General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWHO Deletes Misleading Tweet That Spread Paranoia About COVID-19 Reinfection
Source: Reason
ROBBY SOAVE | 4.26.2020 4:17 PM
"The thread caused some concern & we would like to clarify."
On Friday, the WHO published a scientific brief on "immunity passports"the idea that governments should grant special documents to citizens who test positive for COVID-19 antibodies, allowing them to move about freely. The WHO warned that this is premature, since "no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans."
The WHO is correct that scientists have not determined the degree of immunity enjoyed by COVID-19 survivors. But the tweet version of the brief was missing important context, and it said only this: "There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection."
That's technically true: There's no evidence of immunity. But that's because COVID-19 is new and the matter hasn't been conclusively studied yet. Scientists have good reason to expect COVID-19 survivors to have some immunity to the virus, though they're unsure how strong it will be or how long it will last.
Read the rest of article here: https://reason.com/2020/04/26/world-health-organization-tweet-coronavirus-covid-19-antibodies/
I'm so relieved they have clarified this. I think the "takeaway" from that brief unnerved a lot of people.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)One of my favorite sayings.
hlthe2b
(101,702 posts)but nothing about it was untrue. We EXPECT some level, some duration of immunity based on all we know of other viral infections, but with the exception of a very small and short term study of infection in macaques, the immune response is yet to be truly characterized. For this reason, quick vaccine production expectations are more hopeful than assured.
The most frightening scenario is if antibodies produced naturally do not neutralize the virus or only do so partially or for a very short term. We already have examples of this in our lives--HIV being one such example. Common cold viruses/influenza viruses being others.
coti
(4,612 posts)There's plenty of evidence, including inductive evidence, that there would be at least some immunity after recovering from CV. The question is how CONCLUSIVE is the evidence?
Chemisse
(30,793 posts)This clarification makes more sense.
samnsara
(17,570 posts)pbmus
(12,418 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,361 posts)There were multiple threads on DU proclaiming impending doom based on the exact misinterpretation of inconclusive data that caused WHO to delete the tweet.
Take a breath, folks, before jumping to conclusions.