Sounds like more virtue signaling in the form of political cover. The ambiguity of never citing statistics and data then referring to “government experts” chosen by the Kishida government.
How many outdoor infections have occurred? Hmmm…let’s err on the side of political survival. Let’s increase the gap between haves and have nots.
Let’s promote a 4th shot because of our self-interests while an estimated 1 billion of the world’s population hasn’t gotten one due to lack of access.
Has humanity become fodder for achieving political agendas? Who’s following the science? What data has credibility? Should we trust the rule maker’s decision as fiat? Why has critical thinking gone into the rubbish bin?
Rules, law, social etiquette..:which should be codified? If you put rules in writing, everyone is bound to follow them. Where would the wiggle room exist then?
Let’s follow the science, but the government has the responsibility and social obligation to cite the data. Otherwise, there’s an appearance of governing by decree.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
could, should, would...hmmm....lots of probabilities and speculations. Japan is a reactive society influenced by group think. Cronyism comes to the forefront with businesses so intertwined with politics that the economic ramifications would be unrepairable.
I’m still taking the commuter trains to work. I think most small medium enterprises are too small to save. That’s the reality.
Even if things “shutdown” only the connected big corporations will likely survive. No work. No life. No pay. I think companies will toe the government’s line until it becomes impossible.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
Is the Ministry of Education full of infectious disease experts? It sounds like they are requiring schools, administrators, and teachers to be such.
I’m not sure that all the three conditions (social distancing being one) can be meet in major cities to avoid spreading. The trains seem more crowded after the government announced seemingly lax measures last week.
Unfortunately, the number of infections increases on a daily basis in Japan. I understand the strict and low testing because the system is not equipped to deal with an outbreak. I understand if someone tests positive, you have to give them a bed.
However, will these vague guidelines open for interpretation by non-infectious disease experts not shift this situation into clusters? Some schools might use these guidelines as a justification to open their doors when they should be closed. This could be dangerous territory.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
The governor of the most populated and economic center of the country is “suddenly” concerned about the city whence the hopes of hosting the Olympics wethers away. What hypocrisy!
I saw little social distancing with the cherry blossoms not to mention the ride on the trains to work. The government has been suggesting and advising at this point.
It’s time they step up and govern! If things get out of control, forget about ever hosting the Olympics.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
What explains the low number of testing? Is it due to the economic considerations that would be impacted by panic? What are the numbers of infected showing mild symptoms that mask hay fever?
With Japan’s aging population, I’m concerned that a return back to normal could threaten the demographic that is most vulnerable.
Basing recommendations on “the data” because politicians feel the economic pressures is irresponsible. Moreover, not having a comprehensive testing program in place questions the reliability and verifiability of the statistics.
Finally, “social distancing has not caught on as a recommended safeguard.” Until more testing is afforded this situation is a ticking time-bomb ready to explode. Most people would probably go to work sick because they can’t afford to live.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Political cover from getting lambasted by the public for lack of preparedness. To my knowledge, Japan doesn’t have an equivalent of a CDC to manage infectious diseases. This questions the government’s credibility and accountability on preventing an outbreak. Again another example of reactive versus proactive countermeasures.
If the government wanted to seem more credible, they should have an equivalent of a CDC and/or a surgeon general who can coordinate with ”trained boots on the ground” healthcare professionals (who could provide a more ”real picture” of what’s going on). It’s hard to believe a minister who is NOT trained in medicine briefing the public about health issues that should be left to the doctors.
Was a cost-benefit analysis at a minimum considered to the threat to public health? An interesting point on quarantine procedures in terms of duration is based on the last potential exposure to infection. If the conditions were as bad as reported and people weren't following strict protocols after testing, who ones the the number of cases that were released into the public.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Posted in: Square melons