in light of the rising cases with no end in sight.
Yeah yeah yeah, you said the same in January. Keep saying the same thing over and over again, you are a winner.
-6 ( +3 / -9 )
Answer to the scientific study instead of throwing random information you barely understand. You just don't seem to understand that there isn't a scientific consensus on the subject.
I have no idea what "nature.com" is or why you consider it a reliable source.
Here right, you have no idea. The paper I linked to was published last month in Nature (Medecine), which just happens to be one of the best and most prestigious scientific journal out there.
-9 ( +4 / -13 )
Check out Long Covid. 1/3 of people who get COVID-19 end up with a long-hauler case.
Like I said in a previous comment, it's amazing to me how they're willing to have an entire generation of young people with long-term illness
Could you stop saying nonsense please? Here is a very recent study which addresses the long COVID. Out of 4,182 incident cases of COVID-19, 13.3% of the participants reported symptoms lasting higher or equal than 28 days, 4.5% for higher or equal to 8 weeks and 2.3% for higher or equal to 12 weeks. Also long COVID most observed symptoms were more likely associated with increasing age, body mass index and female sex.
-12 ( +5 / -17 )
Of course this technology has still a few open questions and research is ongoing. But again that's Japan's trash and it owes the world to investigate this method too. Concerning the site, actually Japan has been constructing two underground experimental sites for that purpose, one in Mizunami in a crystalline medium at 1000 m depth; the other one in Horonobe (Hokkaido) in a sedimentary clay medium at 500 m depth.
9 ( +10 / -1 )
Its a standard process for normally operating plants too.
No the process water that enters the reaction chamber operates on a closed loop. The only water discharged to the environment in a normal functioning plant is the cooling water which never comes into contact to any highly radioactive part. What we are talking about here is precisely the water that has come directly into contact to the radioactive fuel.
17 ( +18 / -1 )
Is there any other solution?
I would first fund serious serious studies on the real environmental impact on the fauna and flora which are poorly understood. They had ten years to do that, they did not.
Another possibility would have been of course to try to pursue other routes, the most credible being searching for a site for deep burring of the containers. That's Japan trash, Japan should deal with it on its land. Japan could have ask for the expertise and help for such technologies to countries which are developing it like France. The reason why they are throwing it to the sea is that it's the cheapest solution.
12 ( +15 / -3 )
How convenient, just throw it to the sea. Japan has been such a disgrace in the gestion of this since already the first reactor blew up.
27 ( +33 / -6 )
We, we know the vaccine is not effective against the Eeek mutation.
The Lancet article you linked the other day does not say that. Read it again instead of spreading BS around all day long.
The person has not shown any symptoms yet, they said.
So what's the problem then? Being positive does not mean he is being sick or even contagious. Positiveness to a pathogen after vaccination has been observed in many other viruses (you know one is called the influenza), there is nothing new here with the COVID-19.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
A part of my original post was cut, here how it should read:
Another study (still not peer-reviewed) estimated the country-wide average IFR in Brazil to be 0.97% with strong variability with age: 0.028% for less than 30 years, 0.21% for 30–49 years, 1.06% for 50–69 years, 2.9% for 70 years and higher.
From the US CDC, the current best estimate for the IFR in US in it's pandemic planning scenarios is as follows:
0 - 17 years; 20 per 1,000,000 infections = 0.002%
18 - 49 years; 500 per 1,000,000 infections = 0.05%
50 - 64 years; 6000 per 1,000,000 infections = 0.6%
65+: 90,000 per 1,000,000 infections = 9%
Note the very severe IRF among the elderlies which of course is a known thing.
-4 ( +2 / -6 )
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.
I did reject them because I told you that they make no sense. What you write is scientifically meaningless. What mistakes are you talking about? What I provided you are correct definitions, correct science and real data.
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.
The above makes literally no sense, what are you talking about? For the sake of humanity, could you just write something that makes sense instead of putting randomly words together?
Those are media content not scientific papers. Provide scientific data and research. Not media articles which are largely politicized as you are. And you keep focusing on Ioannidis while I provided you many sources of data for the IFR which you chose to ignore since you can't reply to them.
