sports

Virus vaccine key for Olympics go-ahead in 2021: Mori

45 Comments
By Philip FONG

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

© 2020 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

"I can't imagine a situation like this will continue for another year," he said

People, including him, couldn't imagine it the first time either.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

And so begins easing the herd into the idea of the imminent cancellation

"I can't imagine a situation like this will continue for another year,"

And a year ago, you couldn’t imagine that the situation would be like this*
9 ( +9 / -0 )

Among the options that have been floated for a Games held during a pandemic is the possibility of limited spectators, or holding the event behind closed doors.

Ahh!! The Zoom games.

Every athlete runs, swims ,jumps etc behind doors in their own country.

They are digitally enhanced to seem to be competing together in Tokyo..

Digitally created crowd.

Bob's your uncle.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

I personally will not risk my life for a vaccine which is rushed. It needs to be safe.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Even if there's a vaccine, athletes their entourage, game officials etc and fans, we're talking millions of people here, no way would they all be vaccinated in time for the games

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Everyone already knows it. So no vaccine for all people no Olympics. It seems impossible. Don't waste taxpayers money any more for no Olympics. They need more money against virus infections.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I personally will not risk my life for a vaccine which is rushed. It needs to be safe.

A vaccine for next year requires absolutely no rushing, it can be tested for efficacy and safety the same as every other vaccine already available.

Even if there's a vaccine, athletes their entourage, game officials etc and fans, we're talking millions of people here, no way would they all be vaccinated in time for the games

Having a vaccine available do not mean having the only first dose ready but usually assumes a large amount of population can get it without problems, still other people will have priority to get it, so first you would have to get the vaccine to the millions of people that are providing health care and are at higher risk.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

If the Olympics are on Zoom, can I compete? I mean, this changes everything. What does it take to be an athlete utilizing Zoom? I guess one would need a great WIFI connection for starters.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I’m gonna google the words “bribe, drug companies, Olympic Games”.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Flu viruses never ever go away they mutate... If they wanna play this comedy show indefinetly they can. World economic forum called it the great reset. Wait for more to come in 2021 and read their website.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

It seems to me many athletes and visitors would not come to Japan because they don't want to get infected in crowds of visitors, even if Japan is under control. Flu is epidemic but corona is pandemic. This pandemic would last a couple of years all over the world. Such biggest international games should not be held during pandemic.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

When is this useless, self-centred buffoon ever going to go away and retire?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Today would have been the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A vaccine for next year requires absolutely no rushing, it can be tested for efficacy and safety the same as every other vaccine already available.

I believe your opinion can be true and I hope it is true. However, I will not rush to take any vaccine unless absolutely necessary. Bad thing happens , mate.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So, no vaccine equals no olympics? Is that what he is saying? I’m sure they’ll find something to peddle as a vaccine, whether it works or not. The games must go ahead regardless. It wouldn’t be the first time Japan has prescribed drugs with known side effects. Remember Tami-flu? That was sending people crazy, but you can still buy it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Development means nothing. Availability and effectiveness are everything. There is currently no approved working vaccine, available in sufficient quantities for everyone involved in a potential 2021 Olympics.

Athletes, officials, attendees, host country, transportation, accommodation, etc..

Later this year, sometime next year are the current forecasts.

Less than one year to go...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Flu viruses never ever go away they mutate...

Lots of virus mutate continuously, that has no real importance, corona has not change antigenicity even once yet, so it is completely possible it will be effectively controlled by a vaccine the same as many of those other viruses that mutate.

I believe your opinion can be true and I hope it is true. However, I will not rush to take any vaccine unless absolutely necessary. Bad thing happens , mate.

Which is your choice, but if one one hand you have something that has been carefully tested for safety, and in the other a disease that sometimes ends up very badly, that is related with yet another health problem almost every week, and that can be easily transmitted to other people close to you that may be even more vulnerable, it should be quite clear on which side is more likely for bad things to happen.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Just cancel the damned event already. I am sceptical about Corona-induced panic, but, the games simply can't be held next year.

