12 Dr. Hiroshi Nishiura is one of the few professionals of mathematical models of infectious diseases in Japan, and it is well known that his ability is outstanding. However, many people don't understand mathematical models themselves (I must confess that I can't say that I understand a ll of the findings because I'm not a professional of mathematical models either), so his findings and comments are easily deified. Because the contents of the mathematical model are a complete black box to many people, it makes it seem like the oracle is coming out like a shrine's oracle. Much of Japan's infection control policy relies on the Nishiura theory. So there is nothing wrong with that, but one of the problems in Japan is that there is no plan B in case plan A goes bust. Dr. Nishiura is an excellent scholar. It is not God. Hence the need to have that Plan B with the possibility of making a mistake. I am greatly concerned that bureaucrats and politicians who are prone to infallibilism will mistake science for an oracle. It is only when falsifiability is assured that science can continue to be scientific.

感想：おみくじと神託が同じoracleだったので変な文章になったが直していない。

13 数理モデルは演繹法の活用産物である。演繹法は帰納法やアブダクションで補完するのが、学問の基本であり、臨床医学の常識である。演繹法的にどんなに正しく見えても実はそれは違っていた、ということはこの業界ではよくあることなのだ。ヘーゲルやマルクスのような巨大な知性でも演繹法オンリーでは間違うのである。

Mathematical models are the product of deductive methods. The deductive method is complemented by the inductive or abduction method, which is the bas is of scholarship and the common sense of clinical medicine. It's a common occurrence in this industry that no matter how deducibly correct it may seem, it's actually not true. Even a huge intellect like Hegel or Marx can make a mistake by deduction alone.

感想：「蓋を開けてみれば」を「実はそれは」に変更した。

14 モデルを使うな、といっているのでは決してない。ぼく自身、モデルを用いて論文を書く。しかし、モデルは無謬ではなく、そこには前提である仮定があり、仮定はしばしば間違っている。グラム染色を活用するとは、グラム染色にできないこと、分からないことを知悉していることであり、グラム染色万能論者にグラム染色は使えない。同じことだ。英国でも数理モデルは活用されているが、だからこそ英国人はその結語には非常に懐疑的で、常に反論、異論が起きている。健全で科学的な態度である。

　I'm not saying don't use the model at all. I myself write a paper using a model. However, the model is not infallible, there are assumptions that are assumptions, and the assumptions are often wrong. Making use of Gram's stain means having full knowledge of what Gram's stain cannot do and does not understand, and Gram's stain cannot be used by Gram's stain universalists. It's the same thing. Mathematical models are also utilized in the UK, which is why Br its are very sceptical of their conclusions, and there are always counter-arguments and objections. It is a sound and scientific attitude.

感想：「前提たる仮定」がうまく訳せていなかったので「前提である仮定」にしたが、assumptions that are assumptionsになってしまった。

「英国人は」がないと主語がIになってしまったので追加した。しかしBr itsじゃ意味違うよ。もっと正しく訳してくれない？

15 Japan's "now" is a well-controlled state of infection, which is much better than Wuhan at its worst, or Italy, Spain, France, England, or New York at the present time. The problem is that it doesn't guarantee that it will "always work".

感想：特にない。便利だなあ。

16 懸念されるのは東京だ。感染報告が増えたことだけが問題なのではない。クラスターを形成できない、トレースできない感染者が増えているのが問題である。そして、その陽性患者数に比べて検査数がずっと少ない。47人の感染者を捕捉するために100人未満（陽性者の検査日が不明だが、おそらくこのへんだろう）しか検査していないのは少なすぎる。

It is Tokyo that is of concern. The increase in reports of infection is not the only problem. The problem is that more and more infected people are unable to form clusters and cannot be traced. And the number of tests is much lower than that number of positive cases; it's too little that they only tested less than 100 people (the date of testing for the positives is unknown, but it's probably around here) to capture 47 infected people.

Again, it's not necessary to figure out all the infected people. However, it is troubling that the flow of infection, movement and clusters are out of sight. Therefore, the threshold for testing must be lowered in Tokyo. The threshold for testing varies with the circumstances. That's what I explained with the Korean example. Sticking to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's "standards" will lead to a misunderstanding of the phenomenon itself. Already in the Kansai region, infected people have been found with t aste and smell abnormalities, and clusters have been detected from there. I would like to make more use of the athletic sensibilities of these clinicians. I'm not sure "where" in Tokyo is the barrier to lowering the number of inspections, but that barrier needs to be removed immediately.

