|
|
|
|
|
|
by greedo
2252 days ago
|
|
|
This is crystal clear from the WHO: ""There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection."" They were prompted to issue this because some people were touting this idea of immunity being granted perpetually and allowing people to safely return to work. "Broadly speaking, a positive test for antibodies means you're pretty likely immune at the time the test is taken." That's in complete contradiction to what the WHO is saying. Read carefully: There is no evidence. You're using circular arguments to provide bad information. Something you've consistently been doing. "...but we need a study." Why? You've said it's unlikely to be different than other viruses. Of course we need a study, because we don't know. |
|
|
There is currently no evidence of X does not mean X is not true. It just means there's no evidence of X being directly true yet. Nothing I said contradicts the WHO.
What I said was that we can reasonably infer from similar coronaviruses (including both more and less severe ones that are up to 90% genetically identical) that immunity is conferred. Also from other viruses. We shouldn't base our global health policy decisions on that until we have conclusive evidence but there's no reason for you to continue with the messaging when all evidence points to immunity being conferred for some duration of time.
Specifically what I said was that we do not have enough evidence to issue prophylaxis certificates, but that chances are good immunity is conferred based on studies of very similar diseases. I also stand by the fact it would be hugely surprising (totally novel) that any of those testing positive right now are actually re-infections due to the limited timescale involved.
Seeing smoke doesn't mean there's fire, but it means there's a pretty good chance of fire. Yeesh.