Hold it without spectators? It would be remembered as the worst Olympics ever. And be the same as outright cancelling them, pretty much.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The Olympics is but one reason, a symbol if you may, why a vaccine needs to be developed as soon as possible.

The main reason is the economy, everyone's livelihood.

Another big reason is to be able to live our lives normally again.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

A vaccine for next year requires absolutely no rushing, it can be tested for efficacy and safety the same as every other vaccine already available.

Especially long term effects will be well-known...

Which is your choice, but if one one hand you have something that has been carefully tested for safety, and in the other a disease that sometimes ends up very badly, that is related with yet another health problem almost every week, and that can be easily transmitted to other people close to you that may be even more vulnerable, it should be quite clear on which side is more likely for bad things to happen.

So you rather expose an enormous healthy population, of which 98% doesn't develop symptoms or only lightly, to something that has been developed and "carefully tested for safety" for less than a year, than to just protect the vulnerable people themselves.

As a fun exercise look up Narcolepsy and Pandemrix, the "safe" vaccine that was used in Europe for the Mexican flu.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

We can do that without the Olympics

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What about people who don't take vaccines... like me... I'll be force to take it?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

A vaccine for next year requires absolutely no rushing, it can be tested for efficacy and safety the same as every other vaccine already available.

Yeah, all vaccines given to people were considered "safe and effective". They weren't; many people died or got really sick from the vaccination.

What about people who don't take vaccines... like me... I'll be force to take it?

Unfortunately, some authoritarian officials want to force people to take vaccines. These people should be eliminated from power.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Far far far more people died or got really sick due to not being vaccinated.

Latest example look up covid19 on worldmeter

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Olympics are not gonna happen. Even the J-gov can see it now. They just need to dance the dance they always do instead of Getting to the point.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Especially long term effects will be well-known...

Exactly the same as every other vaccine or medicine being recently approved right now, not more not less.

So you rather expose an enormous healthy population, of which 98% doesn't develop symptoms or only lightly, to something that has been developed and "carefully tested for safety" for less than a year, than to just protect the vulnerable people themselves.

No, to protect the 100% of the population not immune right now, the disease also affects, impairs and kills perfectly normal, healthy people. Absolutely nothing is free from risk, that is an impossible task, but make something less risky than the natural infection? that is easy. After all nobody knows the long term effects of being infected either.

As a fun exercise look up Narcolepsy and Pandemrix, the "safe" vaccine that was used in Europe for the Mexican flu.

Which depended exactly on the antigen present on the original virus and which caused much more cases because it exposed infected people to several orders of magnitude more antigen, So yes, even that vaccine was less risky than the natural infection.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yeah, all vaccines given to people were considered "safe and effective". They weren't; many people died or got really sick from the vaccination.

A number incredible small compared with the natural infection, having hugely less risks when vaccinated is still the obviously better option.

Unfortunately, some authoritarian officials want to force people to take vaccines. These people should be eliminated from power.

No such case is happening anywhere in the world except on authoritarian regimes with much worse problem than vaccines.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Far far far more people died or got really sick due to not being vaccinated.

Latest example look up covid19 on worldmeter

How many of those covid deaths really from covid?

And why should we assume the outcome would have been any better had a vaccine been available?

Some SARS vaccines when tested on animals seemed safe and effective, but they then had a very severe negative response when they were infected with the virus.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

How many of those covid deaths really from covid?

how many would you consider fine? if anything deaths are underreported.

And why should we assume the outcome would have been any better had a vaccine been available?

Because that is what vaccines do for every other disease for which they are available.

Some SARS vaccines when tested on animals seemed safe and effective, but they then had a very severe negative response when they were infected with the virus.

That makes absolutely no sense, it is like saying that a medicine is considered effective on humans, but when tried on patients had no effect, that just mean it was never considered effective on the first place.

The whole point of doing animal experiments is to evaluate the response to both the vaccine application and the virus challenge. How do you imagine they examine how effective vaccines are?

