Kazuaki Shimazaki comments

Posted in: U.S. naval officer in Japan faces prison over deadly crash See in context

@bokuda June 7 11:50 pm JST

I thought people in JapanToday wanted that guy dead and he was, eventually, found guilty. If you want that case to be analogous to this one, shouldn't you be arguing the judge should have accepted the defendant's pathetic excuse about his car brakes malfunctioning despite a lack of objective evidence?

@virusrexJune 7 10:32 pm JST

According to whom?

Yes, me. And I think that's good enough. Remember, confusion wasn't his words. It isn't in the article. You brought it up to try to explain what you think the guy argued happened to him. It was you all along on that part.

If that is so easy then there is absolutely no difficulty to do the same on the part of the prosecution

Here's what's going to happen. They get the state expert, he says something different (we'd say he does that), the judge buys his words. What are you going to say? You are going to change arguments to saying that why is the judge accepting the State expert? He's biased. He's accepting the evidence the prosecutor is giving.

As far as convincing people like you is concerned, it has no meaning because you are convinced without cause he's being deliberately railroaded by a justice system you are trained by Western media and hearsay to believe is corrupt.

What is clearly implied in the article is that the sudden onset of Mountain Sickness can produce the accident.

OK. We'd pretend that it is theoretically possible that the sudden onset of Mountain Sickeness can produce the accident. The next thing is to prove that this was what happened in the defendant's case. Or at least there is a reasonable possibility of it happening. You can't even tell from this article definitively how much the defense elicited from the neurologist. The minimum, based on this article, is exactly what's on the tin - that the neurologist believed he had "sudden" mountain sickness.

The judge can accept that it happened at one point (at 2300m, say) and extend it to the conclusion he made - which is that the mountain sickness should have decreased to insignificance by the time the Defendant got himself into that crash.

He can also accept it happened, but was not of the severity required to cause unconsciousness.

The neurologist may very well not have said anything to contradict the judge's conclusion on this point. You are assuming the judge drove over his conclusion, when you really can't tell from that one line proffered by the article. It's at least as likely the neurologist never contradicted the judge, and you just imagined the contradiction.

Finally, there is one point that the neurologist is not expert in, and that's dealing with liars. The judge can find that the Neurologist relied on the Defendant's accurate portrayal of the facts for his diagnosis, but the Defendant was not honest, thus voiding the entire testimony.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Posted in: U.S. naval officer in Japan faces prison over deadly crash See in context

it is not MY argument but the argument from a professional

We've been going beyond the argument from The Pro for hours now. This started with me quoting this at 5:54PM JST yesterday:

He later testified to feeling sudden mountain sickness — a finding supported by a neurologist's June 2021 diagnosis — but the judge said such a sensation should have abated as Alkonis drove down the mountain.

And me saying if that's so he had time to react. Whether he has a chance to react is perhaps the biggest decision point in this case. You then started adding to his argument by suggesting he's in confusion (2:28PM JST today). Confusion means a person is disorientated but, most importantly of all, he is aware he is disorientated. If that's so, he can stop. Saying Defendant is confused does not help him at all and I merely point that out. So now you add even more to the argument, describing something I won't call "confusion" at all (4:31PM). You've been building on his argument, at least as literally represented in the article, for hours now.

While I did say on the side that experts can be recruited to say almost anything, I'm not even going that hard at his competence or integrity. Though I must remind you that some people like Professor Cleary in the Taylor case are clearly willing to expose their ignorance or indifference to even textbook level Japanese jurisprudence in their rush to say something positive for a fellow White. And they didn't bother countering with another law professor. The American court accepted the arguments of the Japanese side and Taylor duly was shipped to Japan.

The big problems with "the pro's" testimony, as far as the Defendant is concerned, is first, it doesn't go far enough for him. If all he says is "sudden morning sickness", well, it's clear the judge and prosecutor had similar thoughts to me. If all he had is "sudden morning sickness", it's giving people no indication of anything sufficient to excuse him.

