Japan reports 7,020 new coronavirus cases

Thanks to masks and vaccines.

Hooray for natural immunity.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/natural-immunity-protective-covid-vaccine-severe-illness-rcna71027

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

There is no longer any need for government spending on mRNA vaccines. The overwhelming majority of people will eventually be infected, and fully recover naturally with no longer term problems - vaccinated and unvaccinated. Elderly and immunocompromised have already been prioritized, and thus have been first in line for every eligible dose this far, over and over again. Let's hope they have all the protection they need by now.

There is also no longer any need for policies intended to incentivize being vaccinated. This includes the 3x vaccine or negative PCR requirements for entry/re-entry into Japan.

This is not a conspiracy theory - it is the logical conclusion that can be drawn from data and from the trajectory of the situation thus far. It is time to not only move on from Covid, but also all of the policies designed to mitigate it, once and for all. If you still wanna wear a mask be my guest.

100% (or 50% depending on how you define in) drop in a single day? Even for a Monday, that is not very realistic.

100% (or 50% depending on how you define in) drop in a single day? Even for a Monday, that is not very realistic.

It is, though. Modays' numbers have always been roughly 50% of the preceding Sunday. Day-on-day comparisons are patently meaningless.

.!. .!. .!. .!. Going down .!. .!. .!. .!.

Still, experts stress that vaccination is the preferable route to immunity, given the risks of Covid, particularly in unvaccinated people. 

Wolfshine really should read his source, (that was last weeks news BTW) before he makes anymore unsubstantiated "There is also no longer any need for.." claims

If you still wanna wear a mask be my guest.

Only if you post a source that says masks are beneficial. Like you did above for vaccines. Lol.

Wolfshine hasn't learned (by now) that there is no lasting "natural immunity" to coronaviruses in humans. Immunity wanes over time.

That being said, it's great to see cases and deaths heading downward, especially with hanami season right around the corner.

March 13th can't get here quick enough.

Numbers are dropping like a stone. Saw one or two other like minded renegades on the train today maskless. The revolution is here!

Wolfshine really should read his source, (that was last weeks news BTW) before he makes anymore unsubstantiated "There is also no longer any need for.." claims

Nope, because already addressed this in my previous post.

The overwhelming majority of people will eventually be infected, and fully recover naturally with no longer term problems - vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Aside from statistically molecular demographics among the population, Covid doesn't carry any long-term risks, vaccinated or unvaccinated.

Actually the article reinforces what I'm saying.

Wolfshine hasn't learned (by now) that there is no lasting "natural immunity" to coronaviruses in humans. Immunity wanes over time.

Yeah, but natural immunity wanes much slower than that conferred by the injections.

Raw Beer…..can you give me the source for that?

Iraira

Hes right about that with Delta and with Omicron

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220420/Natural-immunity-provides-a-longer-window-of-protection-against-COVID-19-infection-than-mRNA-vaccines.aspx

During Wave 7, Japan led the world in COVID cases. How could that be, if masks worked?

Because not all countries' waves happened simultaneously. Japan's highest wave happened roughly 6 to 9 months after all other countries'.

How good could the masks really be, if they were universally worn through eight COVID waves.

So good that Japan's highest wave peaked only half as high as similar countries'.

What about all of that is so incredibly difficult to understand?

Roy

There is no evidence that making prevents infection with Omicron variants, if it does it is likely to be in single digit percentage figures. I’m taking about regular masks nit medical ones.

As for vaccines many countries have stopped offering vaccines for non seniors and those without serious health issues. This is after risk assessment and the low danger of current variants to the vast majority.

it appears that the experts being quoted are always from the US, where they still push for all 6 months old amd older to be vaccinated.

RB & FFS

the New England Journal of Medicine reports that recovery from infection results in about a year of immunity, but not so much to the BA.4 and BA.5 variants compared to vaccination regardless of variant type.

@iraira

Others discussed this over the weekend on JT, regarding this recent Lancet paper:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext

Though many realized this to be true long ago, before the publication of this article.

As for vaccines many countries have stopped offering vaccines for non seniors and those without serious health issues. This is after risk assessment and the low danger of current variants to the vast majority.

Not after "risk assessment". And not because Omicron is "mild" (it is at the level of the original strain). But because collectively we are, by and large, not naive to the virus anymore. Therefore it's sufficient to vaccinate the at-risk groups.