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.
That's not what we are discussing here. You are just cherry picking something because it fits your rhetoric and choose to ignore the subject at hand.
I directly proved your invalid assumption about what I write is not correct.
No, you simply made the mistake of assuming I was talking about one thing when it was obvious I was talking about another,
Oh really let's see. Here is the post you replied to:
What's the point of getting a test for a virus with an extremely low mortality rate?
This post precisely referred to mortality rate (=death rate, a measure of the number of deaths, in general or due to a specific cause, in a particular population, scaled to the size of that population, per unit of time). You replied by giving figures for the case fatality ratio which was wrong because you indeed were confusing both. And I suspect that you didn't even know the term case fatality ratio because you misunderstood what the mortality rate means. Now you don't want to admit your mistake and you claim I made a wrong assumption of what you wrote. This is too easy, next time then stop to be sloppy because terms have precise meanings.
You have proved not being able to understand correctly scientific texts
Nowhere, absolutely nowhere you can claim that this is valid to say that. My post was totally correct as I gave you exact definitions of the IFR and case fatality ratio and told you why to use the IFR, precisely because your post was replying to another one about the dangerously of the virus. The case fatality ratio only allows to calculate the fatality rate from the observed positive cases and therefore is useful to drive the health care response. However, by definition it can't measure the real fatality rate of the virus, that's why epidemiologists use the IFR. You claim that the IFR is not valid without the beginning of competence to do that. If you want to do so please provide me a precise analysis that shows why and how the current methods uses to estimate the IFR are not reliable. Provide a rigorous mathematical analysis and calculations. Unless you do that, everything else is pure BS! Also most of the estimations of the IFR are based on models that simulate the spread of the virus, so provide a mathematical proof which shows that the equations used to drive those models are based on wrong assumptions. I should also mention the same models are also used to drive the restrictions and lockdowns policies. And if you look at the mortality rate, the estimations of the IFR for example from the CDC are in accordance together since you would expect a higher mortality rate if the IFR is much higher.
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)
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. You did not read properly both my post and the paper, read again
one of your data proves that getting a diagnostic of COVID means having less than 1% chances of dying.
They do and you aren't providing any scientific analysis proving otherwise.
You are correcting only your own misrepresentation of what other people write, as you usually do.
You can't reply scientifically so you keep throwing baseless arguments.
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.
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. And now you claim this is me misunderstanding your post because you can't just admit you were flat out wrong. Again if you don't want people to supposedly misunderstand you, why don't you start to read properly people's post and be precise in your response? Why didn't you then refer in your post to the CFR instead of just throwing numbers around? The original post you replied to precisely mentioned the mortality rate, that's why I gave the link because it gives the mortality rate which were of course not in your 1-2% range whatsoever. Again because you replied to a comment precisely mentioning the mortality rate.
And again what are those unproved assumptions? As I told you above, provide a robust analysis for the term unproven.
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
having 1 or 2 chances out of every 100 of dying is not exactly extremely low
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%. Or you could actually be confusing with the case-fatality ratio (the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a particular period), but I am going to focus my post on the IFR because it's more informative to estimate the fatality rate in both sick and healthy infected.
The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV2 in a super-spreading event in Germany was estimated to be 0.36% for the community and 0.35% when age-standardized to the population of the community.
In another estimation from John P A Ioannidis, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27%, with substantial variabilities across different locations reflecting differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors.
Another study (still not peer-reviewed) estimated the country-wide average IFR in Brazil to be 0.97% with strong variability with age: 0.028% for 0.002%
18 - 49 years; 500 per per 1,000,000 infections - 0.05%
50 - 64 years; 6000 per per 1,000,000 infections - 0.6%
65+: 90,000 - 9%
Note the very severe IRF among the elderlies which of course is a known thing.
For the death rate, it's of course quit small also, eg. 0.17% for US. Czechia republic has actually the highest one, 0.26%.