And if (in the part that's not in the article), the Expert indeed said that he's in a Depressed Mental State due to hypoxia - he's not so much confused as to the point he can't even realize he's confused. Here, what the Expert says clashes with people's everyday experience. We have all flown jets where the pressures are decreased to levels comparable to the highest point Defendant has been that day. Is it possible to get sick on a jet? Yes, quite common. Not feeling our sharpest? Sure. Depressed mental states? Not so much. Of course, I don't see the need to assume the Expert went head on against Common Sense. Thus, he most likely suggested it as a rare but extant possibility, rather than a common one. The problem then becomes raising it from being a theoretical possibility to something approaching reasonable doubt.

On this point, the main problem is the Credibility of the Defendant and his Family, the assessment of which the neurologist is NOT expert in. Ten experts may indeed agree, given the "facts" offered to them by this family, that Defendant suffered a rare but nevertheless possible sudden blackout. But the defendant has no credibility - he's not even theoretically liable for perjury, and the family is not far behind on the Credibility Scale. The judge is not bound to assume the family was honest in proferring facts to the expert.

And that's why in the end, the judge would have a choice. To call that theoretical possibility reasonable doubt, or not. Maybe in an American court, he'd really get away with it. And that's why American courts let their warships shoot down airliners with impunity.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Posted in: Japanese schools banning nicknames, mandating use of '-san' divides opinions See in context

An honorific assigned to everyone is no honorific at all, only a useless phoneme.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. naval officer in Japan faces prison over deadly crash See in context

@virusrexToday 04:31 pm JST

Ah, I see, you want to argue he's in a depressed mental state from hypoxia. Granted, hypoxic symptoms are said to be subtle, but he is a military man with an specialty in underseas warfare. That he has no training in how oxygen conditions can affect him is implausible. Further, he never went "higher" (in terms of air pressure) than what he might experience in an airliner, which thins out to 8000 feet (2438m). He's in that area he can use the car, which tops out at about 2300m.

https://www.dangerousroads.org/asia/japan/1244-fuji-subaru-line-japan.html

Unless he has a history of having problems with airliners, the probability that he was just suddenly wiped is nearly zero. Millions of babies, grannies and other people not in the best of health have been able to use airliners without problems.

The defense brought him to argument sudden onset of mountain sickness was possible and could have caused the accident, if the prosecution disagrees they need an expert themselves to argue, just saying "I don't think so" is terribly inadequate and an invalid appeal to authority (because none of the people disbelieving the testimony of the expert have any authority in the field).

Actually, all they have to do is dispute the data source used by the neurologist. Hypoxia doesn't leave objective indicators (like convenient trace chemicals), so the doc can only go on whatever the defendant (so unreliable, he's not even liable for perjury!) and his family members (only one step more reliable) tell him. If he swears that he suddenly blacked out, his (coached?) family members back him up, and indeed somewhere out there is someone who is just uber weak even to airliner-grade air, the neurologist can only put these three together and diagnose he just happens to one of that rare demographic.

That doesn't mean there's much probability of that being the case. And when it comes to dealing with liars, police and prosecutors likely have more experience than a doc will.

Even if true? that makes no sense.

At some point, I think a defendant has to accept that the fates have given him a weak hand. That's why you are allowed to plead guilty and yet protest your innocence later in some book.

I don't doubt that somewhere, someplace, this has happened. But there's a gap selling that it happens and selling that it might just have happened to me just when I need it to excuse myself of the fact I killed two people. I don't want to be the judge that tells a family that a person who killed two of their own is to receive no punishment (to many, a Suspended Sentence is no punishment at all) because he had some kind of one in a million condition.

Trials need to be fair. The prosecution is set a high burden of proof to offset the fact they usually have many more resources. However, there are evidence they can't get, and if you insist on needing that to convict, you are neutering the substantive law.

If in reality the standards are set so high no one can be convicted, there are only three things that can happen. First, lots of injustices. Second, the substantive law gets relaxed. For example, negligent driving may evolve to become a crime of absolute liability - no mental state required: you crash; you die. Three, it comes back to you another way. For example, maybe drivers will be obligated to wear biomedical monitoring devices as if they are astronauts, just so when accidents happened it can be objectively determined if they really just conked out in a blink of an eye or suffered such a beautifully subtle degradation of mental faculties decision making is impaired.

