This article is misleading.
There are no restrictions in Japan on restaurants, so phrases like
The government has indicated that for about one month, it will permit restaurants and other dining establishments to serve alcohol in Tokyo and other prefectures until 8 p.m. and remain open until 9 p.m. as long as they take anti-virus measures.
Are just plain misleading.
What they are talking about the government recommendations and their 3rd party certificates for "following the goverment rules", which gives business a sticker they can place outside their business, some financial incentives, but they need to follow the recommendations of the goverment.
Businesses that do not follow these will just not get the sticker or financial benefits, and it isn't like they are not allowed to operate.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
That is a completely different position from your original one.
It is not, so probably you either misinterpreted me, or were fighting some strawman. I've been 100% pro-vaccines, unless you who apparently think that vaccines are no good enough, and somehow social distancing, lockdowns, border closures and that kind of stuff who ruins people's lives are necessary even when vaccination of the most vulnerable has taken place.
And still justifies keeping useful, effective measures to compensate for the delay on vaccination speed
It makes no sense if the most vulnerable are already vaccinated. This article is talking about keeping these restrictions for the foreseeable future. That is just pure psedo-scientific bull.
but also to protect anybody that has to be hospitalized, which includes many young and healthy people
The rate of hospitalization and severe infection for healthy young people is lower than the flu. Stop with this "young people can die too" bs, it is not the same. Vulnerable populations show a very high IFR that can go up to 20% depending on location, but young people have an extremely low IFR, going lower than 0.1%.
If you cared this much about young people dying from this, then why I don't see you pushing for the same policies so that every single young person can get vaccinated against the flu?
Once again, it is all about risk management. Burning a whole building because there are some cockroaches makes sense if you only care about killing cockroaches, just to be extra sure they are all dead, but if you care about anything else, it is a reckless and stupid policy.
GBD and simmilar measures based on no science (and sometimes rejected by science) are being actively rejected by scientific and medical institutions all over the world
You keep on bringing this GBD is "debunked by science" and "rejected by science"? What part of the 1 page declaration, calling for a risk managed approach is "debunked" by science exactly?
an official declaration is much more valuable than what one single individual of that institution have to say for himself
Are you aware how academia works? People on the top of the institution usually care more about politics and their own skin, and rarely speak for most of the institution.
It makes way more sense to trust what renowned experts from these institutions, on the fields being discussed say about the subject, and listen to the actual academic debate on the subject, not the declarations from PR departments from some university which is a mouth piece for the administrative that cares more about getting support and money than to protect any scientific rigor.
Influenza is a very different disease from COVID-19, and is controlled much more easily thanks to the almost immediate availability of vaccines and drugs with specific activity against the virus, those advantages (and the much lower transmissibility) obviously would make need for the rest of the measures very different.
Dude, the COVID-19 vaccine is times more effective than any influenza vaccine ever was. Also, transmissibility changes from virus to virus (influenza are actually a family of viruses), and pandemic influenza can have same or more transmissibility than COVID-19.
Also, a pandemic influenza is NOT the same as an endemic one. It is similar to comparing SARS-CoV-2 with some common human coronavirus, like OC43.
When you have pandemic influenza, you will see a similar behavior to this COVID-19 pandemic, because it is an uncontrolled outbreak in which the population do not have enough immunity against, so it moves easily and expands.
In fact, in family terms, the coronavirus family is seen as LESS dangerous than the flu family, because for the most part coronavirus aren't as toxic as influenza. The only difference of the SARS family of coronavirus with human coronavirus is that there is a chance for it to go "roge" with a Cytokine Storm, which explains why there is so much contrast between asymptomatic patients and serious patients.
SARS-CoV-2 is actually the one with less chances of creating this Cytokine storm of all the virus from the SARS family, and the main point to fight in this pandemic, which is why you want to vaccinate vulnerable populations that are the ones at risk of getting this serious form of COVID-19. For the rest, SARS-CoV-2 is just another coronavirus, with the same effects and risks.
This include the rejection of social distancing measures and the baseless assumption that vulnerable population can be protected without stopping wide spread infection in the general population.
I take you have not read the single page long declaration then.
