WHO statement and fairness

[mikeydt1]

WHO are reporting that for those unfortunate enough to get COVID-19 scientific evidence at the moment is showing that there is little immunity and that it is possible for people to get other bouts of COVID-19. they are concerned about countries coming up with the idea of immunity passports for the reasons above.

at the same time testing and vaccine should be carried out in a fair fashion. over here we are seeing from the conservatives unfairness setting in with only testing what they describe as Key workers when other countries are trying to test much of the population as possible.

as for vaccines WHO recommends that if a vaccine is found then it should be distributed fairly not just for certain groups to start with, i also saw concerns about this at the beginning of last week.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Do you have a link to this report please @mikeydt1?

I thought the picture on immunity was generally felt to be more positive (though still perhaps not 100% clear cut)

Just interested in the source, and whether the statement came directly from WHO, or has been filtered through a journalist or similar?

 

[Robin]

Do you have a link to this report please @mikeydt1?

I thought the picture on immunity was generally felt to be more positive (though still perhaps not 100% clear cut)

Just interested in the source, and whether the statement came directly from WHO, or has been filtered through a journalist or similar?

Here.

"Immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19

Scientific Brief

www.who.int

I was reading about this yesterday. they seem to be exercising caution, but saying 'we cant really be sure' rather than 'it definitely doesnt'.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Here.

"Immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19

Scientific Brief

www.who.int

I was reading about this yesterday. they seem to be exercising caution, but saying 'we cant really be sure' rather than 'it definitely doesnt'.

Thanks @Robin 🙂

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I was reading about this yesterday. they seem to be exercising caution, but saying 'we cant really be sure' rather than 'it definitely doesnt'.

That's how I read it, too. It's a worthwhile corrective to the various governments (like ours) who're flirting with the idea of using these antibody tests to try to find people who can safely return to normal life. Maybe that'll be possible, but WHO don't think we know yet.

 

[Eddy Edson]

That's how I read it, too. It's a worthwhile corrective to the various governments (like ours) who're flirting with the idea of using these antibody tests to try to find people who can safely return to normal life. Maybe that'll be possible, but WHO don't think we know yet.

They clarified after scientists all over raised a fuss about the poor messaging:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1254160937805926405

 

[Amity Island]

Here.

"Immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19

Scientific Brief

www.who.int

I was reading about this yesterday. they seem to be exercising caution, but saying 'we cant really be sure' rather than 'it definitely doesn't.

Yes, that's how I read their statement too. They are not saying that immunity is not gained, only that from the small number of study's done so far, they haven't found the answer yet.

"no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans".

 

[Amity Island]

WHO are reporting that for those unfortunate enough to get COVID-19 scientific evidence at the moment is showing that there is little immunity and that it is possible for people to get other bouts of COVID-19. they are concerned about countries coming up with the idea of immunity passports for the reasons above.

at the same time testing and vaccine should be carried out in a fair fashion. over here we are seeing from the conservatives unfairness setting in with only testing what they describe as Key workers when other countries are trying to test much of the population as possible.

as for vaccines WHO recommends that if a vaccine is found then it should be distributed fairly not just for certain groups to start with, i also saw concerns about this at the beginning of last week.

I always been told that vaccines are based on giving a small amount of the virus to promote the bodies natural immunity response.

What sort of vaccine will it be if the body doesn't give immunity?

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I always been told that vaccines are based on giving a small amount of the virus to promote the bodies natural immunity response.

There are four kinds of vaccines (see https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/types ). I imagine for coronavirus there are groups looking at the first three (I don't remember anyone talking about this virus producing toxins, and maybe that only applies to bacteria anyway).

What sort of vaccine will it be if the body doesn't give immunity?

One that wouldn't work very well. But I think nobody thinks the body can't produce some level of resistance to the virus. The question Is how strong and for how long, and how much that varies between individuals.

As far as I understand it a possible advantage of a vaccine of the third kind (subunit, recombinant, ...) as compared to natural immunity is that your natural immunity might have antibodies that recognise something in the virus that varies between strains (so something basically accidental). As far as I understand it this Oxford group are looking at using the protein that forms the spike (which is presumably critical for the virus so can't change much).