You tell me if that's a preferable state of affairs.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Posted in: U.S. naval officer in Japan faces prison over deadly crash See in context

@bokudaToday 04:17 pm JST

He later testified to feeling sudden mountain sickness — a finding supported by a neurologist's June 2021 diagnosis — but the judge said such a sensation should have abated as Alkonis drove down the mountain.

Above is what the article actually said. The defendant changed his story midstream (which did nothing for his credibility). He scraped up a neurologist, who made a diagnosis ... but based on what? The article said nothing about the presence of objective indicators, if any can even be found. Hypoxia goes away very quickly as oxygen is restored - trace chemicals are unlikely. And obviously if he just fell asleep at the wheel there won't be out of the ordinary chemicals. Under this situation, the diagnosis is as good as the symptom description given by the patient. Even if the truth is he was downed to chemicals, I doubt one can tell by trace chemicals how fast he was downed. At best the doctor can say the story is possible.

If you tell a doctor that "two weeks ago", you had a fever, runny nose ... etc, he'd diagnose you had the flu. But of course, that's only accurate if you didn't lie. Maybe you had no symptoms two weeks ago, in which case the diagnosis is garbage.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Posted in: U.S. naval officer in Japan faces prison over deadly crash See in context

If you feel a sudden bout of "confusion", you should simply have stopped. The article doesn't say that his expert (and you can usually get some "expert" to say almost anything, and that's why an expert handpicked by the defendant doesn't always move the judge) even said he can lose consciousness so fast he won't have a chance to react, just that he might have "sudden" sickness, which is still not so sudden that he can't even feel it, obviously.

The standard is to eliminate reasonable doubt, not to eliminate every micropossibility the defense can dream up.

If I'm a diabetic driver, and I kill two people, I'm not going to complain too hard if the judge doesn't believe my tale about "unpredictable fat deposits" causing sudden insulin release that processed all my sugar so fast I can't even think of stopping ... just conveniently happening just before my little accident.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Posted in: U.S. naval officer in Japan faces prison over deadly crash See in context

@RoyalS June 6 09:09 pm JST

2) How do you jive the theory of the law with the reality that according to the article the United States authorities were clearly trying to "rescue" him? It doesn't seem worth the effort if all they are going to do is have to give him back.

Even according to the SOFA, a lot of things can happen once your buddy is physically in US custody. For example, they can refuse to hand him over while the Department of State applies diplomatic pressure for Japan to "voluntarily waive" the right to jurisdiction (Article XVII, Paragraph 3c). Or they can abuse authority and just declare him to be on-duty:

これが如実に現れたのが、1974年の「伊江島住民狙撃事件」である。当初、在沖米軍は容疑者の“公務外”を認め、日本に一次裁判権を譲ったが、直後にアメリカ合衆国国務省・アメリカ国防総省の強い反発と突き上げを受け、事件の概要を改変してまで急遽公務証明を発給し、日本外務省の抗議の中、一次裁判権を強引に移管させた。国務長官緊急電の『国務省・国防総省共同メッセージ』はその理由を「米国内の事情」と「もし裁判権を行使し損なったら、その影響は米国が他の国々と結んでいる一連の地位協定にまで及び、……米軍要員の士気にも及ぶ」ためであるとしている。

I assume as Alkonis' (guy who speaks Japanese) friend, you don't need a translator for the above paragraph. How should I interpret the above?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Posted in: U.S. naval officer in Japan faces prison over deadly crash See in context

@Desert Tortoise Today 12:25 pm JST

Prove it in a court of law with expert testimony, not speculation.

That's done. He's already convicted. I just briefly explain the relevant legal standard. And don't be stupid. No court can just acquit someone because he said "I had no intention" or "I really just blacked out at the perfect nanosecond."

Under the control of the US Navy he is not a flight risk. What a risible statement.

Let's be very honest with each other, Desert Tortoise. According to the article, the American authorities tried to get to him first, but failed. Had they actually reached him, do you think they would hand him over? If so, why rush to get him in the first place. Are you suggesting they won't hand him over but will trial him themselves as a substitute? What do you think about the reliability of a Yankee trial where a person can make clear mistakes but have his wrong swept under the criminal rug.