感想：「捕捉するのに」を「捕捉するために」に変更した。多分これでいいと思う。思いたい。

アスチュートがathleticになっているのはどう反応したらいいかわからない。

17 This conceptual diagram that everyone is looking at - lowering the peak of the infection and shifting it to the side. This is all a product of deduction, and I don't know if it's really true. As mentioned above, the UK estimates already suggest that this is not enough. It is possible that the damage that was shifted to the side could simply be "extra-long damage".

感想：特に言うことはない。便利だなあ。

18 　そして、ここが肝心なのだが、ピークを下げるという理念が、「ピークを下げなければいけない」という観念になり、「ピークは下がっているはずだ」という確信になり、「ピークは起きていないんだ」という自己暗示に転じてはいけないということだ。プランAに固執する日本あるあるの失敗のパターンで、ダイヤモンド・プリンセスでは「二次感染が起きてはいけない」が「起きているはずがない」に転じてノーガード下船を許してしまった。「ピークが起きてはいけない」が「ピークなんて見たくない」にならないように現実を見据える必要がある。たとえ、それが我々の見たくない不都合な真実であったとしても。

And this is the key point: the idea of lowering the peak should not become the notion that the peak must be lowered, or the belief that the peak must be lowered, or the self-implication that the peak is not happening. In a pattern of Japanese failure to stick to Plan A, Diamond Princess allowed no-guard disembarkation by changing "secondary infection should not occur" to "it can't have happened". We need to keep our eyes on reality so that "peak shouldn't happen" doesn't become "I don't want to see a peak. Even if it is an inconvenient truth that we don't want to see.

感想：mustが違う文脈で二回出てきている。よくわかるように変更したいものだ。

カギカッコがないとうまく訳せなかったので追加しているが、なぜかカッコ閉じるがいくつか抜けている。この箇所以外にも抜けがある。

19 Repeatedly. It's common knowledge in this industry that deductive methods are complemented by inductive methods. Nevertheless, PCR is often false-negative and has little power to determine the status of infection. That's why "testing everything" is so wrong. However, a serum test measuring immunoglobulin IgM and IgG would provide a more accurate picture of the "status of infection in the population. This, however, is not infallible. It is difficult to use for individual cases because it misses early infection, which is why it misses early HIV infection.Whether antibody testing is useful in individual cases remains to be tested, but it is well suited for epidemiological studies on a population bas is. Roughly speaking, we can confirm whether the "infection is rampant" in Tokyo right now, or whether it's just an unfounded fear.

前例としては、ロンドンの血清検査で09年パンデミックインフルエンザが従来予測の10倍起きていたことが血清検査でわかっている。抗体検査はアウトブレイクのあとで事後的に行うことが多いが、慢性的パンデミックになりつつあるCOVID-19については、「今」こそが検証のポイントといって良い。

As a precedent, serology tests in London showed that the 2009 pandemic flu was 10 times more likely than previously predicted. Antibody testing is often performed after an out break, but now is a good time to examine COVID-19, which is becoming a chronic pandemic.

感想：「前例はあって」を「前例としては」に変えた。「前例はある。なおかつロンドンで〜１０倍起きていた」になってしまったからだ。

20 英国はさらにアグレッシブだ。家庭で抗体検査を行い、「感染者である」とわかればそれを自宅での自己隔離の根拠に使おうというのだ。ロックダウンが起きている中で、検査陰性は「自己隔離不要」を意味しないため、その戦略に欠陥はある。が、考え方としては「感染全体を抑え込みたい」というもので、検討の価値はあると思う。

The UK is even more aggressive. The idea is to test for antibodies at home, and if they are found to be infected, they will use it as a bas is for self-isolation at home. That strategy is flawed because with the lockdown in place, a negative test does not mean "no self-sequestration". However, the idea is that we want to control the infection as a whole, and I think it is worth considering.

感想：「戦略に穴はある」を「戦略に欠陥はある」に変えた。

21 東京でどのくらいの感染が起きているか、帰納法的確認は必要であり、有用だ。その結果がどうなるかは預言者ではないぼくには分からない。が、どんな結果が出てきても、それを受け入れ、場合によっては自説を変えて、プランBに移行することにも躊躇しない態度が科学者には必要だ。科学者は、首尾一貫していないことにかけて、首尾一貫していなければならないのだ。形式においては首尾一貫していなくても、プリンシプルやプロフェッショナリズムにおいて一貫しなければならないのだ。事実に誠意を。　

Inductive legal confirmation of how many infections are occurring in Tokyo is necessary and useful. I'm not a prophet, so I don't know what the outcome will be.However, no matter what the outcome, scientists need to accept it and not hesit ate to change their thesis and move on to Plan B in some cases. Scientists have to be coherent in their inconsistencies.They may not be coherent in form, but they must be coherent in principles and professionalism. Good faith in the facts.　