The stalker used a sure way to find the new address of the victim applying technology, but fortunately was not smart enough to hide his identify while doing it and got himself arrested.
It may be time to think how to stop people from doing this, maybe confirming first with the people relocating if they want to receive packages addressed to their old places or redirecting the envelopes to a post office to be picked up instead of automatically delivering to the new address.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
Title says "one in eight", not "one in five". Is the title also misleading?
The misleading part from the comment is about presenting the "one in eight" in covid patients as if it came instead of the "one in eleven" in uninfected people. In reality for covid patients both cases apply.
Omitting the "extra" or "in top of" is what makes the comment misleading.
A non-misleading way to include both percentages would be to make it clear the 12% do not replace the 8% from the control group. The title is not misleading because it does not present this basal prevalence, so the 12% can easily be understood to be exclusively presented in people that had covid. For example if the title said "long covid affects one in eight covid patients, and one in eleven uninfected people" that would be misleading.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Exactly, "the extra percentage when compared with the basal number" that got the symptoms due to the infection. It's the "1 in 8" that is in the title, why shouldn't I use that number in my comparison. I am talking about the "1 in 8"!
As explained before, because your comparison is misleading when you compared the extra percentage as if it was instead of the basal prevalence, not something that come on top of it.
It is the huge difference between:
12% have the symptoms after covid and 9% without covid.
an extra 12% have the symptoms after covid on top of the 9% that have them with or without it.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Welcome to 2022, where variants that are much more easily transmitted pump the number of cases up, now if you compare the rates of hospitalizations and deaths per number of infection before and after the vaccination efforts you will see a very clear difference, that is the effect vaccines have.
At the time I had the first there was no suggestion that a second would be needed. Why should this be if the first worked?
There was every suggestion further doses could be needed the moment no other vaccine against any coronavirus had been developed before, willful ignorance of what the experts said is not a valid excuse, the first vaccine worked and protected the people, variants came and accelerated the rate the protection was reduced, so the same thing that happened with the primary vaccines was sought with the boosters, and it was achieved.
And for most countries the largest wave of Covid occurred after the majority of the population had two vaccinations.
Because of the much higher transmission of omicron and because countries switched from preventing infections to preventing complications (again in great part thanks to the vaccines). Many of the measures that prevented infections were unsustainable and were meant only as a way to gain time until vaccination was completed as much as possible, those measures are also much less efficient against the Omicron strain. Both factors help to explain why infections increased so importantly, while hospitalizations and deaths did not.
The initial claims have proved unfounded and even the claim that the vaccinations reduce severity seems increasingly tenuous
All published research say this is still true even now, to think the evidence is tenuous it is necessary to actively refuse to accept that evidence.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
Your appeal might hold a bit of water if the vaccines were safe and effective. Turns out they're not, negating any duty.
The experts in public health, vaccination and infectious diseases say they are safe and effective, and have the data to prove it, against this nameless people on the internet saying the scientific and medical community of the world are all wrong simply do not hold any weight.
previous 3 vaccines did not work and highly likely high percentage of vaccinated paople are now or having serious issues/hospitalized/or are dying/thanks to covid/or having serious side issues/heart etc/.gov is hiding these data from us/as these are never published here even we get everyday so called "detailed report" as part of covid brain massage/.
Vaccines work, and if your argument to prove a conspiracy is that you have no evidence for that conspiracy that only means you have no argument, a conspiracy where people on every institution of health or science of the planet actively hide problems that would affect them, their friends and families is not believable at all.
question-3 vaccines did not stop covid,did not protect vaccinated people and did not bring "freedom" of life and travel to vaccinated people-will this vaccine no 4 finally help?
Vaccines do protect people, the rest is just a strawman from antivaxxer groups that actively try to hide the effect variants have on all kinds of immunity, something that was warned could happen even before vaccines were even developed.
any guarantee that this new product causing no serious side effects?
Yes, the clinical trials, that is one of their two purposes.