Americans have shot down airliners (under the luxury of an Aegis-cruiser with datalink support, so if they insist they can't see what's happening, no one can), crashed into fishing boats with subs, bombed embassies ... all without anyone ever being found criminally liable. Either American military courts are biased towards their own, or they were honestly applying the usual substantive and procedural standards, except they are so high that in practise no one would ever reach them. Which means **impunity.**

Substantively then, we can see that letting him out is a "flight risk" - if he is carted into a US base, statistically justice is over unless you have already acquitted him in your mind.

The attorney is there to protect the rights of their client, and keep the interrogators honest.

And how does he do that? By teaching his client how to thread the needle to fall just below the thereshold of lying, or to just not say anything.

A US military member does not surrender those rights while in the service even while abroad.

But he chooses to leave camp voluntarily, and at that point he has volunteered to accept whatever are the laws of the country he has stepped into.

He later testified to feeling sudden mountain sickness — a finding supported by a neurologist's June 2021 diagnosis — but the judge said such a sensation should have abated as Alkonis drove down the mountain.

If he's able to "feel" sudden mountain sickness, he had time to react. He didn't just black out. He should have stopped the moment he felt the purported "sudden mountain sickness".

@AntiquesavingToday 03:46 pm JST

No the stand6is 2,500 m and it all depends on the individual as some are more subceptible at lower altitudes especially people that have lived all there lives at very low altitudes.

An airliner's air is as thin as 2400m (8000 feet). If the "standard" is 2500m, our airliners must be cutting us very close from hypoxia.

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/9/21/17887130/jet-airways-airplane-cabin-pressure

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: U.S. naval officer in Japan faces prison over deadly crash See in context

@Desert TortoiseToday 06:57 am JST

The key factors in this case would seem to be whether this Defendant had at least a bit of forewarning. If he realized he's not quite in it, it's his duty to stop driving and pull over. If he continues to push and he causes a lethal accident, he has violated his duty of care = negligence.

In the US holding a suspect for 26 days in solitary confinement

This guy is a clear flight risk. As this article puts it:

That statement says that when American authorities arrived to take Alkonis into custody and return him to a U.S. base, he already was held by the Japanese.

In other words, should this little BEEP get bail, immediately he'd be "rescued" into an American base by American authorities, who will insist he wasn't criminally negligent (just like they insisted the Commander who crashed his submarine into a fishing boat wasn't criminally negligent) and give him emergency air egress into the United States.

denying access to an attorney

So his attorney can teach him how to uh, not quite lie?

medical care

Isn't he supposed to be in good health except for that one moment when he somehow blacked out, with no forewarning at all?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Posted in: Man indicted on theft, drug charges escapes from hospital See in context

But criminals can be trusted! They deserve bail!

It won't take many more of these people before Japan's rate of bail, for any grounds, falls again. And the critics here today will bawl, again.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Posted in: Sri Lankan family sues gov't over immigration detention death See in context

@RodneyToday 09:40 am JST

If she was deported immediately she could gone to a hospital in her home country and escape her abusive partner. We need to change the law to make it quicker to my home country.

That was actually one goal of the proposed reforms - by limiting the number of appeals, people can actually be deported. Human rights groups objected.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Ex-Nissan exec Kelly gets suspended sentence; judge slams Ghosn See in context

As usual, a bunch of people who do not do the slightest bit of research just let rip their latent Japanophobia.

First, the court after examining all documents, determined that unreported expenses to the tune of 9 billion yen were present.

Second, the court to not totally buy the testimony from a plea bargain. However, in the case of 2017, there were other witnesses, which strengthen the case. Further, it's natural that as the time to actually pay out this payout closed, it's more and more likely Kelly would have gotten involved in some way. The court chose to give him the benefit of the doubt in 2010-6 but of course this is not the sign of an independent judiciary, but the reverse (sarcasm).

Third, a (pretty obvious) clarification of law. The deliberate omission of an expense is indeed, falsification. Lying by omission is still lying.