If an experimental animal has a negative reaction after the challenge (which is part of the evaluation) then the candidate is not considered safe nor effective, it is abandoned and any of the other candidates that did not produce such an effect are the ones that advance to clinical trials. That happenes with SARS, MERS or any of the other vaccines available now.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If an experimental animal has a negative reaction after the challenge (which is part of the evaluation) then the candidate is not considered safe nor effective, it is abandoned and any of the other candidates that did not produce such an effect are the ones that advance to clinical trials. That happenes with SARS, MERS or any of the other vaccines available now.

Yeah, but I don't think human clinical trials look at what happens when the person does come in contact with the virus. This is something we would only learn after widespread use of the vaccine in the population.

And vaccines are only tested on healthy people.

Anyone who is still waiting for a vaccine to fix this pandemic should watch this debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE

It describes studies that bring up a number of very serious issues on vaccines.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Yeah, but I don't think human clinical trials look at what happens when the person does come in contact with the virus. This is something we would only learn after widespread use of the vaccine in the population.

False, you simply ignore how vaccine trials are done, protection and effectiveness is only possible to be assured after natural infection (again, how do you think they can say the vaccine protects people? by showing them a picture of the virus or something?) That is why trials can only be completed including people on places with active dissemination of the pathogen, like Brazil or Mexico. What you describe is a very important step on vaccine testing that has to be done.

And vaccines are only tested on healthy people.

Again, this is false and I have already corrected on this, why insist on something you know is not true?

Vaccines are testd on healthy people on the first phase, if they produce no evident problem the second and third phase need to include people representing the target population (the one that is intended to be protected with the vaccine) so people of advanced age, or with preexisting conditions have to be included.

So both of your concerns are simply untrue, product of not investing a few minutes to search how vaccine trials are done (or ignoring those results for whatever reasons)

Anyone who is still waiting for a vaccine to fix this pandemic should watch this debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE

It describes studies that bring up a number of very serious issues on vaccines.

No, anyone waiting for a vaccine should read what a vaccine trial is, to avoid making the mistakes you do.

A video of a known antivaxxer that is not above lying, distorting information and repeating known mistakes is not going to be useful for anything, Is like recommending a video of a flat earther to people interested in astronomy, it would only make the be exposed to mistakes and false information.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Kennedy is not an antivaxxer, he is against giving vaccines that have not been adequately tested. Safety trials only follow the patients until 2 to 5 days after getting the vaccine, they do NOT look at long term effects.

Anyway, the trials that you claim are done on vaccines, to declare them as safe and effective, would take years to complete.

Many of the vaccines given today, which are considered "safe and effective", have probabilities of serious side effects that are higher than the probability of dying from Covid19.

What I see as a serious problem today is that there is a lack of open discussion on vaccines. Critics are silenced and the people are not aware of the truth. Most people think that when vaccines are ruled as "safe and effective", they think that they are actually safe and effective, they aren't.

The regulatory agencies gain financially from vaccine sales.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Kennedy is not an antivaxxer, he is against giving vaccines that have not been adequately tested.

Kennedy claims not to be against vaccinations in much the same way a lot of racists claim not to be. His organization is absolutely bonkers.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

His organization is absolutely bonkers.

Why?

Do you have any comments on the many scientific publications he describes in the video, especially regarding the serious side effects of vaccines and that some vaccines increase the chances of transmitting disease to others?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Could you post links to those publications please?

And the discussion or article or paper by Kennedy in text form.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There will not be enough worldwide vaccines by the time of the Olympics.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Could you post links to those publications please?

And the discussion or article or paper by Kennedy in text form.

...or you could watch the video and look up the papers yourself on PubMed. I did that, it's not difficult.

The host of the debate (Valuetainment) shows the relevant pages in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nah, I prefer primary sources. I don't even encourage my kids to watch videos lol

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Tell you what, why don't you look for something written by that Kennedy and read it?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Nah, I prefer primary sources.