I guess very serious questions to ask before someone have to decide if will take part in this new vaccine experiment
If you consider vaccination an experiment that means you will participate in it, vaccinated people would be the low risk group, unvaccinated people the high risk controls that will tell us exactly how many problems are being prevented by the vaccines.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
It all depends how they are compared. My comments are very clear, they are not invalid. I never described the 12.7% as representing the incidence in the infected group.
Two different people clearly understood your comparison as wrong. Your representation is misleading since it appears to indicate the 12% as opposed to the 9% of the control group. (12 instead of the expected 9%) The much more clear comparison (21 instead of the expected 9%) clearly points out that the 12% is not the total fraction of infected people that presented symptoms but the extra percentage when compared with the basal number.
You are almost as likely to get the symptoms for other reasons (8.7%) as you are of getting them from the infection (12.7%).
No, not as likely, because it represents an increase of almost 50% from the basal numbers. This is a very significative increase, If
OK, so the above article, on which my comments are based, is wrong...
It rounds up a number, that is not unusual, seeing the "8.8% vs 21.4%" is usually a very strong hint the source is the original research article, because neither of those numbers are mentioned in this news article.
Anyway, considering that 8.7% of uninfected people also reported these symptoms, should we really be that alarmed about the virus. We might want to look elsewhere...
The experts that take care of public health think this is a very serious threat worth attention and vigilance, that 12% of the people that developed covid will have long lasting health problems is something of importance., this incidence do not replace the normal one, it comes on top of it. A trillion dollars worth of economic losses because of it is not something that can just be left as unimportant either.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
Yes, that is why I modified the text from the article to make it clearer, and intentionally added "long covid".
Your text compares 12.7 and 9%, which is invalid, if you want to present the incidence the correct way would be 8.7 vs 21.4%.
While 9% had the same symptoms for other reasons (stress, vaccination?,...).
There is no reason to think vaccination would be a significative reason for the symptoms to be present in uninfected individuals. They syndrome included general symptoms that affect people long before covid appeared, obviously also before the vaccines were developed. As the nature reference clearly points out vaccination is correlated with a reduction of the presentation of long covid syndrome, if vaccination was a significant cause the opposite would be observed.
Are you sure about that? I don't mean to be splitting hairs but the way I interpreted it:
The original source can easily be consulted and clearly says so:
In 12·7% of patients, these symptoms could be attributed to COVID-19, as 381 (21·4%) of 1782 COVID-19-positive participants versus 361 (8·7%) of 4130 COVID-19-negative controls had at least one of these core symptoms substantially increased to at least moderate severity at 90–150 days after COVID-19 diagnosis or matched timepoint.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
The authors suggest 12.7 % of those who had COVID (1 in 8) suffered from long Covid (chest pain, breathing difficulties, muscle pain, loss of taste and smell, and general fatigue). But 9 % of a control group which did not have COVID reported similar symptoms.
No, that is not what the article reports, 12.7% is the excess of people presenting symptoms above the 9% that would be expected, that means without covid it would be a 8.7%, with covid it becomes 21.4%.
And this was before Omicron! And I suspect infected people were not offered safe and effective early treatments
There is nothing to justify those suspicions, everything that has demonstrated efficacy is being offered as a treatment, the drugs you keep trying to push (ivermectin and HCQ) are not offered because they give no benefit for covid patients, even if they are given before the infection, and only increase their risk because of their well known toxicity.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Yet, the Ministry of Health seems to think that there is zero public health benefit in offering these to the over 30 million unvaccinated Japanese people.
Completely invalid misrepresentation. The shots are proved to be beneficial as boosters, so they can be offered as boosters. Primary inoculation would protect people adequately even against omicron so no boosting would be necessary until later, at which point these shots would be indicated (if it can reduce the risk from the infection of the variant prevalent at that time).
If evidence comes that using the dual shots offers the same protection as the original vaccines then (and only then) they can be offered as primary vaccines.