-7 ( +4 / -11 )
Japan considers prioritizing Olympic athletes for COVID-19 vaccination
This is so wrong. Japan has already quite dragged its feet for the vaccination since it insisted for doing its own trials, and now Japan wants to continue for being late in vaccinating the vulnerable population. It needs to first vaccine that population, not healthy athletes. Since they continue to be so incompetent in the vaccination, they are going to be less and less legitimate on imposing COVID-19 related restrictions on people.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Why would anyone ever trust anything put out by Putin's government? They've only proven themselves to be liars. To trust their vaccine, you'd have to trust their information. Is anyone stupid enough to trust Putin's Russia?
You don't need to believe Putin. Just believe the science and stop politicizing everything.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
This is all very amusing to me as I sit back in Australia enjoying all my social freedoms
If you are in Australia, why do you care about what Japan does or doesn’t? On what ground do you give yourself the right to give lessons to others on a subject you don’t understand. Just enjoy then your so called social freedom that you were so easily giving up in the first place.
The vaccine is not the silver bullet to end the virus.
Science says it definitely is. And you have zero competence to dispute that point.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
9,06% positivity rate in Tokyo
No it makes no sense to say that because it's meaningless to consider just a single day. Rather you must take an average on a given period. Currently, the positivity rate in Tokyo is 4.3% calculated from 7-day moving average.
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
We need a total lock down for two month.
Go ahead, be my guest, lock yourself down for two months and come back to tell us how much fun you had.
What’s ridiculous is you bragging every day about a subject you have zero understanding of.
-13 ( +22 / -35 )
What makes you think they killed the baby? Quite a jump to conclusions.
He didn’t say that they killed the baby, he used the word crime. Now the Oxford English Dictionary defines crime as: ‘An action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law’. What those people did constitutes without any doubt a crime in regards to Japanese law so his post is properly worded since it does not imply at all how exactly this crime was committed. You are just not paying attention to the exact meaning of words.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
And about this one:
you are judging how well the WHO is acting according to your own preconceived conclusions about what it should be looking out and what it "must" find. That is not valid.
I am starting to wonder if you can read properly. This is not me, look at the link I provided.
-2 ( +6 / -8 )
That is false, the scientific consensus is that the laboratory escape theory is not realistically possible by a huge miriad of reasons
No, this is not true, read the link I provided you and answer to it instead of going into completely meaningless nonsense which is frankly painful to read. The experts there (which again you are not qualified to rebut) do acknowledge that lab-acquired or lab-escape origins are possible and that a rigorous forensic investigation should be done in order to assess whether or not this could have happen, together with all other credible origins. This was not done by WHO. That's the point here, nothing more, nothing less.
You claimed that there is a consensus on the matter, it is clearly not the case, you were wrong. Some people in the scientific community do say that a lab origin is not possible (which I am of course aware of), some do question that this conclusion is rushed and not fully scientifically proven.
What remains is that WHO's conclusions are flawed because their investigation is flawed. Politics is involved here and I can see that you are more into the political side of argumentation than the scientific one.
3 ( +11 / -8 )
That conclusion did not come from the WHO but from the whole scientific community last year.
This is factually not true. The problem with the WHO investigation is that it has not performed a scientifically rigorous forensic investigation of ALL potential origins of the virus, including lab-acquired or lab-escape infections. It is just not there. Instead it has been pressured by the Chinese to put forward a ridiculous theory about the frozen food origin which in that case, all qualified scientists in this field have called Chinese BS.
Now I don't know if the lab origin is valid or not. I am a fluid dynamics and high performance computing scientist but not an expert in that field. However as a scientist, I do see that the investigation made by the WHO is a joke since they have not been able to do it freely without the Chinese authorities behind their back and have not been given the required information, data and free access to all facilities and people involved.
A group of experts, the type of experts actually required to identify the source of a virus, have published last month an open letter calling for an unrestricted international forensic investigation into the origins of COVID-19. They explain why the WHO investigation is flawed and propose what to do to fix it. Those experts are not random crazy dudes posting on internet forums imaginary science. They know what they are talking about and their request is wise and totally makes sense.
If you don't agree with them, you need to have the expertise to do that. I don't think you have at all judging from your posts concerning that subject. If you do, please provide a concrete and scientifically constructed rebuttal and provide a list of your peer-reviewed papers from which I can judge your expertise on this field.