Didn't anyone notice that for months now there has been no massive push for vaccinations anymore? Doctors still recommend it, of course, but only to the unvaccinated and not previously infected, and that group is pretty much nonexistant now.

Others discussed this over the weekend on JT, regarding this recent Lancet paper:

Unfortunately they discussed it trying to contradict the authors of the papers that characterized the response from infection as comparable to what is obtained from vaccination, except that obviously without the much greater risks that come from the infection.

Or as the authors explicitly say

Our finding that the level of protection from past infection by variant and over time is equivalent to that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines has important implications for guidance regarding the timing of vaccine doses, including boosters. 

It is very important that you now recognize the reference as valid and "true" even if the funding includes the Bill and Melinda gates foundation, something that you previously tried to characterize as automatically making the conclusions of any report with this as false, misleading, etc.

Roy

FFS Factcheck

UK NHS has stopped offering the vaccines to under 50’s after risk assessment. Yes, there are risks with the vaccines and the under 30’s are more likely to be hospitalised after being vaccinated than from Omicron. This is nothing to do with proper infections are vaccination status. The current vaccines work poorly, for a short period, are untested on humans and have the highest percentage of side effects for any approved vaccine ever.

UK NHS has stopped offering the vaccines to under 50’s after risk assessment. Yes, there are risks with the vaccines and the under 30’s are more likely to be hospitalised after being vaccinated than from Omicron.

Completely false, when you need to make up imaginary reasons to criticze the vaccines you make it obvious you don't have actual arguments to do it so you need to use disinformation.

The vaccines are still the much less risky option for anybody for which they are indicated, it is just that the reduction of risk is more important for some populations than others.

FFS Factcheck

If I were to ask you for a credible source for all of that, would you hold it against me?

virusrex

Its not imaginary, it’s facts from the experts after studying the data , it’s still a fact whether you disagree with it or not .

RB….. was it if town this weekend.

I was also just asking for the source, not in a “Betcha pulled that outta yer ____.” manner.

No worries, I did not consider your question like that. And my reply was not meant as a "it was covered already so you should have known" but rather as a "check out that discussion for details if your interested". I was also away over the weekend and only got to that discussion after it was shut down.

But to summarize the main points made by Wicks Pencil: "No matter what metric they follow (infection, symptomatic infection, severe symptoms), their data shows natural immunity to be more durable."

The data is very clear (see figure 4), yet the paper makes it sound like the two types of immunity are "similar". This interpretation may be influenced by the fact that the study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (I can't imagine such a study ever concluding that vaccines are inferior).

How could that be, if masks worked?

I've asked these questions several times here, but nobody has ever answered them.

What does it mean for a mask to 'work'?

And how do you know that they don't 'work'?

Its not imaginary, it’s facts from the experts after studying the data

Since you have presented no reference even after your claim was called imaginary this clearly indicates this is actually just disinformation. a baseless claim you are making, not the experts and not the data.

But to summarize the main points made by Wicks Pencil: "No matter what metric they follow (infection, symptomatic infection, severe symptoms), their data shows natural immunity to be more durable."

Thsi is exatly what I mean with people trying to refute the authors of the paper using imaginary calculations and zero arguments, just claiming the authors are wrong without giving any actual scientific argument.

In reality the authors are clear and explicit in their conclusions, and do not make the baseless claim that natural infection is more durable, because that is not what the data says, only deeply biased antiscientific nameless users made that claim.

But to summarize the main points made by Wicks Pencil: "No matter what metric they follow (infection, symptomatic infection, severe symptoms), their data shows natural immunity to be more durable."

Thsi is exatly what I mean with people trying to refute the authors of the paper using imaginary calculations and zero arguments, just claiming the authors are wrong without giving any actual scientific argument.

Their data IS the scientific argument, and you are refuting their data!

Are you suggesting that the data in fig 4 does not show that natural immunity is more durable?

Thank God for proven safe and effective vaccines and those with the brains to take them.

In reality the authors are clear and explicit in their conclusions, and do not make the baseless claim that natural infection is more durable, because that is not what the data says, only deeply biased antiscientific nameless users made that claim.

Strange, because those same authors, in that same paper say:

"Furthermore, although protection from past infection wanes over time, the level of protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease appears to be at least as durable, if not more so, than that provided by two-dose vaccination with the mRNA vaccines for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants"

And my point (and I think WP's point) is that according to the very clear data in Fig 4, natural immunity is way more durable than that from the injection. Their minimizing the difference might be because of their funding.

