You are welcome to look at the talkback but please consider that this article is over 2 years old before posting.
Forum - View topicNEWS: Comic Market 99 Will Require Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination or Negative PCR Test
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MFrontier
Posts: 11431 |
|
|||
|
Sounds smart and fair.
|
||||
|
||||
Blanchimont
 Posts: 3453 Location: Finland |
|
|||
Good. Considering the size of it, that's the only rational option. |
||||
|
||||
charliepanayi
 Posts: 52 |
|
|||
|
Pointless gesture, won't make any difference to covid rates anyway but will be cheered on by so-called liberals. I couldn't care less if uncvaccinated people show up to events, that's their problem.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Blanchimont
Posts: 3453 Location: Finland |
|
|||
A lot of unvaccinated getting infected would mean plenty of new vectors for spreading covid further, increasing load on healthcare services. So not pointless. |
||||
|
||||
|
510
|
|
|||
You can say the same for vaccinated people though. Only thing that is safe is tested and negative. |
||||
|
Blanchimont
Posts: 3453 Location: Finland |
|
|||
Vaccinated are lot less likely to catch it(obvious, duh...), and spread it(if they do catch it, the viral loads are a lot smaller, and diminish faster...). |
||||
|
||||
|
510
|
|
|||
This is true.
That isn't true. Fully vaccinated infected have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection, including to other fully vaccinated. If you want to run a safe event, you have to test everyone, and deny those that test positive, even if they are fully vaccinated. |
||||
NeverConvex
 Subscriber Posts: 2316 |
|
|||
Yeah, requirements like this should make a major outbreak at the event less likely. Not impossible, still -- it isn't clear that the reduction in transmissibility from being vaccinated is sufficient by itself to stop outbreaks entirely (even if everyone were vaccinated), given delta's high reproduction number -- but having people be vaccinated or negative should dramatically slow down spread of viral cases, and coupled with social distancing / mask use / sensible reactions if-when a small outbreak is detected, could avoid a large outbreak entirely. It is actually pretty frustrating to see how many people seem to think the only role of vaccinations is to try to keep you from dying or getting seriously ill if you do catch the virus. Arguably their more - or, at least equally - important purpose is to achieve "herd immunity": to reduce the on-average number of times a virus can spread from one person to other people until outbreaks no longer have a tendency to grow at all, and become small, ephemeral and sporadic flickers rather than rapidly growing conflagrations. Nice to see them doing this, anyway. Hopefully events nearer home will start adopting similar protocols... |
||||
|
||||
|
jdnation
Posts: 2007 |
|
|||
This is actually false according to the Government and pharmaceutical giants own disclosures. The shots do not prevent transmission or reduce the risk of catching it. "Officially" they provide you with a better chance of "recovery" from symptoms if you catch it. From the NY Times themselves, as far as you can trust the rag which is naturally pro-vaccine: "It is true that, according to the clinical trial data, both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are highly effective at preventing Covid-19, the disease, but it’s unknown how well they prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus. Although Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2 are often used interchangeably, they are fundamentally different. You can’t have the disease without the virus, but you can have the virus without the disease — as many asymptomatic people already know. It’s possible that vaccinated people are protected against Covid-19 themselves, but still spread SARS-CoV-2 to others who are not vaccinated." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/23/opinion/covid-vaccines-transmission.html Testing, while cautionary, is also a placebo practice, because you can catch it an hour after you leave the clinic or at the event itself and transmit it. Many places know that these procedures don't actually accomplish anything. They are there for legal and insurance purposes to protect themselves from legal action by anyone who claims to have gotten sick on their premises or at their event. |
||||
|
||||
|
Electric Wooloo
Posts: 311 |
|
|||
Spreading covid to "stick it to the libs" 
|
||||
|
||||
|
Greboruri
Posts: 378 Location: QBN, NSW, Australia |
|
|||
|
OK, so the website seems to say they are going to limit the crowd to 55,000 per day. At one point they were only testing people for COVID if you were on death's door and it was pretty obvious you had the virus. That has changed, but with the daily positive rate for COVID dropping to the 20's in recent weeks, I sort of doubt they are catching most cases. Far smaller cities have higher daily COVID rates with a far larger proportion of the population vaccinated.
According to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government website, they are testing just over 190,000 per day. I know it's only three days, but adding another 55,000 tests per day is surely going to be a massive strain on that system. I have no idea how they are going to handle the logistics of that. |
||||
|
||||
|
Egan Loo
Posts: 1320 |
|
|||
There are limitations with testing as well, especially if someone is tested only once. With only one test, there is a possibility of receiving a false negative. https://www.healthline.com/health/how-accurate-are-rapid-covid-tests#how-accurate-is-it https://medical.mit.edu/faqs/faq-testing-covid-19#faq--1683 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-88498-9 Like other measures, testing by itself (especially PCR) is much, much better than doing nothing, but it does not mean people should let their guard down. |
||||
|
||||
|
NeverConvex
Subscriber Posts: 2316 |
|
|||
Framing this quote in the way you have doesn't seem representative of the op-ed itself. Rasmussen (the article's author; note that all the NYT did was accept her submitted op-ed for publication - it isn't literally an NYT-authored piece, and Rasmussen's credentials as a virologist are obviously quite directly relevant here) is pretty clear that there's evidence that vaccination reduces transmissibility; she is just emphasizing that the evidence is preliminary: "Many scientists are reluctant to say with certainty that the vaccines prevent transmission of the virus from one person to another. This can be misinterpreted as an admission that the vaccines do not work. That’s not the case. The limited data available suggests the vaccines will at least partly reduce transmission, and the studies to determine this with more clarity are underway." Or, similarly, "From everything we know so far, it’s highly unlikely that vaccines that are 95 percent effective at preventing symptomatic disease would have no impact whatsoever on infection. Data from animal studies and vaccine trials suggests that vaccination reduces asymptomatic infection, as well as the amount of virus produced in people infected." |
||||
|
||||
|
Egan Loo
Posts: 1320 |
|
|||
This is a misuse of the word "placebo" to imply that testing has no effect. Are COVID-19 tests perfect? No. Are they still beneficial? Yes. Are they better than doing nothing? Definitely. |
||||
|
||||
|
Errinundra
Moderator
 Posts: 6532 Location: Melbourne, Oz |
|
|||
|
Given this thread is about vaccination, testing and masking requirements at a public event, discussion of these issues in this thread is appropriate. Soapboxing misinformation, however, won't be tolerated.
Please continue to discuss the issues politely. It appears to me, as an outsider, that the partisan politicisation of these health measures is largely a US phenomenon. Other democratic countries have taken a more bipartisan approach with both governments and oppositions acknowledging medical and scientific expertise. For sure, they have agonised over balancing health and economic priorities along with the curtailment of social freedoms, but the high infection and mortality rates in the US suggest that the problem there has a lot to do with its political structures. This US insularity is also evident in a couple of posters using the term "liberals" or "libs" in this context. The centre-right ruling party in Japan is the Liberal Democratic Party. Likewise, here in Australia the centre-right ruling party is the Liberal Party. The economic policies of two of the most successful conservative governments in my lifetime - Reagan's and Thatcher's - were described as neo-liberal. Even the supposedly centre-left Liberal Democrats in the UK showed their right wing tendencies when they chose coalition with the Conservatives ahead of the more left-wing Labour Party in 2010. Using expressions like "sticking it to the libs" in the Japanese context comes across as parochial. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group