The main point is that if there was enough vaccines and infrastructure to vaccinate everybody there would not be anything wrong with vaccinating olympic athletes, but at this point the delivery of vaccines in Japan is severely compromised and delayed, so ethically it is not justified to prioritize participants of a sports event above members of the vulnerable population, even if it is on the name of herd immunity.
There is no scientific basis for this statement.
Yes there is, very clear, vaccination is actually the preferred way to reach it.
All vaccines accepted for use in the public are no longer experimental, both clinical and preclinical trials have long surpassed the evaluation of the primary endpoint, companies are perfectly liable against defective or deceiving products, in all ways except the one that the government absorbed.
Oh, really? Easy to say, not to so easy to back up with anything of substance.
No, it is actually very easy to prove.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Finally, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 21, 2020, concluded: “
Wait, you think research stopped on May last year? and that one letter (without any original data) is a study? also, how come you did not include the note at the top of the article?
Editor’s Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org. In a letter to the editor on June 3, 2020, the authors of this article state “We strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.”
There have been multiple studies about the worth of mask use during the last year, and the scientific basis of their important role in the measures against transmission is now extremely clear.
People say they “follow the science.” They rarely do. They follow the scientists the media tell them to follow.
One single article (specially one where the authors strongly recommend using mask) do not prove scientist do not recommend using masks, forget the media, go directly to the sites of the CDC, WHO, research institutes, hospitals, etc. etc. and see what is what the experts recommend. How many can you find that say mask have no meaning?
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Do isolated people really need a vaccine?
Yes, they are not in Mars, just on places with difficult access, they have still limited contact with people outside of their community that can bring the disease to them very easily. Since the risk of immunization is negligible the benefit is bigger than the cost.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Agreed. Young, fit, healthy, go out and live a normal life with hand washing of course.
old and unhealthy or sick, stay home!
That is the contrary of what should be done according to the experts, there is no realistic way to protect the vulnerable population with infection running rampant thanks to the asymptomatic transmission.
"Living a normal life" means not putting your part of the effort, you can definitely enjoy life while keeping social distancing measures.
That’s called odds. I live by odds.
That would be more living by the odds of everybody else doing their part, while you just think about yourself.
How do you think those odds would be if everybody did the same as you?
That is completely contraire what you normaly say. Normaly you always complain that the japanese population dont follow any rules, they dont perform social distance...and so on.
That is because you tend to simplify things into black and white so you lose the whole meaning of comments.
The disease has not been controlled in Japan because people have not kept the whole range of measures, this is complicated with a government that tells them to travel and crowd shopping and dining out with campaigns and half measures. The population in general is making an effort, so full disaster has been avoided (until now) but that has not been enough to control the spreading thanks to the minority of people that think living a fun life outside and traveling around is a priority. At that point the government role is to support the bigger part of the population by making more difficult for the irresponsible segment to act against the common interest, but instead it supports the self centered and punish the serious considerate people that actually obey the recommendations at the expense of their way of living.
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
The efforts to distribute the vaccine have been even heroic in some places, that should be recognized. Even with the huge problems with politics and antiscientific activism most countries of the world are advancing towards herd immunity thanks to vaccination. Unfortunately for Japan this seems to be a very low priority.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
The Japanese population has managed to make it up until now without a big disaster thanks to their efforts but the government appears fixed into throwing all that to the trash with confusing measures and counterproductive campaigns. The country should be lead to safety, not work against the leadership to get there.
5 ( +13 / -8 )
No , a packed train is much safer, as people do not know each others and do not interact.
In a party, we believe it is much safer if we know everyone, but if one is infected, all can be infected as after a few beers, nobody take not any protection anymore.
It has not been any report of cluster in a train
No, a packed train may be safer, but that is not an automatic conclusion, people are not screened to board, some people do interact with each other, and obviously the distance between people is much more closer than what is reported for this party. Some people are even eating and drinking while riding.
Not having a report of clusters in a train is not automatic proof that there have been no such thing, specially in Japan where there is close to zero tracing being done. A party where people know each other and their identities is obviously much easier to trace. It is also important to consider that no cluster has been reported either for this party, so it is still possible it could be safer if the report of the measures taken is truthful.