51 deaths stay at home triple masked 27/7

“Covid doesn't carry any long-term risks”. Errr, apart from the aptly named Long Covid perhaps?

Doctors and the NHS in the U.K. do not recommend vaccines to under 50’s unless with serious health issues, are they experts or just taking advice from a YouTuber?

Same with the majority of nations, except one or two where medicine is big business and influences government and media through cash

Thing is that reinfection by alpha, beta, delta and original omicron are rare as these lineages are not cycling through human populations.

fun side note: The older corona variants are found in deer (particularly white tailed deer in upstate NY as well as deer in Texas and Michigan. No info on whether the Nara deer populations have been tested). At least one case of deer to human transmission was recorded.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35319276/

Their data IS the scientific argument, and you are refuting their data

The authors conclude something from that data, and it is NOT that the infection gives longer protection. That is a claim from a nameless person on the internet that insist the authors do not know their own data and are wrong. that obviously makes absolutely no sense.

Strange, because those same authors, in that same paper say:

This completely contradicts your claim. which is that the data demonstrate longer protection, that is not what is said even in your own quote, because the data only proves the protection to be similar in lengt (and obviously not in the amount of risk necessary to get it).

You have proved yourself wrong.

And my point (and I think WP's point) is that according to the very clear data in Fig 4, natural immunity is way more durable than that from the injection. 

And that point is still false, because that is not information that can be obtained from the figure, as clear as the authors do not make that claim, provide the actual scientific, statistical analysis that prove this point or just accept this is a claim you are making even when the authors do not think it can be made (as expected from trying to compare two sets of data with vastly different length of time being followed).

You need a scientific argument to contradict the authors, without it you are just making a baseless claim they are wrong in their own paper.

They can say that if they wish - their word is not gospel.

If the experts show their data and put their professional reputation on the line that is still a much better appeal to authority than nameless people saying they must be wrong just because.

Doctors and the NHS in the U.K. do not recommend vaccines to under 50’s unless with serious health issues, are they experts or just taking advice from a YouTuber?

No, they are just making a decision based on a much more limited advantage because the reduction of risk is not longer that important in the current situation, something already explained in the comments.

That was the whole point of vaccination and other measures, to reduce the risk from the infection to the point the measures necessary could be reduced without unnecessary deaths.

Good to see you at least recognize your claim that the vaccine is more risky than the infection was just disinformation without actual basis.

virusrex

Its nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vaccines it’s the mildness of Omicron.

Data shows hospitalisations are higher for young people due to vaccination side effects than the current strain

One of the issues described by Dr. Fukushima at the meeting for Victims of the Vaxxine was the ModRNA getting past the blood brain barrier. The European Medical Agency's EUA paper showed 2-3% of the ModRNA expresses itself in the brain. Current research suggests the 3rd dose results in a neuroinflammatory cascade after being primed with the first 2.

There are often no physical symptoms to this problem and the ability to reason can remain in tact, so it can be difficult to spot. Signs are decreased empathy, short-term memory loss, inability to learn new information, inflexibility, irritability, anger, perseveration (thought loops), impaired creativity, diminished inference and utilitarian moral judgements. The last one is interesting, a 2007 Nature study found those with prefrontal cortex damage saw nothing wrong with directly harming one person's life to save more total lives, even if it meant their own children being harmed.

Its nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vaccines it’s the mildness of Omicron.

Since vaccinated people still have lower rates of complications and death that is enough to disprove your claim. Can you provide any respectable institution of science or medicine that supports your claim that vaccines do not reduce the risk from Omicron? the whole point is that the population is already much better immunized now, which helps a lot explaining the reduction of risk at this point.

You just claiming something based on some imaginary authority you think you have is not an argument. You are saying the experts of the world are wrong, you need more than your personal belief to do it.

No more masks from March 8.

There are often no physical symptoms to this problem

Which is the main important thing, vaccinated people do NOT have an increased rates of problems than unvaccinated people, which means that unless you believe vaccines cause problems in unvaccinated people by magical means the claim that something is happening is obviously unsustainable.

As long as the vaccine is not related to an increase of a problem that obviously means claiming the vaccine produces that problem is a mistake. Making up imaginary mechanisms for this supposed damage to be produced requires first to prove that damage is actually happening in the first place.

Also, pretending the natural infection do not come with neural damage (directly and indirectly related to the viral reproduction) makes it obvious this is just an attempt of disinformation. Mental and neurological problems have been already proved to be related to covid, something that do not apply to the vaccines.