There. Is. NO. IMMUNITY. - WHO statement

[underpants]

WHO says no evidence shows that having coronavirus prevents a second infection

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/25/us/who-immunity-antibodies-covid-19/index.html

The World Health Organization is warning that people who have had Covid-19 are not necessarily immune by the presence of antibodies from getting the virus again.

"There is no evidence yet that people who have had Covid-19 will not get a second infection," WHO said in a scientific brief published Friday.

It cautions against governments that are considering issuing so-called "immunity passports" to people who have had Covid-19, assuming they are safe to resume normal life.
"At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an 'immunity passport' or 'risk-free certificate,' " WHO said.

[FirstLight]

1. *gulp*

we are definitely in this for a long scary time

[unblock]

2. they are not saying there is no immunity. they are saying there is no evidence of it.

likely there is some immunity; maybe limited, maybe temporary. we just don't know yet.

[hvn_nbr_2]

10. People confuse "not proven" with "proven not" when convenient. nt

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

12. Exactly. The thread title needs changing. It's overstating what WHO said.

Also, it looks like there are a lot of positive responses happening with sick covid patients who are receiving the plasma of recovered patients.

So I am taking WHO's new statement as not meaning a whole lot right now.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. WHO? who listens to them anymore???

[csziggy]

4. So much for my id

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213346738#post1

[Igel]

15. I'm sure your id's just fine. n/t

[csziggy]

18. I don't think I am pounding on my keyboard hard enough!

I keep dropping letters, words and phrases. It was supposed to say "I don't think my idea will work" but somehow the last part was dropped.

[gibraltar72]

5. Shit I was hoping that was a statement from Joe.

[Iliyah]

6. COVID-19 is the "super" virus they have been warning the world about . . . .

The scientists stated that it mutants at a fast rate. Although to belongs to the coronavirus group, it's different.

And yes that is some scary stuff.

[SoonerPride]

7. If this bears out as true we may never have a vaccine

As in ever

[StarryNite]

14. That's what scares me.

If it is mutating often and on top of that if it turns out herd immunity doesn't work then I don't see how vaccinations will work.

If I understand it correctly vaccinations are a type of herd immunity.

"There isn’t yet a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. Vaccinations are the safest way to practice herd immunity in a population."

[link:https://www.healthline.com/health/herd-immunity#covid-19-and-herd-immunity|

[Takket]

8. this isn't complicated..........

find 10 people that were sick, ask them to come into the covid ward, and see if they get sick again.........

I'm speaking somewhat hyperbolic obviously but we are 5 months into this crisis we should have a good idea by now with hundreds of thousands over recoveries, if there are any more than a few anecdotal cases of "reinfections".

[Igel]

17. We're more like 3 months into the crisis.

China's officially 4 months into it.

In reality they're 5 months into it, but they don't like fessing up because it gives them a sad. So we humor them lest they get pissy and stop selling us toys. Or medicine.

[Tree-Hugger]

9. That's not what it says

They do not have enough information regarding immunity yet - the WHO has not said there is no immunity. It could be zero. It could be full. It could be partial. It could be temporary. It could be lifelong. There's no way to know the exact antibody situation yet, which is why people need to realize that antibody tests aren't a green light to increase exposure.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. That's not what they said-- they said there is no evidence of immunity , which is very different...

top scientists are throwing everything they've got into this thing, and initial reports from their work can and will be conflicting.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

13. Earth to humans: You refuse to slow down for my fever? Ok. Have a shut down.

[BGBD]

16. That's not what they are saying

There haven't been studies on this yet, however, there's no reason to think this virus isn't going to act like every other virus similar to it in the history of man.

[EndlessWire]

22. I'm not disputing what you are saying.

It's part of that, "If you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras." However that goes.

But, we already know that there is something hinky about this virus. It is extremely virulent, kills a wide variety of patients, and we don't know what the common factors are yet.

That isn't to say that we won't get this virus under control. I just think that the public would be better served if we were instructed to expect the long haul, not the short "over in June" pseudoscience that Trump is spewing.

Wouldn't we be lucky if that were the case? We could fix other things while our scientists are funded to come up with solutions for this virus in case it shows up again next winter. But, we just can't count on Trump to care about this problem. The only reason he is paying attention is because he is campaigning.

So, we are going to have to find the answers by ourselves. Research always builds on what went before, right? So, here's hoping that the similarities help us to figure it out.

[BGBD]

24. Really

It's not that unique. Novel flus pretty much do the same thing. Any virus is going to be highly virulent when it is running through with 7.5 billion potential hosts with no previous immunity. Novel H2N2s killed a million people each in '57 and '69. Pandemic diseases by definition are highly contagious and often pretty deadly when they first arrive. They also tend to evolve into much less deadly things over time.

[canetoad]

25. Your reply is ingenuous

And based more on wishful thinking than science. Please take this seriously.

[BGBD]

26. maybe

you should check again.

This is how viruses and humans evolve after after some period of exposure to one another.

Believing this is it is fatalist thinking.

[captain queeg]

19. As they study this they ought to be determining if second or third infections

Tend to be more or less severe. Would be a bit more info.

[EndlessWire]

20. I agree. n/t

[fishwax]

21. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, underpants

It's an important distinction in this case.

[Silent3]

23. That's a ridiculous overstatement and misrepresentation of what the WHO is saying

All they're saying is don't get too complacent as if immunity is guaranteed, that's all.

Some degree of immunity is still fairly likely, either protecting you for some unknown period of time after first recovering, and/or making a second infection less dangerous and severe that the first.

Of course, with any virus, mutation can render any previous immunity null, but fortunately COVID-19 has not (so far) shown a penchant for rapid mutation.