The only "declaration" it makes is that vulnerable people should be the focus, and the rest of the population should continue their lives as normal as posible.
Talks nothing about social distancing.
And I go back to a previous point, was it ever even proven that it is not posible to protect the vulnerable without lockdown? Why is it that in those instances proof is not really needed to implement these measures, but counter proof is needed to remove them?
This is not a personal opinion but what the experts in the field used to reject it.
Except for those who support it. What you are linking to me are nothing more than hit pieces by news organizations, many times interviewing some faceless and nameless "expert" that many times misinterpret the whole point of GBD.
For example, one of the most basic misconceptions that keep appearing in these kind of articles is that "it is a free for all strategy" or that it is a "herd immunity let it rip" strategy. It isn't and never was, and it is just an strawman.
balance is difficult to find without going too far, so it is justified to act leaving a margin of safety because that risks economic damage while the opposite risks of economic damage AND unnecessary deaths
Once again, where is the risk assessment for this? Where is the study that shows that the level of damage that lockdowns could bring where justified by some risk that has to be at least bigger than the damage of the measures?
Because you are no longer asking for hard data, you are just making assumptions, and assuming that it was some how worth it, because.
countries have rejected measures and their situation can be seen and compared with close counterparts that acted differently. The differences are very clear.
Let's assume you are right about that, in that it is without a doubt been proven that lockdowns and all of this have surely reduced number of infections and overall death.
You are not still answering the question I made, on the overall risk management aspect for this. Is it worth the colateral damage? Are you looking just at the immediate future, or taking also into account the long term problems this will generate?
False, there is no zero risk approach, this is the lesser risk approach, which has nothing unscientific about it.
So not 0 risk, but going as low as a risk posible, without any regard of consequences, and if it makes sense in an overall risk management assessment.
Once again, if there are still cockroaches, even if they are just a few, and can be managed, because you want as little cockroaches as posible, burn the building.
Current variants have increased transmissibility, which causes increased lethality (even if the rate of death remains the same, just because of the expected increase in the total number of cases) that would be reason enough to try and stop others from appearing
Oh, for f--- sake...
Vaccines have shown to work even with variants, and because how mRNA vaccines are done, if it becomes necessary to change the formula so that it can take care of some variant that escapes it (hasn't happened), it can be done easily, safely, and quickly.
You are also talking about "possibilities" that "maybe in the future there is a super variant that kill us all". That's just pure speculation, and the way you talk about it, there will never be an end to it, so if we do what you want, there will be measures until either the human race disappears or there is a catastrophic colapse of human society.
You like to repeat it as if it were a fact, but that is just your opinion,
An opinion based in my own personal experiences. My parents aren't taking the vaccine for that reason, even thou I've told them to better do it, they see it as, we are going to die in the near future anyway, and if we can still not go to your country even after vaccination, we don't care about vaccines.
If the policy was that after vaccination ALL restrictions are dropped, they probably would take it, just to be able to live their lives normally.
People like you have actually put my parents at risk.
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
If the speed is decreasing this becomes a valid worry. Just graph the number of new vaccinations over each day and graph the trendline, how long will it take to reach the theoretical levels of herd immunity without unnecessary deaths?
I mean, decrease is to be expected, people who are the most vulnerable will be vaccinated as fast as possible, and then the rest of the population, depending on their risk level and requirements, it is really not necessary to get them in the same sense of urgency.
I'm not against trying to reach the highest level of vaccination posible, but I think going for a pure vaccination herd immunity number is really not that necessary. Most of the people vulnerable are already vaccinated, so I would say that for the most part you already prevented most preventable deaths.
they are much better than not doing nothing while waiting for months until the transmission of the pandemic stops thanks to immunity
Are they? Specially when the vulnerable population is already vaccinated?
And that's the whole point, the whole rationale behind lockdowns and restrictions was to protect the vulnerable. They already are protected with their vaccination. Any further return you get after that is just insignificant, and the damage from those interventions sadly is not that insignificant.
this is common knowledge in science and it would be insulting to pretend someone interested in the topic has not read the multiple sources that prove it
I assume you are saying science as in "scientific community", and no, it is not. CDC lately has been constantly criticized in the scientific community for their extremely conservative approach.