4 ( +12 / -8 )
On the other hand you don't actually see how much the product costs BEFORE you are forced to feed the government leeches
But then do the math instead of calling others lazy cheep....
4 ( +6 / -2 )
I seem to remember all prices including tax until the consumption tax was raised to 10%. I might be wrong, but it was after the tax increase where I started noticing pre-tax prices appearing everywhere.
Actually you are almost correct. This nonsense started to happen when the sales tax was increased from 5% to 8%. In fact when I arrived in Japan in 2002, the prices were never displayed with the tax included. It was the government of Koizumi who passed a law in 2003 or 2004 that forced all shops to include the sales fax. This was really a relieve because nobody had to worry again about this nonsense no sales tax included thing. And then came the increase to 8% where suddenly prices without the sales tax came back or with the double labels BS with the full price written in smaller letters. This was done and allowed by the government in a total bizarre way in order to make appear the sales tax increase less painful than it was to the consumer. It was so bizarre.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Japanese officials have said the country will ensure the highest levels of safety and transparency
There isn't such thing as transparency in Japan because it is so corrupted. And that's the same corruption and fraud which were responsible for this disaster in the first place so I find quit irritating that Japan is crying like a baby for help now.
Russia, America, Britain, Germany, and other countries dump highly radioactive waste into the oceans for decades.
Exactly. A fact the everyone seems to forget.
Yes sure that was shameful but so what? That does not give Japan the right to do so now since this practice has been banned.
1 ( +7 / -6 )
Japanese citizens living abroad are expected to be allowed to volunteer, according to the officials.
If true, another shameful move from Japan against foreigners.
Just being vaccinated doesn’t stop you from spreading, especially new, more virulent and deadly variants.
BS, provide scientific data to back that up because it makes no sense.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
There is no proof that vaccinated people cannot spread the disease
This is factually flat wrong because solid real data are showing that it is highly likely the case at least for AstraZeneca and Pfizer. The latter was verified based on data and preliminary studies in Israel which has the best dataset so far since it has vaccinated most of its population. So you should try way harder at getting proper informations instead of constructing your self-made fear mongering distorted reality field.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
A complete failure of the government that's costing 50+ lives daily
Here are the number of deaths in Tokyo alone from 2000 to 2019. 120,870 deaths in 2019 alone (so before the COVID-19), that's thousands per day. And you are saying that 50+ deaths daily from COVID-19 are significant enough to justify what kind of action exactly? Makes no sense, it's totally irrational and quite silly to be honest. Or maybe you decided somehow that death is not acceptable anymore.
-4 ( +3 / -7 )
back in, provided they have taken a Chinese-made COVID-19 vaccine.
Complete disgusting utterly decision which reflects quite well how disgusting China can be. No conditions should be made on what vaccine people are using moreover because all major non Chinese vaccines are way more efficient than the Chinese one.
18 ( +20 / -2 )
You are basically downplaying the Russian vaccine without any scientific competence to do that. Nobody cares about whether or not you trust Russia. Nobody. That's not the point. What's important is that whether or not we have another effective vaccine potentially more accessible to poor countries. Science says yes, regardless of what a random guy in internet thinks about Russia.
I live in Japan, the fact that you did not figure it out until now tells a lot. But thanks yes, I am absolutely fine to use the Russian vaccine as I am for the other ones.
-2 ( +5 / -7 )
Well this campaign is disinformation is absolutely not acceptable and dangerous, no doubt about that.
But hypocrisy is again in action here because a lot of officials in US and Europe have made fun of the Russian vaccine calling it basically BS and dangerously rushed when Putin announced that they were about to deploy it. So some people should really stop to play the victims now since that was also a form of "disinformation".
Never ever put any vaccine coming out from Russia into my body.
Do you have any scientific evidence to suggest as you seem to do that the Russian vaccine is bad? The answer is of course no since an independently conducted interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of the vaccine showed that it was in fact well tolerated and effective. 91·6% efficacy against COVID-19. Here,
0 ( +6 / -6 )