Covid Kabuki: Health Minister and pundits "discuss" future vaccination policy
A recent TV discussion took place involving Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Katsunobu Kato; lawyer and former mayor of Osaka City Toru Hashimoto; political journalist Toshiyuki Matsuyama; infectious disease specialist Dr Takeshi Terashima; and TV presenter Yaeko Umezu. The highlights and a partial transcript can be found here. I thought it was worth translating some of it to give people outside of Japan an idea of how Japanese TV is presenting the debate about future vaccination policy.
One shot or two?
They start by discussing how many Covid shots a year the population should take.
Umeza: Government Coronavirus Response Expert Committee member and Japan Medical Association director Satoshi Kamayachi has said that one vaccine dose a year is “an effective option.”
Hashimoto: I would like Mr Kato and the Japanese government to carefully set the number of doses per year on a solid scientific basis. I think the vaccines are effective and have had 4 doses. I’ve even vaccinated my children. If you suddenly come out and say “one dose a year”, people who say “the jabs aren’t effective” and “I won’t get vaccinated” will say “Hey, look!” Up to now, the government has said to get 2 or 3 doses a year after intervals of a certain number of months, so if you say “One shot generates enough immunity,” lots of people will ask why you didn’t say that before.
Kato: What’s the purpose of vaccination? Originally, vaccination was mainly to prevent severe disease. First, we had the Wuhan monovalent vaccine, and since last autumn, we have the bivalent vaccine. We haven't decided on one dose a year yet, but we're gradually seeing the effects of the bivalent vaccine and presenting the data, and our experts are now discussing what to do.
I’m sure you all remember how the goalposts for vaccination were moved from “preventing infection/transmission” to “preventing severe disease”. But this is the first time I’ve heard history be revised to claim preventing severe disease has always been the main goal.
Matsuyama: Until now, the vaccine has been said to be effective against severe disease for about six months. But if it becomes one dose a year, people will doubt whether that’ll actually be effective.
Terashima: Some people, such as the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions, are more likely to become severely ill. For such people, it’s better to have a wider range, such as two doses a year.
The intended effect here is clearly to generate the impression in viewers’ minds that the government’s proposal of one shot a year might not be enough for people in risk groups. Does anyone think the government won’t give in to any pressure to offer the elderly 2 shots annually? It’ll make the shots seem more necessary and the government seem responsive to people’s desires and needs.
Jabonomics 101
Next, they discuss who will pay for all the jabs.
Matsuyama: Mr Kato, are you thinking about keeping vaccinations free for people at risk of becoming seriously ill, such as the elderly?
Kato: To what extent is the vaccine necessary? In the United States, elderly people and high-risk people are asked to take two doses. Vaccines have various effects and purposes. Basically, we want to protect society as a whole, but more than that, we request people to get vaccinations from the perspective of reducing the burden on hospitals. For the time being, I think that we’ll continue providing vaccinations free of charge, but we’ll ask experts to discuss this.
In other words, if it decides to offer two shots a year to its elderly, Japan will be following the example of the FDA, which the average Japanese TV viewer wouldn’t think is corrupt and incompetent. Moreover, if the government stops buying excessive numbers of jabs at ¥10,000/US$100, the hospitals will apparently be at risk of overload because 44% of eligible adults won’t pay out of pocket for the jabs. How could anyone argue against this?
Chinese invasion
Matsuyama: I'm also curious about entry restrictions. People entering the country from China are tested upon arrival, but should this policy be reconsidered?
Kato: While continuing the current measures for people entering from China, we will respond flexibly while monitoring the situation. In fact, the positivity rate among those entering (from China) is now below 1%. Genomic analysis shows the virus is the same as that prevalent in Japan. With Covid’s reclassification from 8th May, based on the Infectious Diseases Act and Quarantine Act, we will review entry requirements. Our basic stance is that checks at points of entry will be lifted.
Between 30 December and 26th January, 848 travelers from China tested positive for Covid upon arrival, while about 3 million people in Japan did. So Japan worsened relations with China and has been missing out on potential tourism revenue for no benefit at all. Who could have foreseen this (apart from me)?
So now you can see how the government and media are manufacturing support for “free” annual/biannual Covid jabs. I’m not convinced, but what do I know? After all, Japan’s government and media were pharma’s best performing sales & marketing team last year.
Let’s just hope they do worse in the future.
If the government says one shot is enough, people will question the efficacy of the shot? How about the fact that Japan is now the most shot up country on the globe and now leads the world in numbers of cases and has set national records of death after the boosters? People are not already questioning the efficacy of the shot? If not, they are nothing but sheep. Fauci them.
In other news, yesterday I learned that a 38 year old man I was acquainted with through work died suddenly of an aortic separation or rupture while on a business trip. Survived by a widow and infant child. No connection, I am sure.
Hey, Political Dudes. How about reading the Nuremberg Code? How about doing some research about natural immunity? A doctor cannot give informed consent if he or she is not informed him- or herself. You can read about the Nuremberg Code or natural immunity on line or at the library at very little cost. My unmasked, un-jabbed self has more energy than a Venezuelan Spring Chicken. Why are we paying these people through our taxes when I can do a better job for free?