-1 ( +6 / -7 )
If the virus isn't causing the symptoms, I wonder what is.
Any of the dozens and dozens of other causes already related to any of the relatively general symptoms. Do you think nobody felt tired, had difficulty breathing or pain in their limbs before the pandemic began?
If the results of the study show a very important increment of those symptoms that means the virus is the cause for those patients. Covid causes an increase of incidence over the background levels in the general population.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
Unless China stops their taunting and threatening of other nations it will not be in a position to demand or urge anybody else to do better than them.
Many countries can have the high ground to point to Japan (or more exactly to people in power that want the country to have nuclear weapons) to honor its commitment, but China is not one.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
On one side it is natural for them to use any and all resources available to get the case in their favor, but on the other side it is now completely clear the government is not going to let the decision reversed.
At least their efforts will help putting the problem in the spotlight for a while longer, maybe they would not achieve much for themselves but hopefully some kind of very necessary reform may be triggered by the attention.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
And what with the people like me who didn't have the first shot yet? Or with people who took only the first shot but didn't take a second one?
They won't be able to get Omicron COVID shot?
I think we should be at least compensated.
That would be very easy, get vaccinated first, and if the booster is necessary for you by the time the protection of the vaccine drops then you can get it. Being vaccinated recently gives adequate protection to everybody. This new shot has been tested as a booster, so it can assure protection as a booster, not as a primary inoculation.
This is a corporate press release.
Which communicates the evidence submited to regulation bodies that decide if a booster is or not approved, it is not just something said, but something that can be proved scientifically to the point governments can approve the use of the shots.
Will "some" increase in antibodies stop infection?
Antibody levels are a well characterized surrogate of protection, and the same as every other vaccine the main purpose of the covid vaccines and boosters is to prevent complications and death, preventing infection is an extra benefit that would not make the vaccines inadequate by not achieving it completely, the same as happens with all previous vaccines.
How long until "waning" precipitates another booser?
So you want researchers to bring information of the future? what variants are going to appear in the next few months? how different are they going to be from the currently prevalent ones? without that information obviously whatever is said right now would be invalid.
That is exactly what I said.
You said you have read thousands of articles that don't leave any question unanswered, but you could not bring even one. The problem is to have an expectation no article ever accomplished. If I have an unanswered question of any article you considered adequate, would that make it deficient? that is what you are arguing.
You have not demonstrated other people questions were or not answered, just what you personally, subjectively wanted. Personalizing the articles to what you consider important is less rational even than asking for them to include anything anybody could consider important.
-8 ( +3 / -11 )
These long covid symptoms, are they truly able to attribute them to covid? Some of them are very general run-of-the-mill maladies everyone experiences long before covid was on the scene.
Read the article, is explained very clearly there. These are an excess of people presenting those symptoms compared with people that never had the disease. What other explanation do you imagine is there for this increase of incidence only on people that got covid?
Were they also vaccinated?
That would be the case also for the people that did not have the problem, and vaccination has been correlated with a lower incidence of long-covid.
-2 ( +4 / -6 )
But that is what readers do expect from an article.
For anybody with a minimum of common sense this is obviously not true, there are literally dozens and dozens of pages of information that could be of interest to someone but that are not included in this article, from the story of the variants to the antigenic epitopes that are different. Nobody expect all and every single detail to be included in 8 short parragraphs.
If I read an article, and after that I have to start to google all necessary information, which gives the article sense, is completely Nonsense.
That is what everybody does if they want more information that is not included, there is nothing strange about it.
An article has to give all the necessary information to the readers and also answers to possible questions, otherwise the article is nothing else than BS.
Completely false, articles give a short introduction with the information that is most commonly interesting to the public, not the hundreds of pages that would answer every possible question anybody could have, that is very obviously not a realistic standard.
And it brings up the question if the writer of this article really did investigate before he published his or her story.
Because the article is not hundreds of pages long? again completely invalid.