I am saying that the best institutions of the world do not support this flawed theory
You keep using this word "institutions", but institutions are not monolithic entities. They are created by many different members. What you seem to be implying is that the administrative and public relationship branches of these institutions are what really counts. Because I'm sure if I start to name you members from the best institutions, and many of them being renowned by their own merit, you will have some argument to make whatever they say invalid.
Its a policy based on no scientific data, so by definition is not supported by science.
You disagree? put here the references that support such policies, you have made clear you could not find any respected medical or scientific institution that agrees with you.
Already told you, look at the WHO pandemic preparedness guidelines, specially the "Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza" guideline.
Having "some" data is still much better than having no data like the GBD proponents, and it is hugely much better than having data that proves the contrary.
You are the one misrepresenting the GBD. The GBD basically says that most efforts should be focused on the vulnerable, that they are the focus in this pandemic, and in fact things that they say like requiring staff in nursing homes with immunity, is already being implemented, because once again, you want to avoid an outbreaks on those places.
That aspect of the GBD is uncontroversial.
The most "controversial" part of the GBD is that they call for a risk balanced approach, and let people with low risk continue their lives without restrictions.
And let's be clear, GBD was written before vaccines, so I can see the argument that "you cannot fully protect the elderly" or whatever, so that in order to protect those populations even people without much risk must have restrictions.
Now we have vaccines, the vulnerable for the most part is already protected, they do not need other to do anything for them to be protected, so why are you still talking as if nothing has changed in the last 7 months?
No measure depends on the destruction of society to be useful or effective.
Never said that, and I agree with your statement, but you cannot deny that society received a pretty big blow with these restrictions, and the continue usage of the same restrictions, even when things have obviously changed, do not allow society to recover, and continue to build up colateral damage.
And exactly why they needed scientific data to prove it, which they never provided, just personal opinions that depend on irrational premises (like wide spread infection having no effect whatsoever in other health problems or the economy).
Here is my question thought, has any real risk assessment being done about these restrictions?
What about people who proposed these restrictions, where is the risk management assessment done there?
Was it ever clear if the restrictions didn't create more colateral damage than the risk they avoided?
Why do the people who push for restrictions get a free pass in this regard? Why is it that they do not need to prove that there is no colateral damage that could make the whole restriction unnecessary, but the other side get so grilled on that regard?
Also, look around, we are in the middle of an oncological crisis, a mental health crisis, an economic crisis, a democratic crisis, a food security crisis, a young children vaccination crisis. Those things didn't happened out of nowhere.
Increase the risk of variants, overloading of health services, no vaccine being 100% efficient, there are many reasons available that anybody with an interest should be able to understand easily. At least if the person had a proper scientific education.
You are going for a zero risk approach, which is the most unscientific approach there is.
Vaccines are not 100% effective, but, specially the Pfizer vaccine, is crazy effective, trial showing 100% effectiveness against severe disease, INCLUDING on variants. And 97%+ in symptomatic disease, including, once again, variants.
Even in in-vitro trials for the so called "South African" variant, which has seen some resistance to vaccines, it shows 75% infection reduction, and, once again, 100% efficacy in symptomatic cases.
The variant talk, and the "vaccine not being 100% effective" is, funny enough, one of the arguments anti-vaxx people use as to why the vaccine makes no sense, which kind of paint you on the same category as them.
People like yourself are one of the reasons why there is vaccination hesistancy.
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
As already explained, the theory (because it is one, policy based on a flawed unproved assumption) has been completely rejected by the scientific consensus, as easy to prove as you are unable to provide any recognized institution that supports it. That should be enough to put any rational person to think why the scientific and medical world is against it.
Those are a lot of words to just basically say "I'm right because I'm right".
What is the flawed unproved assumption? That vulnerable people cannot get protected? Once again, we have done that all the time way before 2020.
Look at the WHO pandemic preparedness guideline from 2019, and you will see how it looks almost like the GBD.
The GBD is not supported by scientific data, science simply is not a democracy
Now you are being inconsistent. Just a few words ago you were saying how institutional support is almost necessary for something to be science, and now you are saying it isn't a democracy.