Fourth, people have been complaining about the "salami slicing" of Kelly and Ghosn's acts into one year segments. At this junction, all that needs to be said is that had the crime all be in one segment, it would have been 

Charges for financial year 2010-7: ****Guilty

Done.

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

Posted in: Russia announces partial restriction of access to Facebook See in context

OK, so now we know what Facebook did, but we don't know what the Russians will do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: How the media failed Japan’s most vulnerable immigrants See in context

Few are even bothering to point out that she may have broken the law, but she was no murderer, thief, etc. She merely stayed longer, without a visa.

You forgot to add suspected Fraud and Defamation. Defamation because in an attempt to qualify for asylum, she made defamatory accusations against her "boyfriend", and fraud because she concealed the fact she's an illegal immigrant from everywhere where she found work.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Toray says it illegally gained global safety certificates for resin products See in context

Does anyone know more about this case? Usually there are antedecents - reports of accusations ... etc before this kind of mea culpa presentation, but there doesn't seem to be any of that. Even the Japanese Wiki page on this company has nothing about standard-compliance issues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Prosecutors drop case against mother whose 1-year-old daughter, left in car, died of heatstroke See in context

@kohakuebisuToday 01:06 pm JST

This verdict says that it is, in just 30 minutes with the sun at whatever angle it is at 10am. That would make ordinary driving potentially fatal on a sunny day.

There's no "verdict" because it was never brought to trial. The available evidence favors that Mion had actually gone unconscious before 10AM. Okoshi never checked on Mion after she woke up, she only returned the elder daughter (who survived partly because she's in the slightly less exposed to sun backseat and partially because at 3YO she's of stouter constitution) to the apartment. 30 minutes down the line, some stimulus caused Okoshi to realize Mion's not there. She returns to the car and finds Mion who lost unconsciousness somewhere between 0 and 210 minutes ago.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Prosecutors drop case against mother whose 1-year-old daughter, left in car, died of heatstroke See in context

@P. SmithToday 09:15 am JST

the truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

But just to meet that, you'll need to prove that this is the truth, and you simply don't have the information for that. So called "historical precedent" means rumors of cases whose details you do not understand, or claims by people who, after all, lost their cases. Of course, spanning history you will undoubtedly be able to find cases of proven forced confession, but that's not what you need. You need evidence this is the case this time. That's like saying because you've found evidence crime exists, crime must have happened in a particular instance.

Where is your evidence for this?

The article. The problem is this. You are making a claim of malfeasance on the part of the Japanese prosecutors. And you have no information that validly allows you to do that. All anyone needs to do is make a reasonable inference from the available information, and your claim fails.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Prosecutors drop case against mother whose 1-year-old daughter, left in car, died of heatstroke See in context

@P. SmithToday 02:09 am JST

Here's the way I'd see it. There simply is no evidence at this point for your defamatory assessments of the situation, and no evidence that the prosecutors abused their free discretion to not prosecute.

A deed shall be deemed to be committed innocently if the person who performed it, although foresaw the possibility of the onset of the socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), could not prevent these consequences because of a failure of his psycho-physiological abilities to cope with the requirements of extreme conditions or nervous and psychic stresses.

Considering that woman cannot even drag herself to sleep in her apartment, it's clear that she was only barely conscious throughout the entire proceedings. In fact, she probably shouldn't be driving, but we only stop the drunk from driving, not the fatigued. After three hours, she was stimulated by her older daughter and regained just enough consciousness to cart her up the stairs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. offers no concessions in response to Russia on Ukraine See in context

If war breaks out over this, I can't find it in my heart to blame the Russians...

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Posted in: Ukraine envoy wants Japan to do more to ease tensions See in context

Ukraine, let's at least use honest terminology. You are not asking Japan to "do more to ease tensions" but "more to coerce Russia" into letting you deploy NATO troops right to their borders.