How many articles have you read that conform to this standard of yourse? put a couple of links I am sure I can come with many questions that are not answered in those articles and I would have to google to completement the information. No article includes all information ever available about a topic.
-3 ( +9 / -12 )
What the hell does that mean???
This may surprise you but articled do not include all and every single detail of a story, if you are interested on something you can easily google it and solve your doubts instead of thinking every single detail must be written on every article. Refusing to be vaccinated is fine (as long as you don't become an extra risk for others) but using as a pretext lack of information from one single article is not.
According to the information released by the manufacturers the increase is from 10 to 20 times over the basal levels before boosting, so that would mean a 1000% to 2000% percent.
-11 ( +9 / -20 )
Sad to see Abe keeps being a factor that decreases the confidence in the government even after his death.
But polling only 1200 plus people doesn’t suffice. It should be at least 100,000.
What for? for the population of Japan a sample of around 500 people would give representative results with good margins of confidence, pooling 1,200 people means the results obtained would have a margin of error of less than 3%.
3 ( +7 / -4 )
Some increase, what for a couple of weeks? What a shambles and a blatant money grab.
Vaccines reduce risk for months, specially against the worst complications of the infection, they are in great part the reason why countless deaths have been avoided, with what do you supposed a booster is to be replaced? with the full risks of the infection?
If at first you don't succeed, try and try and try again. 5th time lucky soon.
Experts of the world consider the covid vaccines extremely succesful and well worth getting immunized, just because they don't conform to a personal, biased, arbitrary standard of perfecte efficacy against all and everything you can think of this does not make them unsuccessful.
Pfizer and Moderna lobbyists must be hard at work pushing for the government to promote these things of dubious effectiveness and safety, as fewer and fewer people want them.
If the shots have scientific evidence of efficacy at lowering the risk from the infection they are not dubious except for conspiracy theorist that invoke impossible world wide plots that include all and every institution of health and science.
-10 ( +13 / -23 )
37yo is already an age where a person should have long learned to hold his alcohol properly, and contrary to other comments he was not arrested just for sleeping on the street but because he used violence against the officer that woke him up.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Thankfully, neither kokushobi nor chounettaiya are all that common in Japan
Unless a miracle happens and humanity develops a way to counter the impact over the environment these days and nights of extreme heat are going to be more and more common on the following years.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Compared to Australia or New Zealand, for example, which just keep seeing more and more outbreaks and have some of the highest infection rates in the world, while China has the lowest.
As you yoursefl have proved this is completely false, other countries have lower rates of infection without any need of zero covid policies, not are Australia and New Zealand the only countries in the world apart from China. Seeing how most countries do not need to hide 90 to 95% of the deaths from covid as China does this means many other countries are doing much better, thanks to a real scientific approach instead of the unsustainable way the CCP is using just to increase their control over the population.
Meanwhile the rest of the world has an astronomical infection and death rate compared to China.
No, not really, literally dozens of other countries have lower death rates once the reports from all countries are equalized to the Chinese ones by not counting any deaths from a patient with any other disease.
Was New Zealand, Australia, the UK trying to control the population when they had lockdowns?
No, because they used them against variants that were much more easily controlled by the lockdowns and specially as a way to gain time until the actually best measures (vaccination for example) could be used to replace the lockdowns.
Using lockdowns in 2022, where much better measures are already available is not justified, even less because the currently predominant variants are much less susceptible to be controlled by them.
Looks like keeping the number and rate of infections and deaths the lowest in the world is still the best approach
Since that is not China that would be true, but disproves your argument.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Endless cycle, outbreaks, lockdowns, outbreaks, lockdowns, up to no end.
Meanwhile the rest of the world have reacted by reducing the risks that come with infections so a much more rational and productive way to deal with the pandemic can be put in order so infections can be managed at a level of risk comparable with other respiratory infections.
Then again vaccinating and treating infections do not make the population more easily controlled as the lockdowns that can be weaponized to quarantine people by magically making them positive for infection, so that can help explaining why the Chinese government is not taking the best approach according to the experts and instead persist on the unsustainable zero covid policy (just not a real zero anymore).