But you are right, it isn't a democracy. Saying GBD is not "supported by scientific data" makes little to no sense, since, once again, it isn't a theory, it is a policy, and one that is followed all the time, and was the normal way of dealing with infectious diseases until China's lockdown changed the world because of panic.
It does not matter what makes more sense to you, as long as non-pharmaceutical interventions have data to support them and there is an absolute lack of data to support the flawed theory that vulnerable population and functioning health services can be protected by letting the infection be wildly spread in the general population it is still valid to disregard it as a worthless theory.
This is what you don't get about GBD. You think that because there is some data that supports non-pharmaceutical interventions they should be continued to be done, while GBD's argue that you can reach a similar level of protection without having to sacrifice most of society.
The way I see it, lockdown supporters really believe it is a "all or nothing" approach, in which either you destroy society, or you kill all grandmas in the world, and never want to make a proper risk management calculation between interventions and actual risk.
If an intervention creates more colateral damage than the risk it prevents, that intervention makes no sense, which is the whole point of GBD.
Also as mentioned, vaccines are not even close to provide herd immunity in most countries, so it is irrelevant if there are vaccines, social distancing must be kept until the vaccines are distributed and the data let the experts know the risk is reduced.
This article was about the US, where the vaccination rate is approaching 50% of the population, and just looking at how the infection rate is going down is pretty clear at least in some parts of the US vaccination + natural immunity has already reached an equilibrium of herd immunity.
But this article talks doom and gloom, which isn't supported by actual numbers and reality.
Which is still worthless if the population is not vaccinated
Here is what I don't get about people like you. SARS-CoV-2 is bad for those who are vulnerable, and not so much for the rest of the population. That was the whole point of lockdown, weren't them? Protect the vulnerable, protect grandma.
Grandma gets the vaccine, she is already protected. Why continue with this whole thing?
Who are we protecting now?
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
You almost got it right. Sure there is a vaccine, but still not many people have been vaccinated, not anywhere near the 70%+ required for herd immunity.
The heard immunity number is not some hard number set in stone, not to mention that different local populations have different numbers on immunity, there are probably places where herd-immunity has already been archived, and many of the new anti-vaxx immunity deniers like yourself ignore completely natural immunity from previous infections.
Also, not sure why people like yourself do this, but vaccination numbers continue to grow all the time, they have not halted. This narrative of "we will not get herd immunity" is just pure panic porn.
The way how countries with high vaccination numbers have been seeing numbers going down as never before is a clear signal of herd immunity kicking in.
Herd immunity will be archived with or without vaccines, vaccines help a lot because, specially the Pfizer vaccine, provide way higher immunity than natural immunity, and helps people who are vulnerable to get protected without getting infected.
Until more people get vaccinated, some non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread are necessary.
No, they are not, because the level of protection is just not comparable. is like saying that a rocket, until it reaches space, requires someone to be pushing it from the back.
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
Search around for any institution that defends this debunked theory. Since the failure of the supposedly scientific Great Barrington Declaration it was clear this concept was wrong and not based on any scientific evidence and condemnation against this was very common. There is such a thing as scientific basis for policies.
You talk in an authoritative tone, saying things like "debunked theory" without producing a clear reason for your statement (when? how? who say that?), but then because according to you it is "debunked" and requires to be "defended" ask for "institutions" that defend this "theory" (Is not really a theory, but a policy, once again). Basically you are poisoning the well, and asking me to remove the poison.
The GBD, as far as I'm aware, have been supported by many well renowned epidemiologists, but I'm sure you have a way to discredit any support by any of those parties.
Not to mention that it was a "Failure", only works if you find it to be a "Failure" because governments didn't even consider what they were saying.
The GBD actually is way more in line with the decades of pandemic preparation, and all the rules and practices before 2020. The practices of Lockdowns, mass masking of population, restriction on economic freedom, on freedom of movement, closure of borders and such were not recommended, and many of them actually recommended against, even in pandemic events worse than SARS-CoV-2.
The current constant goal post moving and inconsistent approach, where more restrictions = better is the experimental never done before approach.
Once again, where is the scientific basis against a focused protection approach?
It is the approach that is taken most of the time for outbreaks and previous pandemics.
Not only that, also how the level of dialog hasn't change since October of last year. It is almost like there wasn't many vaccines with an extremely high efficacy deployed, and that, as I said, COVID-19 is now a preventable disease.
The point of lockdowns by advocates was supposedly to "flatten the curve" until there was a cure or a vaccine.
There is one, so it makes no sense to continue this any longer.
It would be then easy then to find out respected medical or scientific institutions that actually say restrictions as a measure to stop spreading of COVID are not based on science.
You show me where are the medical institutions, and the science they use, pushing for continued restrictions after vaccination.
One thing is that measures are put in a completely ineffective way or without proper consideration, another completely different is that non-pharmacological interventions are unscientific, this is not the case. Masks, isolation, limiting crowding, etc. Have been studied and demonstrated to have an effect
The best strategy, with over 90% of success, unless the strategies you talk about, that not even the people pushing for them are sure of how successful they are, and do not even try to put a number on that success rate, is VACCINATION.
There is a vaccine already. Saying that non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue even after a vaccine is an anti-vaxx position, and one of the main drivers of vaccination hesitancy.
I constantly hear people saying "what is the point of the vaccine, if even after I take it nothing changes?"
If anything, people like yourself are way more successful at keeping people out of vaccination that any other typo of anti-vaxxer.
-6 ( +3 / -9 )
That has already been debunked as an fantasy bases scenario by the scientific consensus, there is no realistic way to protect the people at risk with wide spread infection in the general population and health services would not be able to cope with even a small percentage of the non-vulnerable population that actually get serious complications from COVID.
Not sure what "scientific consensus" you are talking about, as this is something that has to do with healthy policy and not so much with science.
What I see is this complete disregard by some people, including the authors of this article, of the longstanding and never disproved fact of natural immunity, and these immunity deniers continue to paddle their pseudoscientific point of view as some sort of scientific consensus, when the consensus is the complete contrary.
At this point in time COVID-19 is a preventable disease. People who do not vaccinate and get infected and die are responsible for their own actions.
If you are vulnerable and/or are scared about a COVID infection, then take the vaccine.
Wanting to continue indefinitely lockdowns and restrictions make absolutely no sense in this regard, and is completely unscientific.
-9 ( +2 / -11 )
It doesn't surprises me the lack of proper security in these systems, these kind of problems have happened all the time in anything It related by the goverment, and makes you wonder how you taxes are wasted.
That said, it is also extremely irresponsible to make public a security flaw before it has been fixed, which makes me think this was a political move by the newspapers.
Usually, a white hat hacker who finds a security flaw in a system first and foremost informs the developer or responsible for the system to fix it before the flaw is made public, so that others do not exploit the flaw after they read about it by the public information.
White hat hackers publishing unfixed flaws only happens if the developer was informed but after a while the developer has not fixed the problem, or shows no intention, and even these cases become controversial.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
A good example of things that work (vaccines) against things that doesn't work (masks).
Japan has had 90%+ mask usage for months now, and outbreaks and rising cases occur all the time, meanwhile countries with 40%+ vaccination rates are having strong dropping of the infection rate, cases are consistently down.
Sadly, many people right now have still more fate in masks than in vaccines, which is why the CDC originally recommended continued mask usage and double mask usage for vaccinated individuals, so this is a breath of fresh air, seeing the CDC following the science for once, and hope that people who have an almost religious faith in masks stop this for good.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
It is shameful how last year doctors using Ibuprofen, specially those who weren't convinced by the idea that was pushed at the moment that Ibuprofen somehow made things worse, since in the field it was pretty obvious it wasn't making things worse, were demonized, with what has become the usual hysteric rhetoric on these times of getting labeled as "anti-science" and "not caring" if people die.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Does Japan really want to be a country where taking photos/videos of sports events requires a signed release first? What about "fair use?"
I'm pretty familiar with Japanese copyright law, and the thing is, in this country copyright law is very ambiguous.
The idea of "Personality rights" is a pretty popular one in Japan, and people do believe there is such a thing and most companies and publishers act as if there such a thing, and as if someone taking a photo of you in public is somehow "wrong".
Of course, as many legal beliefs in Japan, this has never passed the court test, and in fact, the Supreme Court of Japan has rejected the idea of Personality rights.
The article seems to imply it has something to do with personality rights, but this isn't what is going on in this case, this is a completely classic copyright case. This guy used photos that were taken by other people without their permission.
In the case of "fair use", there isn't a very clear fair use clause in Japanese copyright law, even thou there is something that can act as one which is the right to "quotation", which is the right to partially or fully "quote" or copy a work for some limited use. But since this isn't as clear as a proper fair use clause, it is actually not that easy to defend your use in court, and one of the reasons why there has been a movement in Japan calling for the creation of a proper fair use clause in the copyright law.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
It all depends on the level of panic. As things are right now, there will be people who for the next decade will be complaining at every single event held, and will continue to look closely to case numbers, even as the vulnerable population gets vaccinated and they are no longer at risk.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Strange, every member of my wife's family, my children's family ( wife not their mother), all my clients, all my Japanese friends ( most of whom work for Companies that reject telework), basically everyone I know is waiting and wondering when they can get vaccinated.
According to opinion polls, the people are divided about 50/50 between wanting it right now, and just "wait and see" before taking the vaccine.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
I haven't spoken to a ton of Japanese about the vaccine, but I've yet to meet one who wasn't at least very leery of taking it. That includes healthcare workers.
That has to do with the history of vaccination in Japan, specially since Japan has been able to for the most part eradicate or control many illnesses making vaccination not that relevant, and a couple of incidents that basically deleted trust in vaccination a few decades ago.
As in the US where the amount of administered shots is plunging, I expect the number of those who decline the vaccine to be significant.
I see most vulnerable people, and people who really need vaccines actually taking them. Not to mention that even if most people are not that sure about vaccines, I do see a big chunk taking them if the governments tries to push for some sort of "only going back to normal if vaccines" narrative.
Kudos to the Japanese for living their lives and not giving into the panic porn and embarrassing behavior by foreigners seen on JT for over a year.
There are all sorts of people in Japan. The main opposition party, the CDP has focused its politics now on "Zero Covid strategy", calling for more strict restrictive measures, like forced quarantines in hotels at the border for all people, regardless of PCR results of vaccination state for 10 days.
Also, as it is right now, because of a change in the law, SARS-CoV-2 is in a category in par or at times higher than the Plague and Evola, and it isn't even for limited time like before, and unless they change the law once again, border restrictions and restrictions as hospitals will continue endlessly.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
Still no herd immunity in New Zealand and Australia. Big trouble for them in the future because of their misguided lockdowns.
Not only that, their vaccination rate is still pretty low.
Yes, must be a real downer living normal lives.
Define normal. Melbourne has experienced more than 160 days of lockdowns, and they are not able to visit their family members outside of these countries, that have actually a pretty big immigrant base.
Not only that, Australian people who live abroad now are at risk of being treated as criminals if they dare to come back to their own country, which by the way is a clear violation of the UN human rights rules.
The only right way to achieve herd immunity is through vaccinations.
Vaccination might be the best way, but to say it is the only way is just being an immunity denier, which is a new category of anti-scientific thought that became popular this year.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Maybe lower your fees, then people would use your company.
JAL made a big chunk of their revenue with international travel.
Now that it is virtually imposible to travel without getting treated as a criminal, and the fact that anyone who isn't a resident or a national cannot get into the country, is pretty obvious that their fees have absolutely nothing to do with these numbers.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Then stop wasting your time on useless "emergency states", and put all your time and effort on vaccination.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
Art has no intrinsic value
Depending in the philosophy and values you follow, nothing or everything can or cannot have any value. That is not a really good argument, specially when you are just talking about something as broad as the value of "living"
It's called pragmatism
What you are talking about has nothing to do with pragmatism. You believe that certain people or jobs do not have any value for whatever justification, and you are just applying your personal morality as if it was some sort of objective pragmatic thought. It isn't.
Let's see how though 'positive attitudes' you so value actually contribute to the eradication of this particular corona virus
Even in the middle of a pandemic, the "eradication" of a virus isn't everything that matters in the world, not to mention that most experts are not even aiming for eradication, which makes your view extreme and disconnected from reality.
So you would prefer an artist to visit you at home if you had severe symptoms and not a doctor?
Non sensical false equivalences. "Would you prefer a doctor to make your entertainment if you were bored and not an artist?". Not everyone is a doctor, and not because an artist makes art it means that a doctor cannot do their own work.
Money used for art at such a time is a total waste of money that could be used to pay better salaries for front line medical staff
If you really believe this donate all of your money to a hospital. I mean, why are you wasting your time here writing this useless comment when you could be working to create money to give to a hospital? I mean, that is the kind of extremist argument you are doing here.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Apparently they are busy wasting resources, time and focus on meaningless and questionable measures and "states of emergency", instead of vaccinating people who are vulnerable to end with most of the risk for once already, and so that they can stop with all the theatrics.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
I've been working remotely for years before 2020, and as a long time remote worker I can say that the remote work panorama has paradoxically gotten way worse this last year.
Until last year one of the big points of remote work was "work from anywhere", but there are now a lot of companies that claim to work "remote", but many of them have plans to stop remote work at some point in the future, or just plain do not understand the logistics of going full remote, and ask their workers to be based on some specific city.
Also, there are a lot of people who have not properly prepared for remote work. In my experience, I've been in places that have a hybrid culture, with remote work and also office work depending on people's working style, but now that everyone has been pushed to remote work, I've seen an increase in useless meetings, and a lot of distractions during them.
This year has been the first time I've seen people with their kids in the background, dogs barking, loud televisions and other things during a meeting, and it is always from people who originally weren't working remote.
Me, in order to start working remotely, I actually had to prepare a whole studio so that I can work without distractions, but a lot of people who weren't planning or just do not care have now been forced to work remotely.
If anything, this year has made me hate more remote work, and I really wish people who are not able or do not care about taking the minimum requirements for proper remote work to just go back to the office.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
I really do not understand people who praise the Australian approach.
Melbourne has experienced 168 days in extreme lockdown since this began.
Lots of Australians have families outside of the country, but they are not only able to see them, they become criminals if they try to enter or leave the country, making it not much different from places like North Korea.
If you only care about number of covid cases or deaths, then you should praise Nicaragua more than Australia.
But the thing is not their "results" but that people in times of crisis become very supportive of extreme measures, and Australia is seen as the model to follow.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
More misinformation from the goverment.
The dominant variant of SARS-CoV-2 have been changing ever since it was first discovered, this isn't anything new, and the governor, who has shown time and time again her scientific illiteracy now thinks it is OK for her to announce to the public data she doesn't even fully understand as long as it gets people scared.
The main focus should be on vaccination, but as it has happened ever since last year, proper science has taken a back seat in the name of opportunistic politics.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
Just a reminder for all the people who are saying people should wear a mask outside.
The WHO has never recommended mask usage outside, their recommendation is for indoors when social distancing isn't necessary.
Saying that people should wear mask outside isn't based on any real recommendation by experts or by any scientific data.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
It would be meaningless if the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were as effective as they are telling us. But they are not.
Thing is, they are.
Not sure what media or misinformation you have been feed, but the Moderna trial proved it was 94% effective against mild illness and 100% effective against severe illness or hospitalization.
The Pfizer trial shows an even higher efficacy rate against mild illness, at 95%.
Those rates are extremely high. Vaccines for things like influenza are around 60% or less effective, and still they are concidered effective.
This new wave of antivaxx is just insane, and is focused on maintaining the covid-19 restrictions for as long as possible and even beyond.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
This is just painful to watch.
ALL of them have been vaccinated, so the forceful use of masks, social distancing, and "elbow salutation" is all completely meaningless and it sends the wrong message about vaccination.
Vaccination hesitancy is on the rise because the message that, vaccination serves no purpose, since you still have to do all that stuff.
Politicians really have fallen in love with this "new normal" and seems like they are not willing to let it go.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
Under this Orwellian plan, how will people who cannot be vaccinated visit family in Japan?
Who knows. The thing with this plan is that outside of talking about requiring the "vaccine passport" there is absolutely no other information on how the current restriction would change if at all.
Let's remember that right now, even if you are vaccinated you STILL are required to have a PCR test done and quarantine for 15 days, which is so dumb and anti-science that it really shows how these restrictions have little to nothing of good evidence behind them.
Also, there is still this blanket ban of most foreigners, and a stop of all visa free status.
I have a foreign mother living outside of Japan, and she is not allowed to come visit here, even thou I'm part of the same family, and I'm a Japanese National.
Her name is in my Koseki, but even vaccinated, she is seen as a dangerous virus carrying monster that should not be allowed into the country, while well connected people can have "special authorizations" made to them so that they can get into Japan for "non-essential" reasons.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
The narrative is so skewed that you would believe Japan is experiencing some kind of disaster, when it cannot even compare a little bit with western countries and their mortality rates.
My only thing I have to say is, if you are calling for more restrictions and regulations while you are also a foreigner in Japan, don't blame other but yourself if you are not allowed into the country in the near future, or if you become in some other way victim to the restrictions put in place.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
I can never understand these kind of collaborations, it feels like it cheapens both franchises.
It's actually a very good way for these freemium games to lure people who otherwise would have never even thought of installing the app in their phone.
They might not like Higurashi, but they might love Hello Kitty, and just install it because of that.
As for the franchise, Higurashi sadly has been exploited to the point of exhaustion.
It has had 2 live movies, 2 seasons of a live series, 3 anime seasons adapting the original novel, 1 anime season of extra unrelated cutesy stories, 1 OVA of a short novel wrote by the original author, 8+ different manga adaptations for each of the arcs of the original novel, and then more for non-canon ones, 5 re-adaptations of the original visual novel with extra content for PS2, Nintendo DS, PS3, PS4, PS5/Nintendo Switch, 2 different "collection" editions of the original novel, 2 different paper novelizations of the original novel, 2 different 3D action battle games inspired by the novels, like 3 or 4 different Pachinko and Slot games, and now this smartphone game to follow this new 2 seasons of anime meant as a sequel to the original novel, and a companion manga adaptation...
2 ( +3 / -1 )
From what source you take that this will be the only way to certify vaccination? nothing in this article says so nor I have found anywhere this information. It is mentioned it is used to make things "easier" or more convenient, but not that it will be the only way to do it.
From the fact that right now they are doing something similar to "track" people who are getting into the country.
Right now you are required to have a smartphone and install like 3 different applications in order to get into the country.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
One point that I see most people who are in the "this is not a big deal" camp fail to understand is that this measure, at least in its current form, is completely unnecessary.
It would make more sense if, for example, some place that is Covid free like Australia or NZ required some form of vaccine certificate at borders, as some countries do to avoid carrying either in or out some illness that either is local or the place is free of.
In this case, you just need to prove that you have received the vaccine by any means necessary and you are free to go. This is the way border quarantine sections have worked for years in respect to some specific vaccines.
This thing thou, is different. Requiring having not just a certificate, but a very specific certificate means more hops you have to jump, also requiring having a device and an specific app is not really helping.
It would be nice if there was an app you can use to use as your vaccine certificate, but making it the ONLY way to get the certificate seems like a very intransigent and bureaucratic system. Also, of course there will be privacy and security concerns for the application, so that also makes it not that great.
And the final point that makes this useless is, SARS-CoV-2 is already widespread within this country, so putting a vaccination check at the border is really not doing much.
Once again, we are in a time in which COVID-19 is already a preventable disease. If you are vulnerable or are afraid of the virus, be very careful, do social distancing and stay at home as much as posible, while you wait in line to get your vaccine. After that, there really should be no more problems, so I don't really get why at this is what politicians are talking about, which just create more problems and hate towards vaccination, when what the government should be doing is, working as hard as posible so that people who need the vaccines can get them as soon as posible, and try to convince the rest of the population of the benefits of the vaccine instead of trying to strong arm them to vaccinate, while not giving back any freedoms.
1 ( +2 / -1 )