. Should hospitals be sued if a patient dies after rejecting treatment? even if the doctors explain to them that without treatment their risk would be higher? because that is your irrational suggestion.

In the end it is all about trying to dodge consequences, which is not valid. Science can demonstrate vaccines are the best option, so governments can choose to reward people that do the best for their community AND themselves, if anybody chooses to be irrational about it why should this person be rewarded the same?

You seem to think this is something new, it is not in the least, people are required to be vaccinated to perform certain things, from travel to be enrolled in institutions, and for those for whom their irrational fears makes this choice not desired that also means not being able to do those things.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Bjorn

You going to restrict some ones right to travel on religious belief?

No, I would restrict someone's right to travel on their health risk -- to themselves and others. How crazy is that, eh?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

So you're saying that people who are aware of the fact of vaccine caused injury and death and want to avoid it are acting irrationally and should be punished?

I am saying that vaccines against COVID have demonstrated to be much safer than being exposed to the infection, so choosing the infection is objectively irrational, so they should not expect society to shoulder for them the consequences of that irrational choice.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Wearing a seatbelt, helmet is proven over decades of results, this vaccine is not ! ! !

That makes no difference, it is already scientifically proved to be safer than not being vaccinated, you not believing it so has no importance whatsoever.

If they find vaccinated people disproportionately suffer from autoimmune disease or allergies down the road, we will never hear about it.

By introducing a million times less antigen than the viral infection? it is much more likely that people with COVID have autoimmune, degenerative, inflammatory, etc. problems down the road, mostly because some patients already have, and will continue to have them until you can grow a new pancreas or brain.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Pfizer for one disagrees

How are they disagreeing by not settling just proving the vaccine is safer than COVID but doing it to the highest degree of confidence they can manage? There is no realistic possibility that people that were volunteers in the trial to have even a fraction of the problems infected people have, but on the other hand following for years can make this difference even bigger, specially because the infection is expected to have many other elevated risks.

Imaginary dangers are not an argument, and people can be validly discriminated for acting irrationally for self centered purposes. There is nothing invalid with people having to live with the consequences of their irrational choices.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

We don't know the vaccines' long term effects.

And some experts have brought up some valid concerns, like Michael Yeadon and Geert Vanden Bossche.

You don't understand the meaning of "risk", we don't need to know what the future will bring to know that the COVID means higher risk than the vaccines, the infection already have produced long lasting or even permanent problems on the infected people, even if it was only for that the vaccines would be safer, but obviously it is not only that because many other complications and even death are already higher for infected people than for vaccinated people.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Ok, so do you want a scenario where vaccine refusers pay damages to families of those who suffer Covid injury, death, job loss etc, and people like you pay damages to those who suffer vaccine injury, death, job loss etc? Would that satisfy you?

What part of "The whole point is that people can choose" was difficult to understand? You were the one suggesting that terribly lame solution. The real one is that science study the vaccines, and when they are found to be safe and effective above any rational doubt, then governments promote and require them to the benefit of the population in general AND the people vaccinated in particular.

Your right of refusing it is respected, and you get the consequences of irrationally refusing something proved to be useful. Some people refuse being transfused, and they accept they will die for that choice, that is what it means choosing. Your position is like refusing a life saving transfusion and then the family suing the hospital.

You want to choose irrationally? you can do it, but get the consequences.

You don't want the consequences? then you can choose the safe and effective option.

Vaccines are not different from everything else in life.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Mark my words, this is going to create a dual-caste system, and the people who haven’t taken the shot will be progressively more discriminated against.

People that act irrationally for the detriment of public health (and their own) should be treated differently than people that can think for a few seconds and realize the logical option. Same as people that now refuse to vaccinate their children and expose them (and the rest of the people) to dangerous infectious diseases.

The whole point of vaccinating against COVID is to reach the ecologic balance between pathogen and host in the safest way possible, it is more likely that once transmission is stopped (even if locally) there would not be any need to continue vaccination indefinitely.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

What if you simply do not rust the vaccine !

Free Choice !

Being used as a guinea pig is not somthing you subscribe to !

Or is that everyone has to submit to YOUR way of thinking and simply has no choice ?

Just asking !

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Unvaccinated people are also guinea pigs, for comparison scientists are going to use the people that choose not to vaccinate even if they could, so any of the expected higher long time risks from the infection can be analyzed.

If they find vaccinated people disproportionately suffer from autoimmune disease or allergies down the road, we will never hear about it.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

You don't understand the potential long term risks to the many who will get the vaccine. Nobody can say that Covid is worse on average in the long term, nobody knows what happens in the long term. Or do you have a crystal ball?

No, you still don't understand what is the meaning of risk, At this point all the evidence says that COVID is much worse in any term, because it already produced permanent problems. The vaccine have not, therefore the risk is lower for the vaccine, you may not like it, you may want to imagine anything happening in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that the risk is higher for the infection.

You also would not know if wearing a seatbelt may actually kill you, but that also doesn't change the fact that wearing one lowers your risk, this is the same. Risk can be calculated from what has already happened, it is not just some random value you can imagine on your own.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I find it problematic that some of those who are afraid of Covid are suggesting that those who are not be segregated out of society. If someone is afraid of Covid shouldn't THEY be the ones hiding?

So for you using a seatbelt is being afraid of driving? that is simply a misrepresentation to excuse an antiscientific basis. The reality is that there is a safe and effective measure that reduces the risk of anybody using it, so there is nothing wrong with promoting it or making it a requirement for some activities, if you want to be irrational about it then you would have to live with the consequences of that decision. In the same way that you are fine not cooperating with everybody else then why everybody else have to make exceptions for you?

You all think the vaccine is the answer so everyone else must submit to your way of thinking , is that it?

No, that is just an strawman, vaccines can be proved to be safe and effective, so they are fine being required, you don't want to participate in something that can be proved to benefit others AND yourself? that is fine but then don't complain about the consequences, that is like choosing not to bathe ever and then complaining that people don't let you go inside their shops.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Don't you think that you should decide for yourself what your reaction should be and allow others to decide for themselves what thier reaction should be?

Of course, as long as everybody accept the valid consequences of their actions. The problem is people choosing the obviously wrong thing to do and then expect everybody else to help them avoid the consequences.

Medical reasons not to vaccinate includes the desire to avoid vaccine injury. This is a human right that cannot be denied.

Both are wrong, the "desire" is not a medical reason, it is just an irrational choice, the same as non-bathers if they say soap is poison for the brain. Everybody can choose not to vaccinate, the same as they can choose not to receive medical treatment or blood, obviously this choice have consequences, trying to get a free pass from a bad choice is not a human right.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This should read....

We need to create guidelines to prevent discrimination against people who AREN'T vaccinated against COVID-19 because of allergies or other PERSONAL reasons.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Many of these allergies were likely caused by previous vaccinations.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

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