Yes, the ones that are shown in the video, they show the actual pages from the primary sources. In the video, you can also find the references for the peer reviewed papers and looked them up yourself on PubMed so that you can read the actual primary sources you say that you want.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Kennedy is not an antivaxxer, he is against giving vaccines that have not been adequately tested. Safety trials only follow the patients until 2 to 5 days after getting the vaccine, they do NOT look at long term effects.

Both things are false, demonstrable lies.

Kennedy is against all and every single vaccine of the history of humanity, endlessly repeat the same lies even when clearly demonstrated as such and ignores even very basic things about them, like the period where the following is done for human trials, which is absolutely not 2 to 5 days. They look for short, medium and long term effects as you would know if you made any effort in informing yourself.

Anyway, the trials that you claim are done on vaccines, to declare them as safe and effective, would take years to complete.

No they don't, many of the vaccines available today are tested inside of one year and they are perfectly safe, and specially much more safer than not vaccinating, which is the option.

Many of the vaccines given today, which are considered "safe and effective", have probabilities of serious side effects that are higher than the probability of dying from Covid19.

No, that is not true, provide the data you used for this, there is not a single one that can be validly described as such. not even one.

What I see as a serious problem today is that there is a lack of open discussion on vaccines. Critics are silenced and the people are not aware of the truth. Most people think that when vaccines are ruled as "safe and effective", they think that they are actually safe and effective, they aren't.

The regulatory agencies gain financially from vaccine sales.

The real problem is that deniers (not skeptics) do not participate in the perfectly open discussions between professionals because of their lack of knowledge, that makes every invalid argument they use easily disproved, and since they cannot understand even the process of evaluation followed they lie and simply say it is not done.

The decide before even the vaccines are available that they must not be safe nor effective, and no amount of data proving them wrong is able to convince them, because they are not interested in the truth, they only want to follow their cult for reasons that are completely invalid.

Most of them are completely unable to even understand papers and usually they missrepresent them with conclusions even contrary to what the authors themselves write, Kennedy has been caught doing that several times already, that is why even between irrational antivaxxers he is sometimes taken as a sell out, doing things badly on purpose so they can be criticized as crazy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Once again, thank you Virusrex for keeping it straight, and doing you best not to show frustration at dealing with the arguments that look good to those who don't know how to fact-check. Keep strong.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

You should at least watch the video before criticizing it by bringing up the usual vaccine industry talking points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE

For example, the 2 to 5 days issue, he was refering directly to the info provided with the vaccine by the manufacturers themselves. You can see the document in the video. For some vaccines its just 2 days, for others it is 5 days. If the person got sick or died on day 6, it does not count.

If Kennedy was truly a liar, why can't he get any expert to debate him????

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Why would any self respecting expert legitimize a liar?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

For example, the 2 to 5 days issue, he was refering directly to the info provided with the vaccine by the manufacturers themselves. You can see the document in the video. For some vaccines its just 2 days, for others it is 5 days. If the person got sick or died on day 6, it does not count.

For new lots of vaccines with already proven long term safety records, or for vaccines with small variation on the formulation or production methods the standard of proof is obviously much lower, no new vaccine (as in with a completely new antigen) is ever approved after vigilance of only a week.

If Kennedy was truly a liar, why can't he get any expert to debate him????

Well, I don't really know how to explain it in a simpler way, because he is a liar.

His debating tecniques are simple, infantile and well known. throwing 17 types of lies so his opponent has to consume his time just repeating that they are proven lies is not a productive debate, specially because some are even contradictory, just a senseless repetition of the same non-arguments without logic nor reason.

Did you even read the article posted? it requires a few minutes, much less than your video and with much more information, do you really hate reading that much?

There are many other examples

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-harlem-vaccine-forum-a-disastrous-antivaccine-forum/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/kennedy-fisher-and-bigtree-a-triple-dose-of-anti-vaccine-injected-into-upcoming-chiropractic-conference/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/preemptive-disinformation-war-against-covid-19-vaccine/

I mean, there is a reason why even other fringe antivaxxer groups full of people used to believe the craziest things consider him to lie too much. That is really something to think about.

3 ( +3 / -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