The problem with this party is not that it is a high risk activity, the problem is that it laughs in the face of all the people that are being told not to do what these people did.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
Absolutely did not say that. I argued that the authors did implement a model to analyze the trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 INTO endemicity and how this could drive the vaccination policies for example.
What is the point of denying something that is still here written for anybody to find?
"* you just keep doing grotesque simplifications (eg. the term ""escape-mutant strains" is really sloppy). *
The transition of the virus from epidemic to endemic dynamics is associated with a sift of the infections to the younger age group"
Read yourself, you clearly say it, you assumed this transition was a done thing that was proved by the model (else why to use it against the argument that vaccines can produce herd immunity?) There is no need to read again the paper, which has no problem it is only your mistaken interpretation which is problematic because you keep assuming wrong things.
They do and you aren't providing any scientific analysis proving otherwise.
Which one specifically says that getting a diagnostic of COVID have less than 1% chances of death, specifically. You understand that by getting the diagnostic you are talking about CFR, right?
You can't reply scientifically so you keep throwing baseless arguments.
I provided plenty of examples of you making wrong assumptions and be in denial of it. That is the opposite from baseless.
Again random words put together, what are you saying? You replied to a post which was precisely referring to mortality rate with wrong figures because you did not understand what the mortality rate means.
Of course not, because even your own quote mentions the tests, which obviously make it the CFR, the only one that assumed IFR was you, so you only corrected yourself.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Hmmm. A dictionary definition of "Scientific Consensus" is your defense for getting Every. Single. Thing. Wrong. for the past year?
No, the definition is to keep proving you dont understand the terms you want to use, there is no need to defend about imaginary things you believe have happened, anybody reading how you have to pretend not to read the references that prove you wrong can easily understand how you "prove everybody wrong".
So, no single organization that can help defend your mistakes yet? not really surprising.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
You are doing a commendable effort in presenting the facts... unfortunately antivaxxers only accept facts that support their narrative.
Correcting false information has value, the intention is never to convince people that put too much of their self value in conspiracies because they take pride in not listening to reason or logic, but to make it clear for anybody else that may read the mistakes so they can realize how wrong all is.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
COVID VACCINES DO NOT PREVENT DISEASE -
This is false misinformation, sorry but it has already been demonstrated vaccines DO prevent disease, repeating the same lie multiple times do not make it more true, the scientific community have already proved the antivaxxer propaganda is completely false.
You know what makes it so clear? that you are unable to do anything but repeat the same false information over and over again without ever being able to defend it.
After being corrected multiple times over your wrong use of VAERS you keep trying to hide that for all important problems are presented in the same rates no matter if the person is or not vaccinated. It is almost as if you knew the data proved your comment completely false and that is why you feel afraid of making that clear.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Hmmm....MORE "Breakthrough COVID Cases" are showing up in FULLY VACCINATED individuals months after shot 1 and 2. At least some outlets are reporting these "Breakthrough cases" cause Pharma can no longer say that they did not have their 2nd shot OR it takes 2 additional weeks for the immune response to be effective (these vaxxes are not working to prevent disease):
Nope, you are still getting all surprised that the vaccines are not 100% effective, exactly as everybody said from the beginning. A small amount of people can still get the disease, this is something completely expected, and let me tell you another secret that everybody knows, the vaccines are meant to prevent efficiently the development of symptomatic cases, but no vaccine ever produced guarantees that the person will not get an asymptomatic infection. The whole point is to INTERRUPT the infection before it is dangerous, not before it can be detected.
for emergency use. Just like AEDs have been approved for treating cardiac arrest, but it doesn't mean that they are completely safe and that should be used to wake someone up in the morning.
There are a lot of things that can be used on emergency cases, that does not mean they are not safe, specially if they are expected to get a full approval later since the data being collected points out to an even higher degree of safety and efficacy than expected. You still have not proven the vaccines are unsafe, you need data that demonstrate the vaccinated people are at a higher risk than the non-vaccinated population, you don't have that, therefore your personal feelings are incorrect.
Also, the vaccines are NOT intended to be absolutely, perfectly, infinitely, eternally (or whatever superlative you put) safe. They are intended to be simply much safer than not vaccinating, and that is already demonstrated even now. This is easy because COVID increases many kinds of risks, while the vaccines have not been found to increase any (above what a non-vaccinated person would have).