0 ( +2 / -2 )
The news seem quite suspicious, but taking into account the huge number of diplomats, their ages and the pandemic it is not as difficult to happen as it would seem just by reading the headline.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Too drunk to remember anything but not too drunk to successfully climb a 3 meter high fence? This seems much more like a terribly bad excuse.
13 ( +13 / -0 )
The market for Alzheimer Disease medications has almost tripled in the last 10 years.
This is a good thing, because it means research to develop effective treatment is guaranteed to increase as well, only people that have never witnessed how the disease destroy the mind of the patients can ever think it is better that no drug is ever developed against it.
The article describes a process that can even help discarding candidates treatment that will not work before they are recommended for patients, or even improve available candidates so treatment can be more effective without any extra investment, nor increase in price.
Thinking scientific advancement can only mean looking for profits is just antiscientific bias.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick.
That does nothing to disprove that they recommended masks on hospitals and to care for symptomatic patients
"There also is the issue that we have a massive global shortage," Ryan said about masks and other medical supplies. "Right now the people most at risk from this virus are frontline health workers who are exposed to the virus every second of every day. The thought of them not having masks is horrific."
This completely contradicts your biased misrepresentation and is completely in line with the available evidence at the beginning of the pandemic, something you said you can prove is wrong but you never provide any actual evidence about it, is this going to be just another topic where you fail to provide such evidence?
What source do have that concludes people should not wear masks, such as a study done between when the virus was first discovered and March 31?
Your point is that evidence of benefit when used by asymptomatic people was available before 2020, if no evidence is available for either benefit or lack of benefit that still means you are wrong and the WHO (and every other scientific institution of the world) were not wrong by prioritizing their use in hospitals, which is what the evidence actually supported.
None, because none exit
That still means you are mistaken, because your point (that the WHO was mistaken) requires evidence that was not available at the time.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
But in the end I just only smelled the intentions of selling the next bunch of new drugs.
Imagine that, reading an article about how it is very important to consider the chirality of compounds to properly discriminate the effects and only getting the impression of the desire of economic profit. The discovering can have many different effects, from improving the effect of generic drugs to prove why new candidates for treatment are actually less useful than proved on clinical trials. Thinking this is just an appeal to profit from some future discoveries evidence more a personal bias than what the article clearly explains.
Personally I would recommend to restrict oneself to only a few long term proven medical drugs and those also only in situations when there is no other option left.
There is always other options, including not treating the disease and get the full risks and decrease of health from rejecting proved medical interventions. From a practical point of view most people will prefer to bet for something that has evidence of benefit instead of subjecting themselves to a slow (or not so slow) deterioration until death just because of an arbitrary lapse of time has not passed.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
These U.S. Pharma's must surely be raking in the money ever time a new variant comes out, since that calls for a new Vaccine
How does this work in your mind? companies got lots of money with the beta, gamma, delta and omicron strains even when no new vaccine has been developed?
The pandemic have huge economic consequences by itself, there is no need to think anybody has some hidden interest on a vaccine company (much less all of them, from every country of the world) when the benefits of vaccination are so obvious as they have been for covid.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
While studying for a PhD one usually gets a stipend, scholarship and university housing.
In which country? because in Japan that is not the case at all, what would be the meaning of paying the university so you can get a stipend back? Getting to do many other things that do not require the degree (or that consider that degree even an undesirable thing to have) are not advantages from getting it. In both aspects the apprentice for a trade like this represents a much better benefit.
An apprentice can put his own shop with a reasonable amount of investment and as the article clearly mentions "From this point of view, apprentices actually receive free tuition." Only very few postgraduate students get a scholarship and in sciences no one can just put his own laboratory or research institute to work after graduation.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
So it is like getting a PhD in sciences except with more rational hours and the "apprentice" don't have to pay to get the training and has much better work prospects after finishing?
2 ( +4 / -2 )