If you do not compare with the general population, how can anyone say it is "unusual high incidence"?!!!!
Because this has not been described as happening in the normal population anywhere, and one fifth of the people complaining of pain, difficult of breath or high blood pressure without any other visible cause in just 30 days of following is definitely something that would have been noticed by even a badly prepared epidemiologist.
And the exact same thing can said with regards to the vaccine. It’s an EUA approval only.
That makes no sense, it has been proved to be hugely safer than the infection by any parameter possible, it is then something well know.
An Emergency that DOES NOT apply to the majority of the population. Clearly indicated by the data.
Emergency approval do not need to apply to the majority of the population, this is a a tool to let anybody that is exposed to more risk from the disease than from the vaccine to be immunized to reduce their risk, and this applies specially to vulnerable people of all ages that benefit much more from the vaccine than regular people and that could not be vaccinated without an EUA.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It is completely pointless if they don't compare it with the general population.
Again, no it is not, this is a perfectly valid preliminary study that evidence an unusual high incidence, this do not require a comparison with the general population, because its purpose is not to define exactly how different is this, only its presence. Having a bias against science is a much more likely explanation about why people insist on mischaracterizing a study and expect it to conclude something it is not designed to do.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
If anything you could use the 'asymptomatic' people as the control group because they're obviously not sick with it and they probably just got a positive result on a PCR test.
Did you even read the article? how are they going to use asymptomatic people as a control group if they are specifically one of the groups being studied? "not being sick with it" is the definition of asymptomatic.
It is not pointless to describe a quite high incidence of problems included in the "long COVID" syndrome even in patients that were asymptomatic. Doing it provides a reference to include these patients in subsequent studies and specially not to include them in the control group because it is very likely they are not the same as uninfected people.
Not having a non-infected cohort of the same demographics only makes it impossible to say exactly how many of the studied people would be likely to present the problems without the infection.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
He said he was worried that the volunteers at his venue lack training related to infectious diseases.
It can be very frustrating but many times health care professionals in the field are left with badly prepared personnel and nonsensical or contradictory instructions because people higher up don't understand the tasks that are necessary at ground level.
At the end it will be very likely that if something bad happens Dr Yanagawa will be left to assume all the responsibility as if he was the one that made the decisions.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Nationwide 2,000 people??? Among 124,000,000???
And they judge 86% percent of people in Japan by just calling 2,000 people?
Yes, because statistically this is considered to be more than enough, calling 2000 people would mean that 99% of the time the answers would be as reported plus/minus a 3%.
So yes, it is scientifically valid to say this sample represents the opinion of the country's population.
6 ( +10 / -4 )
The technology may be useful, but the description makes it seem like very preliminary results without any proof yet of being of any use in the real world, the minimum information necessary would be a comparison over time of the amount of particles with and without the coating, for example saying the technology made the particles disappear from the air in a closed space in 5 minutes would make it seem like it is very useful, but what if the particles also disappear without coating taking a minute longer?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
It is hardly surprising that several of the personal beliefs related to religious systems are distributed in an spectrum instead of a simple yes/no distribution, nor that these beliefs decay over time or that are less likely to be maintained after leaving less strict forms of cult when compared with more demanding systems.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
This is not longer an era where you can leave without proper attention farm products that can be worth even millions, it may still be rare, but thefts can ruing a producer and a modest system can work to make it difficult, at least to the point to make the deed not worth it.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
One problem with VAERS is that traditionally only about 1% of adverse reactions are ever reported; i.e., the actual numbers are likely much higher.
That is not a real problem, because the adverse reactions that are not reported are the mildest ones, it is obviously much less likely to have a small headache reported than a death. This applies also to the non-vaccinated population only to a greater degree, because the only thing that is less likely to be reported than a short headache after vaccination is a short headache without any vaccine previous to it.
Something much more useful than videos and podcast that refrain from discussing contradictory information is going to the primary source of information, which mean scientific papers and reports. That is much less likely to be biased and require from the authors to at least recognize the information that appears to prove their reports mistaken so they have to make an effort to explain why it is so, not just ignore it and pretend it does not exist.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
VAERS data released today by the CDC showed
You have half of the information you need, now see the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated people and see if there is any excess, VAERS do not means the reports are due to vaccines, it just means vaccinated people do not become immortal and invulnerable to all kinds of diseases.
1 ( +7 / -6 )
The "solution" suggested betrays a deep ignorance about technology and the problem they are trying to solve, seeing how the other measures included in the plan are much more reasonable it feels like it was included because someone of importance liked it even if everybody else realized it was just nonsense.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
If the organizers prioritized the safety and health from the population, or even the economy of the country in general instead of the profits of a few the number could be reduced to 0
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Cleaners do a very important job in hospitals and this just sounds like what all cleaners wear. If it was that bad she'd wear a hazmat suit.
Both things are wrong, cleaning staff in normal hospitals do not have to wear two masks, googles, visor nor plastic aprons, try to do physical work 8 hours wearing that and you would know why even this is a huge burden, a hazmat suit is even more tiring and make the job more difficult, the reduction of risk from COVID do not compensate the increase of problems related to this extra physical effort. Both things are enough to make cleaning staff quit and get a job in less demanding hospitals for almost the same pay, this causes the nurses to do that job on top of their own and can cause a chain reaction of people quitting until the hospital no longer can treat properly the patients.
It is that bad, that is the whole point of the article, she has seen how the ward fills up with people when the cases spike. Cleaning staff should be part of the support medical personnel prioritized for vaccines, their job is essential in treating patients and they are at a high risk of infection.