All I am saying is that nobody has proven they are safe, only that you want to believe so. In fact, you believed they were perfectly fine even before the trials had started!
They have been proved to be safe enough to be used in the general population, and more importantly to be hugely safer than not being vaccinated.
Now quote exactly where did I wrote that they were "perfectly" safe before the trials, you are the one that always try to make strawman's with the superlatives. One thing is to say "it is perfectly possible the vaccines will be safe" another completely different to say "the vaccines will be perfectly safe". You really need to understand how words are used in the sentences.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
In the US, these vaccines only received and EUA. And in the official document it says "Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products..." These are absolute facts, not my personal feelings.
Nothing in your comment contradict that the experts consider the vaccines safe enough to use in the general population, they do not become less safe with an EUA, nor they magically become safer under a full approval. In other words you have not proved they are unsafe, only that you want to believe so.
3 ( +7 / -4 )
There might be scientific consensus in the horrible country of China, but certainly not in more respectable, civilized countries.
There is certainly a scientific consensus in most things known, your mistake is thinking "consensus" means some monolithic permanent conclusion that is absolutely fixed. For people that actually knows what it means it is clear there is no problem in having it in things where the evidence is clear.
-4 ( +4 / -8 )
Oh, really? Why are athletes immune from Coronavirus infection? What other occupations offer immunity?
Why are you going to quote something if you are not going to read it?
I wrote specifically "little", not "nothing".
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Now we are finding out more and more that these COVID19 vaccines DO NOTHING to protect you and your children from getting COVID. Statistically, significantly children (99.97% survival and asymptomatic non-spreaders) are NOT in danger of nor do they spread COVID BUT Pharma wants to vaccinate them: 6 months to 12 years old so they can make it a requirement in September 2021 for school. They are NOT spreaders of SARS-COV2.
You managed to put only false information in your comment. everyting you wrote has been demonstrated multiple times as false, which is why you cannot prove anything with valid scientific information.
Vaccines protect against developing symptomatic disease, complications or dying from COVID, they also help preventing transmission.
Some children do die from COVID, and as the article proves they can also develop serious complications even if they survive, you may consider this acceptable, but their families don't and if a vaccine can lower these risk the only valid option is to immunize even if your personal opinion is against it.
DOES NOT PREVENT COVID - "Breakthrough COVID Cases" are showing up in FULLY VACCINATED individuals months after shot 1 and 2
Try to search what is the reported efficacy of the vaccine, big hint it is not 100%, some cases are expected, that is what happens in medicine with any health intervention.
What is next, are you going to mention how people can still die of bacterial infections while in treatment with antibiotics to "prove" antibiotics don't kill bacteria? or How some people die of blood loss even after being transfused as "evidence" that transfusions are useless?
Obviously not, because you cannot defend the misleading information you commented.
4 ( +8 / -4 )
for anyone under the age of 75, the dangers of a serious side effect or worse is now greater than the chances of dying from Covid.
That is not what the scientific data proves, unless you count head or body aches as "serious side effects". And if it is then choosing a higher risk for these instead of dying of COVID is still the only rational decision.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
No Vaccine for me! I don't trust anything that was made in a few months. I won't let the Gov't control me.
People can offer you the information about how the vaccines are much safer than risking the natural infection, but nobody can "understand it" for you.
4 ( +9 / -5 )
Oh, they do know better... than the vast majority of people. There is nothing wrong in having a party if you are careful.
Yes there is, that is the whole point of the social distancing measures, nothing of what these people did proves the contrary, the only thing it proves is that the people that were present lack common sense and empathy.
The hypocrisy is not for telling others the scientific consensus, it comes from not listening to it themselves.
-2 ( +6 / -8 )
I don't know. I somehow doubt 3 of them would have gotten infected on a train.
According to how I read the article the 3 infected people were from the Division of Health for the Elderly party.
Also, since Japan is highly resistant to do adequate testing and tracing we are not aware of how many infections happen in trains, hopefully you are right.
4 ( +11 / -7 )
Again, as in the previous example of blindness, people that should know better are being extremely dumb.