5 ( +14 / -9 )

Posted in: Japan eyes evacuating nationals in Ukraine See in context

I hope if they commit the SDF to evacuate, they do better than the Afghanistan EVACUATION

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Thousands march in Washington against COVID vaccine mandates See in context

And Americans wonder why they are being treated as a high risk demographic by other countries.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Posted in: Airlines worldwide rush to change flights over U.S. 5G dispute See in context

@Desert TortoiseToday 12:10 am JST et al

Thank you for your information. It is very interesting but it is still not clear why you think the telecoms companies should be parties of any lawsuits even if the unfortunate does happen. Everyone wants those frequencies (or neighboring ones) and it is the job of government to decide which of the many needs have priority. The government (FCC, specifically), rightly or wrongly, decided that the telecom people have the best case and allocated them those freqs. Maybe this administrative decision should be judicially reviewed, but companies should be able to rely on the governmental permit and standards. Unless they bribed people or made serious misrepresentations in their submissions to get their win, for which there as yet seems no evidence to be the case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Airlines worldwide rush to change flights over U.S. 5G dispute See in context

@Desert TortoiseToday 07:32 am JST

Do you have something against 5G? From the description, it doesn't seem the carriers are at fault. At most, they might have lobbied for the best available frequencies, and they got them. You seem to be thinking of high speed communications as the LOWEST priority when it might well be highest.

If there's anyone at fault, it seems to be the FAA, who is making a last minute submission of problems after the time when they were supposed to be discussed. Those altimeters weren't made yesterday.

As it is, the US is already late in the "5G race". I'm not sure whether it's good national strategy to allow it to be further delayed.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Nippon Steel appeals S Korean court order over asset sale See in context

@jeancolmarToday 12:40 pm JST

Samir Basu's point is worth repeating

Perhaps you should be more interested as to whether the text that's put in the final version of the treaty actually leaves this hole. As I've discussed previously, here's what they put in the final text:

1 The High Contracting Parties confirm that the problems concerning property, rights, and interests of the two High Contracting Parties and their peoples (including juridical persons) and the claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples, including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finally.

The fast version is that "claims" does include torts. It's literally in the structure of both Japanese and Korean law, which are offshoots of German law. Damages are compensation for torts.

The Korean court is just ignoring the established categories to create new categories and then insisting the old rules don't count. For this reason, even if hypothetically damages is explicitly written into the text, the Korean court will just invent a new category. "Criminal" damages are not "damages" as meant in the treaty. "Damages for 'Inhumane' Actions" are not "damages", and so on. The principal problem is the Korean court ignoring the clear meaning of the text in its unilateral interpretation.

16 ( +22 / -6 )

Posted in: Nippon Steel appeals S Korean court order over asset sale See in context

They can try, but I don't hold out hope for them. Just yesterday, I read an article that the Supreme Court of Korea is again legalizing robbery, so one can expect that when the case snakes it's way up, it will have the same outcome.

https://topics.smt.docomo.ne.jp/article/asahi/world/ASQ1C5W7JQ1CUHBI019

9 ( +15 / -6 )

Posted in: U.S. open to limiting military exercises, missiles with Russia See in context

@lostrune2Jan. 10  10:15 pm JST

If Russia actually becomes friendlier to those former satellite states, those states would feel less to want to join NATO. Attract more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that

And how unfriendly the Russians have really been (in comparison with the Eastern European country involved)? In the specific case of Ukraine, they actually stole gas meant for the West from the pipelines going through them (kind of makes Nord Stream 2 look reasonable). Ukraine literally wanted to join NATO - they might as well have said they wanted to be Russia's enemy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. open to limiting military exercises, missiles with Russia See in context

Quite frankly, my sense is that the Americans and NATO can agree to the Russian terms (people should actually read what the proposed terms say, not what American warmongers claim they are). They are actually quite beneficial to NATO.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. open to limiting military exercises, missiles with Russia See in context

Quite frankly, my sense is that the Americans and NATO can agree to the Russian terms (people should actually read what the proposed terms say, not what American warmongers claim they are). They are actually quite beneficial to NATO.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: All U.S. forces' personnel to take virus test after arrival in Japan See in context

@BroncoToday 07:34 am JST

As we can see from this case and countless others, vaccinated people can and do spread the virus.

Yes they do. On the other hand, it's a matter of probability, and people who have vaccinated have "done their part" to avoid spreading the virus. Treat them as if they never jabbed themselves, and you remove a significant incentive for them to other people to get jabbed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.