Xenos Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 (edited) Well this is annoying to say the least. Currently no evidence that you gain immunity from Covid 19 after recovering. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/25/844939777/no-evidence-that-recovered-covid-19-patients-are-immune-who-says?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR3M5Pg_KXEKEw_zyyYrbNtOr7eUyKqnrAzIaBv2GqIXS1_GM3g3qzD74Bs Edited April 27, 2020 by Xenos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 17 minutes ago, Xenos said: Well this is annoying to say the least. Currently no evidence that you gain immunity from Covid 19 after recovering. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/25/844939777/no-evidence-that-recovered-covid-19-patients-are-immune-who-says?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR3M5Pg_KXEKEw_zyyYrbNtOr7eUyKqnrAzIaBv2GqIXS1_GM3g3qzD74Bs I think it's worth noting that the WHO is saying you can't assume it right now for the basis of making policy, not that there won't be COVID-19 immunity in a (large) fraction of people who do recover. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVScout Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Xenos said: Well this is annoying to say the least. Currently no evidence that you gain immunity from Covid 19 after recovering. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/25/844939777/no-evidence-that-recovered-covid-19-patients-are-immune-who-says?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR3M5Pg_KXEKEw_zyyYrbNtOr7eUyKqnrAzIaBv2GqIXS1_GM3g3qzD74Bs WHO has walked that back: Earlier today we tweeted about a new WHO scientific brief on "immunity passports". The thread caused some concern & we would like to clarify: We expect that most people who are infected with #COVID19 will develop an antibody response that will provide some level of protection. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Glad they walked it back, of course the media isnt going to report that... because it doesnt get clicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Anyway, immunity passports is horrible public policy no matter what 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVScout Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Free article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVScout Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Another freebie: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/04/23/lab-study-coronavirus-summer-weather/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 9 minutes ago, mission27 said: Anyway, immunity passports is horrible public policy no matter what Yeah its very WW2 "Your papers are in order" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 Just now, Malfatron said: 9 minutes ago, mission27 said: Anyway, immunity passports is horrible public policy no matter what Yeah its very WW2 "Your papers are in order" Yup Cell phone data already shows people are starting to ignore the lockdowns I'm not supporting that behavior... but we have to be realistic about people's breaking points, especially as it starts to get hot out and people adjust to the risks We cant keep people who are not allegedly 'immune' inside for the next 18 months, we need a better plan very soon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywindO2 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Malfatron said: Yeah its very WW2 "Your papers are in order" But really, everyone should play the game Papers, Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 21 minutes ago, Malfatron said: 31 minutes ago, mission27 said: Anyway, immunity passports is horrible public policy no matter what Yeah its very WW2 "Your papers are in order" I understand why people are sensitive to the issues of needing approval to leave a quarantine, but the comparisons to WW2 are pretty hyperbolic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehardlionfan Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 35 minutes ago, mission27 said: Glad they walked it back, of course the media isnt going to report that... because it doesnt get clicks I wouldn’t trust anything coming from the WHO at this point. They’ve been behind the power curve since day one and have been wrong or had to walk back statements numerous times. They really have done significant damage with their statements that borders shouldn’t be closed, don’t need to wear face masks etc. The latest debacle will be their position on airborne droplets and HVAC systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, diehardlionfan said: I wouldn’t trust anything coming from the WHO at this point. They’ve been behind the power curve since day one and have been wrong or had to walk back statements numerous times. They really have done significant damage with their statements that borders shouldn’t be closed, don’t need to wear face masks etc. The latest debacle will be their position on airborne droplets and HVAC systems. I don't really feel like getting into a debate having to defend every single statement the WHO has made, but they didn't walk anything back. Here's their initial brief: Quote WHO has published guidance on adjusting public health and social measures for the next phase of the COVID-19 response.1 Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate” that would enable individuals to travel or to return to work assuming that they are protected against re-infection. There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection. The measurement of antibodies specific to COVID-19 The development of immunity to a pathogen through natural infection is a multi-step process that typically takes place over 1-2 weeks. The body responds to a viral infection immediately with a non-specific innate response in which macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells slow the progress of virus and may even prevent it from causing symptoms. This non-specific response is followed by an adaptive response where the body makes antibodies that specifically bind to the virus. These antibodies are proteins called immunoglobulins. The body also makes T-cells that recognize and eliminate other cells infected with the virus. This is called cellular immunity. This combined adaptive response may clear the virus from the body, and if the response is strong enough, may prevent progression to severe illness or re-infection by the same virus. This process is often measured by the presence of antibodies in blood. WHO continues to review the evidence on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection.2-17 Most of these studies show that people who have recovered from infection have antibodies to the virus. However, some of these people have very low levels of neutralizing antibodies in their blood,4 suggesting that cellular immunity may also be critical for recovery. As of 24 April 2020, no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans. Laboratory tests that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in people, including rapid immunodiagnostic tests, need further validation to determine their accuracy and reliability. Inaccurate immunodiagnostic tests may falsely categorize people in two ways. The first is that they may falsely label people who have been infected as negative, and the second is that people who have not been infected are falsely labelled as positive. Both errors have serious consequences and will affect control efforts. These tests also need to accurately distinguish between past infections from SARS-CoV-2 and those caused by the known set of six human coronaviruses. Four of these viruses cause the common cold and circulate widely. The remaining two are the viruses that cause Middle East Respiratory Syndrome and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. People infected by any one of these viruses may produce antibodies that cross-react with antibodies produced in response to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Many countries are now testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the population level or in specific groups, such as health workers, close contacts of known cases, or within households.21 WHO supports these studies, as they are critical for understanding the extent of – and risk factors associated with – infection. These studies will provide data on the percentage of people with detectable COVID-19 antibodies, but most are not designed to determine whether those people are immune to secondary infections. Other considerations 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.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. The use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission. As new evidence becomes available, WHO will update this scientific brief. I bolded the conclusion, which is 100% accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehardlionfan Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I understand why people are sensitive to the issues of needing approval to leave a quarantine, but the comparisons to WW2 are pretty hyperbolic. Well prior to the onset of WW2 people refused to acknowledge signs of what was coming. If people aren’t vigilant from the onset the end results can be frightening. Carrying a card is dangerous policy. We’ve already seen debate about quarantining at risk individuals and opening it up for others. Those are real dangerous discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 27, 2020 Share Posted April 27, 2020 6 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I understand why people are sensitive to the issues of needing approval to leave a quarantine, but the comparisons to WW2 are pretty hyperbolic. I think its legit to be worried a crisis of this magnitude + the technology being used to respond to it could be used as a catalyst to permanently reduce people's privacy and human rights I'm less worried about it in most of Europe and North America (although its still an incredibly stupid idea and serious violation of people's rights) but if I lived in China, Russia, India, or even a few states in the EU with more authoritarian minded leaders I'd be very nervous right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts