Tobias J Gibson comments

To date Hokkaido has seen only a hundred deaths in spite of not closing themselves off from the rest of the country, not having a month plus lockdown, and not living in fear

Just tonight 5000 went to see nippon ham play.

“On Sunday [June 14], 40,000-plus New Zealanders filled in the stands at Auckland's Eden Park for a game between the Auckland Blues and Wellington Hurricanes in the Super Rugby Aotearoa”:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/general/news/new-zealand-welcomes-back-rugby-with-packed-stadiums-after-country-eradicates-coronavirus/amp/

So congratulations to NZ for having no cases but you have to ask if their draconian measures were needed and have achieved much beyond what your low population density woul have already achieved.

The population density in New Zealand is 18 per sq.Km (47 people per sq.mi). Roughly 86.9 % of the population is urban (4,191,405 people in 2020).

The population density in Brazil is 25 per sq.Km (66 people per sq.mi). 87.6 % of the population is urban (186,217,070 people in 2020).

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

I think that population density is clearly not sufficient to eliminate the virus without additional government intervention.

and by having zero cases you have locked yourself into and out of the rest of the world waiting for a vaccine. Which as a small country you aren't going to get in the first roll out .

Again, I am not sure how this differs from every other country with closed borders at this point? It is more likely that those countries without cases will resume trade and tourism with each other before those with cases. With regard to the distribution of the vaccine, you may be right. But at least they wont be burying grandparents while they wait.

Did you manage to figure out who from Germany did the studies ? Seems to me they just threw the country name there to improve credibility but forgot the details ..

Both the studies are linked in the article itself:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768914

To be honest, I don't think New Zealand is so fundamentally different to Japan. Sure there is a vast population difference, but almost half of New Zealand's population lives in a single city. Its not as dense as Tokyo, but its certainly more dense than the circumstances the majority of Japanese live in outside the super cities. Furthermore, both are island nations with the capacity to secure their borders. Both economies are primarily consumption and service based, with a large tourism sectors (proportionally) and export industries largely centered around a major product (cars and dairy constitute around 20% of the economy for Japan and New Zealand, respectively). Both have relatively moderate populations which are generally amenable to government. 

Furthermore, in terms of economic impact of these countries covid19 responses, both are looking at around the same effect on GDP:

New Zealand's estimated economic impact is a 7.2% shrink in GDP. 

https://www.nordeatrade.com/fi/explore-new-market/new-zealand/economical-context

Japan's estimated economic impact is a 7% shrink in GDP. 

https://www.jcer.or.jp/english/the-japanese-economy-will-contract-by-7-in-fy2020-even-with-gradual-resumption-of-economic-activity

Personally, I feel that Japan could have followed a New Zealand model successfully. The previous state of emergency did help to suppress the virus, and although New Zealand was capable of enforcing a lockdown, I feel that had the government here advocated for a succint and focussed plan, people would have complied and we may very well be another success story.

Some might say "Japan is a success story, look at the death rate". However a low death rate is only positive if the is some gain. Given that it doesnt appear that Japan is making any real economic gain from this strategy, largely because consumer confidence and consumption has bottomed out. New Zealand may not be better off economically (although it is already predicted to have a quick turn around), but it has no deaths now, and no cases. And they aren't closing bars early. So I dunno, its all academic now, but I cant sit here and argue its all sunshine

Some conflicting data

https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/

131 number of new patients

252 number who tested positive

My understanding is that Number of people new tested positive (モニタリング項目(1) 新規陽性者数) refers to total positive results, including retests of previous positive results.

Actually, someone did die from covid19 in Japan yesterday. A 60 year man was diagnosed as being corona positive on July 11th and hospitalized. He was asymptomatic for 10 days (from the 11th to the 21st) , and then his health deteriorated quickly. He died yesterday.

Hi Mirai, do you have a link to reporting for this? I would interested in reading more (English preferable if possible).

Personally, to add to the above, I would be happy with the government removing the virus from the designated infectious disease list, and allowing individuals to recover at home where appropriate, if there was widely available testing. Given the lack of preventative options in the form of a vaccine, and the evidence of asymptomatic spread, this testing should be available to anyone who wants it on a fortnightly basis. This does not mean entire populations need to be tested immediately, however there should be capacity for upwards of 70% to be tested on a monthly basis.

Alternatively, where this kind testing is not available, I believe the responsible thing is to limit social activity by way of a state of emergency. Either scenario would require massive government investment, however I personally view this as exactly the function of government.

Finally, I reject the notion that the economic reality is the majority of workers simply have to live with risk of infection. If that is the case, we should be reexamining our priorities, not trying to save said economy.

For those advocating for personal responsibility and 'learning to live with it', I think that the majority of those contributing here are taking precautions and attempting to navigate the situation as responsibly as possible. In fact, I would argue challenging the government response is part of learning to live with the virus.

Given so many posit the flu as analogous (and ignoring any evidence that the coronavirus is not analogous with the flu), lets use that as an example. If I suspect I have the flu, I can go to any local clinic and get a flu test. I will receive my results before leaving the clinic. If I am positive I will be advised to isolate for 7 days. I maybe prescribed medication to alleviate my symptoms. This is not possible with coronavirus. Furthermore, if I am concerned about the flu, i can obtain a vaccine to lower my risk of infection. These vaccines are widely utilised to protect vulnerable populations. This is not possible with the coronavirus.

Learning to live with this virus may mean increased risk in day to day life, but it does not mean the government can abdicate any responsibility to minimise that risk, particularly where our ability to do so as individuals is limited. Those of us seeking increased testing and greater efforts to prevent the spread, including but not limited to a resumption of a state of emergency, are not necessarily claiming we shouldn't take responsibility. We are simply stating that limiting and managing societal risks is part of the governments function, and that it too needs to take responsibility and take actions to reduce the risk in the face of data that clearly shows the risk increasing.

If these tests are from 3 days ago, it may be relevant to note that 864 tests were conducted on 7/24:

https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/

Worldometer says the known active cases are only 6226. And its worth noting that deaths so far are only 993 with recent deaths per day being 1 or 0 for weeks.

Worldometer list deaths per day for the previous 7 days as:

July 26 - 3

July 25 - 1

July 24 - 2

July 23 - 1

July 22 - 1

July 21 - 3

That’s 11 deaths in the last week, or 1.57 per day. I understand your overarching point, but it is undermined by misrepresenting your own cited source.

Hey everyone,

Given this is the most recent 'daily positives for Tokyo' thread, I thought it the best place to share a recent clarification I have found regarding statistics reported at:

https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/

The table at the top lists hospitalized (入院) and Hospitalization / Medical treatment, etc. (入院・療養等調整中). I noted on another article that I was unclear as to the difference. After reading another article which referred to people awaiting hospitalization, and consulting with a Japanese friend, I have learnt that the second figure is cases currently awaiting hospitalization. While this doesn't necessarily mean they are all in need of hospitalization, it does show that while reported hospitalizations are only 1165, there are an additional 966 potential hospitalizations. I don't proffer this as evidence one way or the other with regard to the severity of the virus, it is good to know in the interest of getting the accurate data.

Where can a foreigner who lives here alone and feels scared turn for help?

I would go for embassy first.

Of course if you feel ready to trust the Japanese medical professionals this is a good choice too. Any local hospital will give you the referral letter.

Excellent advice. I live in a relatively rural part of Aichi (by Japanese standards it is 田舎) and I personally took a PCR test at a local hospital following several days of low-grade fever in early June. I received a negative result via phone call around 24 hours later from the local cities public health office, and in perfect English I might add. The process was very easy, although I would recommend asking a Japanese speaking friend to accompany you if your ability isn't great.

The article says "corona virus" but not Covid 19. There is a difference as Covid 19 is the one and only strain of corona we are worrying about.

I think it is fair to assume 'coronavirus cases' on the article refers to covid-19 positive results.

Also its worth pointing out that there are no deaths since I don't know when and the number of serious/critical cases is only 66 right now.

There was one death on 22 July 2020 in Aichi. This was the first death in the prefecture since May. It's worth noting that he was confirmed positive post-mortem testing and his death attributed to covid-19:

https://www.ctv.co.jp/news/articles/sljy0h2fle14mu59.html

I am unsure where the figure of 66 serious cases comes from, although I note that the sources I could find have not been updated for today so perhaps the number has increased from 21 in Tokyo and 59 nationally, respectively:

https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/

https://toyokeizai.net/sp/visual/tko/covid19/en.html

I will note that the definition of 'serious' is 'requiring use of a ventilator or in the ICU' in Tokyo. As the second site notes, the national figures are aggregate and different prefectures may define serious different, although the Tokyo definition was ubiquitous through to May 7. It is worth noting that while Tokyo has around 2400 beds now available for hospitalizations, it has only 100 beds available for serious patients [ https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/ ] . I would guess (despite lack of medical training) that there are a number of cases of significant illness which do not reach that definition of serious

I think the data you presented is consisted with the claim that usage/availability of lodging facilities have went down.

From what I recall was it you who also said that of the total number of hospitalized cases only 14 were serious?

If there were lodging facilities available then they would have been admitted to those facilities first.

Unfortunately, I don't think that data really speaks to the availability of lodging facilities, it merely indicates that 168 people are currently using those facilities, while 392 are at their own homes. Whether that is because the remaining 1,681 patients are unsuitable for lodging due to severity of their symptoms or lack of space is not indicated.

With regard to serious cases, that number is now 21 patients in Tokyo:  

[ https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/ ]

Also, it should be noted that serious patients are defined as 'those patients in the ICU or in need of ventilators'. I am not medically trained, and do not have specific information as to individual cases, but I would speculate that there are a significant number of cases which fall somewhere between 'minor' and 'serious' (i.e. unsuitable for lodging/home, but not requiring a ventilator).

I actually discovered another interesting site with regard to available hospital beds:

https://www.stopcovid19.jp/

This site is limited in that it merely lists active cases, rather than those actually hospitalized (i.e. Tokyo has 2241 rather than 1681), but it does show the number of available beds (or at least their best accounting of beds) against active cases in each prefecture. It also indicates trends up or down in each prefecture.

As I did deeper into the data more, there are some further interesting details. For example, according to [ https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/ ] 31 of the 336 cases reported for July 23 (roughly 10%) were aged under 20, and roughly half of those where 9 and under. According to [ https://www.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.htm ] the child population (ages 0-14) is around 10% of Tokyo's population. I am not drawing any conclusions from the limited data, particularly when there are plenty of studies indicating that children are lower risk for infection; however, it at least illustrates to me that discounting children as potential carriers or sufferers entirely is not warranted.

Finally, looking at [ https://toyokeizai.net/sp/visual/tko/covid19/en.html ] (excellent site) the r0 has now risen again to around 1.4, after dropping to below one during the lockdown. The r0 indicates how many people will be infected by a carrier of the virus; less than 1 means the virus is unable to sustain itself through infection, while more than 1 indicates cases will increase. It is not exact science, and is variable according to locality, however that site has calculated the number based on the actual reported cases. This illustrates the effectiveness of the lockdown in prevent the spread of the virus, and in fact indicates that a lockdown, if maintained for sufficient time, could see the virus eliminated (for those who claim that its never going away).

宿泊施設が十分に確保されているような地域では、軽症者等は宿泊療養を基本とする。

My Japanese is not very good, unfortunately, but I would read that as stating, in essence:

'In those areas where lodging is sufficient, those lodging's shall be used for the treatment of people suffering minor illness etc.'

I am happy to be corrected if that is wrong. If I am not wrong however, I don't see how that supports your point that it is government policy to hospitalize asymptomatic and minor cases? It seems to indicate to contrary.

The number of hospitalizations and usage of these lodging facilities went down, and many localities have stopped the use of these, since the Emergency declaration stopped, in other words, it is the default to use lodging facilities, but if there are no lodging facilities available, asymptomatic and people with mild symptoms will be hospitalized.

Again, you are making claims that are not supported by any citation. Admittedly, I don't generally consume information in the original Japanese, so something may be getting lost in translation, but according to the Status of test positives found on [ https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/ ]:

964 people are currently hospitalized

168 people are receiving treatment at lodging facilities

392 people are recuperating at home

717 people are 'hospitalization / Medical treatment, etc.'

(This last one may be a translation problem, as I am unclear as to the difference between this and being hospitalized? In Japanese, they are 入院 and 入院・療養等調整中 respectively)

This gives a total of 2241 active cases in Tokyo. In an article on another English news site [ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/07/23/national/tokyo-coronavirus-cases-top-300/ ], the total for today included roughly 15% asymptomatic cases. If we assume that percentage is representative of asymptomatic amongst those active cases, that would account for 336 people, roughly the same as those listed as 'recuperating at home'.

Overall, I have been unable to find independent corroborating reports for your claims, however I am happy to read them if you have some available.

Not sure if you people are aware of this, but even if you are asymptomatic, and really do not need to be hospitalized, you are going to be hospitalized as a policy thing if you turn positive in a PCR test.

This is not the current government policy regarding hospitalization. The below is from the May 25 revision of the Basic Policies for Novel Coronavirus Disease Control by the Government of Japan (Summary) released by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in Japan:

(4) Medical care, etc. i) A hospital treatment system will be secured that focuses on providing medical care to those with severe symptoms - Asymptomatic pathogen carriers and patients with mild symptoms who do not require hospitalization will recuperate at lodging facilities, etc. Temporary lodging facilities such as hotels will be secured and managed for this purpose. Use information communication devices to monitor the health status of those who recover at home for reasons such as childcare.

126 million people in Japan. And no deaths today at all. And none yesterday. And the days before that? One? Two? Three?

This was posted on 22 July 2020. It is extraordinarily difficult to find complete official death statistics or information publicly in Japan. It appears to have been removed from all official statistical tracking sites, including mhlw.go.jp and stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp This site is updated to 21 July 2020, and claims to use data directly from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. It lists one death for the 21st:

https://toyokeizai.net/sp/visual/tko/covid19/en.html

It may not change your substantive point, but the facts do matter here for both sides of the debate. It is really important we are eyes wide open at the moment, because those who are pretending they know this will end up as nothing or as the zombie apocalypse are either misinformed or disingenuous.

Do you know that this covid test is a test for a genetic DNA marker of a protein and the same marker also present in common flu and many other virus of the same family .

I assume you are referring to the PCR test, in which case that claim has been debunked:

https://en.fij.info/archives/pcr-test-also/

In terms of reporting, I have to agree that it would be nice to get more details as to active cases, hospitalisations, deaths and tests conducted, as well as data for Japan and other prefectures (this is Japan Today right?).

I live in Aichi, which just broke its previous daily record by double (25 up to 53). We have local reporting which notes location and tracing as well, which indicates this 'wave' is much more spread across the prefecture and infecting a broader age range. I dont have answers, but I would like at least to see some real acknowledgement by the powers that be that things are not going to plan...

For perspective, 16.57% of the total cases as of Tuesday occured in the last week (roughly 4% of the total time since the first case was reported).

Or put another way, 3591 cases (36.58% of yesterdays total) reported this month as of Tuesday (roughly 15% of the time passed since the first case was reported).

In terms of hospitalisations, the number has increased from 280 on 1 July to 949 on 21 July. That is roughly a 338% increase. If it continues to rise at a similar rate, then Tokyo could run out of hospital beds within a month.

Death data is no longer available of the official reporting site for Tokyo, however it appears as if there has been no sudden increase as of yet. The only proviso being that the death rates usually mimic case trends with around 3 week delay (i.e. we may start seeing them increase within a week or two).

Pointing to deaths and hospitalisations, or other countries is fine, lets hope they don't follow similar trends. But it is wilful blindness to deny that the virus spread is escalating and that the Japan Model has been successful in limiting the spread.

@carpslidy

First the articles you cite state targeted lockdowns would lessen the burden on the economy not blanket lockdowns like we have seen around the world.

Second both studies assume the virus will if unchecked have dramatic effects on the ability of people to work and on the healthcare system, neither which has thankfully occurred in Japan.

And finally did you go shopping in golden week? Il answer for you, no you didn't, why because all the shops were shut.

If you went last weekend you might have noticed the crowds of people.

I am not an economist but I would guess open shops make more than closed shops.

And don't answer empty shops for a short term is better than 50% sales long term, because if we have another lockdown so many shops will go bankrupt there won't be any shops left to reopen.

As my first post was removed, here are the originally cited articles:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/coronavirus-8-month-structured-lockdowns-may-halve-economic-damage.html

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/05/15/1589548783000/Is-the-virus--not-lockdowns--doing-most-of-the-economic-damage-/

Here are some further articles from economists, scientist and other experts speaking to the false dichotomy between sound economic policy and public health:

https://giftshopmag.com/news/nrf-says-stopping-the-virus-remains-key-to-restoring-sound-economy/

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/08/998785/stop-covid-or-save-the-economy-we-can-do-both/

Here are some models run by Nobel laureate economist, Paul Romer, illustrating how global frequent testing and targeted isolation is the best decision for both the economy and preventing the spread of the virus:

https://paulromer.net/covid-sim-part1/

'I saw people shopping last week' is hardly a cogent counter-argument. The majority of small businesses are still reporting massive downturns, and some are even operating at a loss. Many business owners are undertaking debt, either private or government, to stay afloat. I know this as I work for one such business, and am close with owners and proprietors of many others.

How long is that sustainable? Economic activity will remain suppressed so long as the virus keeps international trade and tourism essentially locked down, and consumer confidence and fear over public health limits domestic spending. If the government made suppressing the virus its primary focus, and introduced some form of restriction (perhaps in line with the above models), while offering further stimulus to keep the economy afloat, many consumers will feel relieved and ergo more likely to engage in the economy as the situation improved.

Finally, the Japan model is clearly not working on either front - the economy is still crumbling and now the virus is resurging. And while we are clearly not the U.S., we can't discount the possibility that we could become something like them. Taking that risk as some sort of palliative measure for the slowly dying economy seems ridiculous. We need to take the necessary actions such as increased testing and greater suppression measures now, so we can get the economic and health benefits sooner.

@therougou A fair point, there are significant differences between the two countries. I meant the New Zealand model insofar as treating the suppression, and where possible elimination, of the virus as the primary public health AND economic objective, rather than trying to treat them as some sort of dichotomy.

I should mention I am a New Zealander, and have constant contact with friends and family there. While there are still significant impacts from the damage to international tourism and trade, the domestic economy in New Zealand is now recovering relatively well. There is still likely to be a recession, which of course only further illustrates my point that the virus is the cause, and therefore it is our economic interest to act aggressive to suppress it.

But alas, this is just an English language comment board for a Japanese news website. We are all here because this whole debacle is frustrating, and none of us really know how it works out. To be honest, I really hope I am wrong and it all comes to nothing. I just don't have that much faith.

This recent Japan Times article discuss death rate in greater detail for those truly interested:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/07/21/national/tokyo-coronavirus-deaths/

Furthermore, the data on reported deaths is available fairly readily via Google, as are numerous articles discussing excess mortality and difficulty securing post mortem testing for covid, as many have pointed out.

With regard to those who claim a lockdown will damage the economy, a cursory Google search will likewise reveal that there is far greater consensus amongst the scientific community thay corona virus poses a serious health risk than there is amongst economists that lockdowns are any worse for the economy than attempting 'business as usual'. In fact, from my limited research it appears that a large proportion of those writing on the economic impact of corona observe that lockdowns are probably more beneficial for economic recovery, given the way the virus is continuing to impact the world currently. Its not difficult to see why; if countries followed the NZ model, locking down asap and staying that way until there was legitimate and provable control, those countries would be able to resuming normal economic activity with each other. Pretending any country can save its economy on the back of domestic consumer activity alone betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the modern economy. Frankly, i think the current economic arrangements were doomed from the moment this pandemic began, because greed has allowed us to build a structure which cannot cope with this event.

I have been perusing these comments for a week or so, trying to make some sense of things. I have come to two conclusions:

A sufficient number of people believe the virus is harmless, a hoax, or a conspiracy to make any attempt at another state of emergency or lock down futile, especially in Japan where a enforced lockdown is unconstitutional.

A sufficient number of people believe the virus to be a threat, include leaders around the world, to depress economic activity such that recession and economic collapse is inevitable.

Basically, our inability to just work together means we will suffer both sides worst fears - a prolonged fight against corona and a spiralling economy.

It's weird how I've only seen laymen calling for more testing, and no epidemiologists. It seems the epidemiologists don't know epidemiology, and they should be finding out the real way to do it by reading JT comments.

It is unlikely that epidemiologists and public health experts would choose to use the JT comment boards to disseminate their opinion. If you are truly interested in there position regarding testing, you will have to consume a broader range of news sources. For example, here is an article from late April in which Dr. Yokokura Yoshitake, head of the Japanese Medical Association, comments that he believes test is insufficient:

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13327110

Similarly, in this article from May 18, Dr. Shibuya Kenji, a medical doctor and director of the Institute for Population Health, called for an increase in testing in anticipation of a second wave; a prediction which increasingly appears to be correct:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/05/18/national/second-wave-covid-19-cases-inevitable-japan-expert-says/

Finally, this article from 7 days ago, covers the continued failure to secure sufficient testing capacity in Japan in the opinion of the now defunct government advisory panel:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/07/10/national/emergency-japans-covid-19-testing/#.XxDpPZviuUk

The point is, there has been plenty of dissent amongst the experts in Japan and related to Japan's testing regime. Furthermore, the advice from the WHO epidemiologists and other nations epidemiological experts, such as Dr. Fauci in America, has been to call for more testing in their countries. An increase in cases now only illustrates that, despite the victory laps Abe and Aso took in the weeks proceeding the state of emergency, the Japan Model has not significantly out performed other countries models.

Personally, I believe Japan's low rates of infection and mortality are primarily attributable to Japan's pre-existing cultural habits around social interactions, mask wearing and community spread prevention, and high hygiene standards. I also actually think there is merit to the cluster contact tracing model, but only when it is used in conjunction with strict stay-at-home behavior. Once the corona cat is out of the bag, which it now is, then the targeted Japan Model is simple out-paced by the rate of infection and this entire issue is just dragged out for months and months.

End rant.

To be honest, I feel Japan missed an opportunity to gain control of the virus when it prematurely ended the state of emergency in Mid May. The initial end date was stated as June 6, and those extra two weeks could have proven vital in limiting spread. Despite no official power to compel stay at home orders, a large proportion of Japanese business and citizens complied during the shutdown, including my own employer. But almost immediately after it ended there was a shift in behaviour. Now, with cases seemingly spread over a wider number of clusters as the virus transmitted in the subsequent month, any attempt to shutdown and limit movement will probably have to run even longer than the first to be effective.

As for the economic impact, that will occur regardless. Consumer confidence will continue to plummet, companies will take measures to offset losses to employees detriment, and hope of restarting international tourism with countries like NZ which have control.of the virus is undoubtedly going to be setback. Two weeks of economic activity in May might end up costing Japan much more in the long run.

The capital saw 33,106 deaths in the three months through March, 0.4 percent fewer than the average of the previous four years for the same period,

Please explain

I assume you got this from the article: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/06/11/national/death-toll-coronavirus/

That article is actually about increased excess deaths in April, so if you did lift it from there thats pretty selective. From the same article, it also states.

Tokyo saw 10,107 deaths from all causes in the month (April), according to data released Thursday by the Metropolitan Government. That’s almost 12 percent higher than the average of the previous four years for which data are available, and 7 percent higher than the same month in 2019.

534 tests were carried out on July 12, resulting in a 22% positive rate for that date, assuming the 119 positive results reported above pertain entirely to tests on Sunday.

Source: https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/cards/number-of-tested/

Number of tests (July 12): 534

Source: https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/cards/number-of-tested

Average positivity rate for the 7 days ending July 12: 6.1 %

Source: https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/

Actual daily positive rate for July 12: 22.3%

Source: confirmed cases for July 13 / tests conducted for July 12