Yes the party was probably much safer than taking a packed train, and a lot of precautions were taken, etc. etc. but still this gives a horrible impression about how seriously these people are taking the recommendations for the general public. They should be putting the best possible example of what to do, and in this time where the government is asking the public for abstinence and control you cannot have a party even if everybody is masked and eats in a hurry.
I am very sorry for Professor Wakita but someone has to take responsibility of this, just an apology is not enough to let go this huge example of plain disregard of the measures that they should be obeying first, before asking others to do the same.
9 ( +16 / -7 )
... and there were no serious cases below 20 years of age (according to https://toyokeizai.net/sp/visual/tko/covid19/en.html)
Again, not confirmed serious cases the situation in Japan has always has to take in account a very limited identification of cases because of governmental decisions.
Indeed, if they are proven to be safe, but these vaccines are not. These are unapproved vaccines that have only been authorized for emergency use. And their long term effects remain unknown, no matter how often you say they are safe.
Your personal feelings about the vaccines are irrelevant. If the experts running the human trials conclude they are safe then your personal disagreement amounts to zero.
Again, you cant guarantee the virus will not have even more long term risk associated with the infection, so your personal fears about something that has demonstrated to be much safer than the infection in every possible way do not change the fact that it is less risky than COVID-19, specially when talking about long term risks, because for the vaccines there is none identified yet, while for the virus several are already confirmed and more are expected.
It's no longer available but I suspect it's about the Lancet paper. From what I remember it was only among hospitalized people and the long term effects were things like fatigue, depression,...
These are serious problems so your efforts to minimize them as if they had not importance are not valid. If a vaccine had the same problems would you be fine saying that it is something that could be safely disregarded? Obviously not, since you are rejecting the vaccines even without any of those problems.
3 ( +7 / -4 )
So you think she should sit out the games? That’s a lot to ask. I personally couldn’t do that.
I never said that, just that it is completely possible she is in a difficult situation personally because of the contradiction about what the games should represent and what they actually mean for people that are in the situation were she was until recently.
That's her choice to make, I guess.
Doing or not doing anything of course, but what I am talking about is a a possible extra personal stress for being in a complicated position.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
In Japan, nobody below 20 has died from covid. With this kind of stat, why would anyone give an unapproved vaccine to their kid. That would be abuse. Who knows what kind of long term adverse effects they will get.
Nobody has been confirmed to die from COVID, that is different. Also death is not the only negative consequence from the disease.
A safe and effective vaccine is not abuse, if it can be proved there is no significative risk then the opposite is the abuse. Do you know what kind of long term adverse effects will come from COVID infection? the article explains a very serious one that comes even after mild disease, it is perfectly valid that others will be identified in the future.
On the opposite side, a vaccine with a millionth or so of the antigen, without any of the immune-system hacking non-structural proteins and without any replication done inside the cells has every chance of being much safer.
2 ( +8 / -6 )
So good news, it's rare and treatable
Even better news, it is preventable, in the worst case scenario by vaccinating everybody else so transmission of the pathogen is stopped, in the best directly vaccinating the kids so the risk is reduced even more
5 ( +9 / -4 )
Nah, it's simply your way to get the scariest sounding number. Assuming that all infections are included in the official PCR-confirmed number does not make any sense, especially for Japan.
I already told you where to get Raoult's data of the ca. 0.07% death rate (all ages).
No, it is simple the most reliable number that can be obtained, It destroy the whole "COVID is not even that bad" argument, but that is because it is not true. It does not assume that only detected infections happened, it simply is the number that can be calculated directly without making assumptions of unknown numbers that depend on many unidentified variables.
And no, the imaginary Raoult data is not real, you have never provided a source, only that you can see it even if nobody else can. Of course you could prove me wrong by providing a source here, but I suspect you will not because you have never done so.
6 ( +9 / -3 )
Again completely meaningless comment (do you even read what you write?) because you just want to reject the science and the scientific work you are not able to understand and reply to, and that goes against your false rhetoric.
My reasons are clear and valid, so much that you have not been able to reject them, not now nor in the previous discussions where you ended up simply not defending your mistakes. I know they make your mistake evident, but that has nothing to do with them being meaningless.
Those are serious accusations that you are not in a position to do unless you provide me your a list of your publications that would give you any credibility in questioning his work. His estimations were in line with others studies which of course you decided to ignore.