7 ( +11 / -4 )
It is clear that the details were used to give a positive impression (politics, manners, whatever). But that does not mean it is something usual or that would be expected from the people in that kind of meeting, maybe in a meeting between Tourism related officials from Malaysia and Vietnam, but with the Japanese Defense Minister? that would be worth paying attention.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
By now it should be clear that the government is not going to listen to health based recommendations, the games will not be cancelled no matter what happens with the pandemic and if they can get away with it they will get as many spectators as possible so some people can make a lot of money.
17 ( +21 / -4 )
All regulation agencies and all scientists? I don't know any "conspiracy believer" that says that.
Of course they do, when confronted with the fact that no regulation agency nor any of the scientists working for them and that are in charge of safeguarding the efficacy and safety of the drugs of vaccines oppose, for example, the use of the COVID vaccines the answer is the same, they are all on it.
What many of us do say is that pharmaceutical companies have too much influence on many regulation agencies, scientists, and journals.
As long as examples like this exist that means the problem is not equivalent to automatic approval of things without scientific evidence, this is not even something dangerous or unsafe, it is simply something that was approved without clear, strong evidence of efficacy against the disease, and that is supported by huge pharmaceutical companies, if this was not enough to make the people in charge just automatically support it (much less the less of the scientific world) then other much more clear things (like a vaccine that is not supposed to be safe, or failed drugs that are supposedly effective but were rejected) are simply nothing realistically possible.
What these agencies should do is provide the best (most honest) information possible and then get out of the way and let doctors and patients decide.
That does not work, because there will always be doctors that have no ethics and want to profit (economically or in other ways) from naive patients that do not understand what it means that something have demonstrated to be useless, like Raoult does with HCQ. In order to stop unethical people from putting their patients at risk there is a need for regulation, so nobody can take bad, manipulated or limited studies as "proof" to sell them something when much more and better evidence say the contrary.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
The purpose seems very clear, the thing that is still on doubt is how far they are willing to go to reach that purpose.
19 ( +19 / -0 )
Reading the article it feels like the whole thing is in urgent need of a reform, something that can still prevent fraud but still recognize a compromise between two adults to live together for a variety of valid purposes.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Conspiracy believers are always saying how all the regulation agencies and every scientist are actually in a global conspiracy to sell worthless or dangerous drugs to the people just for profit, and that this is the reason why nobody complains ever about things that are supposedly bad for your health.
This is a perfect example why this is nonsense, the issue is heavily debated by scientists, and since they are using valid scientific evidence nobody is calling them anti-science, on the contrary this is being used as an example of how science should work.
The drug may be useful, but at this point the main reason it was allowed to be sold is that people want any hope against a terrible disease, even if that hope is false. The FDA is being criticized because the pressure from the patients is not supposed to be one of the parameters to take into account to approve things.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
It should be reason to shame the government when people consider travelling to the other side of the globe to receive something that is cheap and easy to deliver everywhere else but here.
If they put a tenth of the effort they made to buy the doses in the organization of the delivery half the population would be already vaccinated by now.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
So in one sentence the reason is that the government can do as it pleases so it holds economic gains of a few above the safety of the population in general.
23 ( +24 / -1 )
Of course ignoring the whole thing is a better option. Luckily there are a lot of options to be entertained now that open TV is no longer the main thing many people see.
23 ( +25 / -2 )
Obviously the pandemic is an important factor, but lately online gaming replaced a lot of the value of the arcades for a tiny fraction of the price. It is not the same and people still enjoy the arcades with huge screens and special effects, just not enough to routinely go to a game center for it.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I hope he gets a chance of staying in Japan even if it is only temporarily, but this will also going to affect all other people that leave Myanmar in the future. Unless the situation improves it may mean that people will lose opportunities if the government of Myanmar think they are likely to ask for asylum in other countries.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
If the purpose is to show proof of immunity, they should also include those who recovered from an infection.
The problem with this is that "proof of immunity" is a much more difficult to standardize thing until there is scientific evidence of how the immunity decreases, for a vaccine the date of vaccination is obviously registered, and the vaccine is a standard antigenic stimulus, approximately the same for everybody being vaccinated. Only having a test of antibodies for example do not indicate when was the infection, how serious, nor what is the amount of protection the person have except at the moment of the test. For that a series of tests would be necessary and ideally including evaluation of cellular immunity, something that is difficult, expensive and takes time to do.
1 ( +8 / -7 )
As is often the case two wrongs don't make a right.
The parents can be criticized for not seeking support for a child that is obviously having troubles serious enough to skip school for a long period, it is not an easy situation but just letting him stay at home is not a valid answer. That being said forcing the child to go to school is not a valid solution either. At least the parents have the excuse of not being professionals in child rearing, but the teacher is supposedly trained to recognize this was not a proper response.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
The arrests of the paper’s editors have also sparked concerns about the future of Hong Kong’s press freedom.
By this point "concerns" is a too soft words, it is clear that there is no longer any press freedom in Hong Kong
15 ( +15 / -0 )
Got surprised at the absolute lack of common sense the judge demonstrated by his use of social media, probably too much power and nobody around to criticize him. Almost as much surprised by people not realizing that a judge is not your everyday person and it is subjected to much higher standards of conducts because of his position.
3 ( +9 / -6 )
So instead of well thought and supported measures that would be extremely effective and have a much lesser cost even if strict, they are going to put badly botched, ineffective requests so the pain is multiplied over a longer time and with a fraction of the efficacy.
The economic costs of every SoE this year should be added to all the other costs of the games.
9 ( +15 / -6 )
The article lacks in details but this "study" does not seem to be scientifically robust at all.
If you don't have the details that means you have no idea how robust the study is, that is something you can only judge with the details of the methodology, A collaboration between two universities well known for their study of infectious diseases and epidemiology together with the NIID don't just pull things out of thin air to make presentations.
A better description
And the source materials (specifically in the data presented by Professor Suzuki)
0 ( +4 / -4 )