I never said that I was the one that proved the accusations, I said it was a well known problem because it is, and you are completely wrong, a list of publications do not make someone more or less correct when criticizing mistakes, the evidence of those mistakes is the one that makes them valid or not. Your invalid appeal to authority is meaningless, If a elementary school kid can prove something is wrong that is enough to consider it wrong. Your position is deeply antiscientific.
It is simple enough to say he predicted 10,000 deaths for the US, that made him only over half a million deaths short until now.
You never reply to my points and always go to some accusations that actually apply to you.
I directly proved your invalid assumption about what I write is not correct. You have proved not being able to understand correctly scientific texts and misrepresent them (for example with the COVID herd immunity paper, where the authors ASSUMED endemicity in order to put forward a model and you mistakenly though they PROVED endemicity was the only possible result). You never defended against this criticism over the terrible way you treat evidence.
Nowhere on your post you are replying to the data I provided you and about your poor understanding of the terms involved.
No, you simply made the mistake of assuming I was talking about one thing when it was obvious I was talking about another, none of your data proves that getting a diagnostic of COVID means having less than 1% chances of dying.
You are correcting only your own misrepresentation of what other people write, as you usually do.
This really proves how sloppy you are. I gave the link in order to provide you the death rates because I think this is what the post you replied to was referring to.
You provided a very clear reference that proved that case-fatality ration is at least 1-2%, that obviously means people can refer to that, and it is actually the natural thing to do, because it depends on information that is reliable (to a certain point) and do not require unproved assumptions. Nevertheless you assumed arbitrarily I was talking about something different and "corrected" only your own confusion. Having this evidence there should have been enough to make you think "the CFR may be what the comment is about", but you didn't do it because you have very strong problems understanding what other people write and insist on misinterpreting it at your convenience.
4 ( +8 / -4 )
Consider these things;
Vaccine and Pharmaceutical manufacturers are legally indemnified against injury or death by Vaccine. These are NOT Vaccines, these injections are patented as mRNA and DNA Gene Manipulation Therapy, even the HPV Vaccine is mRNA, all Vaccines going forward are mRNA thanks to the Eugenicist Bill Gates…these are not approved, not tested, experimental injections that last a life-time, interfering with how the body fights new viruses that entry the body.
Everything in your comment is easily disproved as false information.
The vaccines fulfill completely the definition of what a vaccine is, none of them manipulate any of your genes, they are already out of experimentation and are being used for their therapeutic value so they are no longer considered experimental, and all were thoroughly tested, Bill Gates has never been an eugenicist, the injections have half-life measured in minutes to hours and they interfere much less with the immunity than the actual virus, that produces proteins with the specific purpose of messing with your immune system.
6 ( +11 / -5 )
No like usual you are saying something that is not correct because oversimplified and imprecise. The infection fatality rate (the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including all asymptomatic and undiagnosed subjects), not the death rate since you seem to confuse both, is known to be smaller than 1%, let alone 2%.
No, that is again you not understanding what you read and making invalid assumptions. It is perfectly valid to have those chances AFTER you are diagnosed with the infection, confirmed deaths and confirmed infections are the only clear data we can use to get rates, the rest is derive from inferences that may or not be wrong.
For example, Ioannidis is a terrible reference for anything that has to do with COVID, his huge conflicts of interest and the sudden drop of qualify of his research have made him a dubious reference at much, Everybody was surprise how he could publish studies so deficient and incomplete when previously he was the one that was first to criticize every mistake he made. After his funding became clear the surprise was gone.
Once again you part from not understanding correctly what you read and making wrong conclusions about it, it was the same with the "escape mutants" or the paper that supposedly proved COVID would never reach herd immunity. I seriously recommend you to put more attention to what you want to discuss first. Your own reference for Johns Hopkins data prove that observed case-fatality ratio (the one that require less inferences and assumptions to make) is at least 1-2% and for some countries much higher.
3 ( +9 / -6 )
Not needed for kids. My kids will never get these vaccines.
The article describe a perfectly valid need for kids.
Many kids do not receive safe and effective health measures only because of irrational beliefs of the parents, from food and vitamins to blood. That does not make this a rational choice.
9 ( +13 / -4 )
Posted in: Retiring in Japan: What’s the best strategy?