Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   WHO: There is no immunity to COVID-19, absolutely none, and when I say none I mean there is a certain amount   (reason.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Antibody, Immune system, Ultraviolet, average person, Bloomberg News, UV light, archived episode of CNN, immunity passports  
•       •       •

5743 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 27 Apr 2020 at 3:30 AM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



147 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-04-26 7:50:48 PM  
So minus the last paragraph this article makes a good point. Though I don't think the problem was with the WHO I think it was with reporters who didn't understand what they said I think heir tweet.
 
2020-04-26 9:00:53 PM  
But 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


FuturamaBureaucrat.gif
 
2020-04-26 9:03:33 PM  
Maybe everyone who doesn't have any published, peer-reviewed conclusive scientific data should juuuuust STFU until they do.
That goes for who, too.
 
2020-04-26 9:03:43 PM  
Doesn't everyone have to take three years of science to graduate high school?
 
2020-04-26 9:09:47 PM  

vudukungfu: Maybe everyone who doesn't have any published, peer-reviewed conclusive scientific data should juuuuust STFU until they do.
That goes for who, too.


So we won't get fooled again.
 
2020-04-26 9:16:43 PM  
Can you really trust someone so willing to let canines roam freely?
 
2020-04-26 9:26:45 PM  
It's really their fault for assuming we could read.
 
2020-04-26 9:59:59 PM  
So like the flu.

You're probably immune to the strain you got. Problem is the sucker mutates fast enough that next year's strain is just different enough for your immune system to go "Huh?" while the virus goes "MUAHAHAHA MFER!" all over your respiratory system.

However, those who gets this one are likely to have a milder case of the next one. Whether the strains get more or less lethal to newbies is a game of WhoTF knows.
 
2020-04-26 11:35:35 PM  
Does that mean there's sex in the champagne room?
 
2020-04-26 11:37:01 PM  

foo monkey: Doesn't everyone have to take three years of science to graduate high school?


Did Trump graduate?
 
2020-04-27 12:15:47 AM  

Peki: So like the flu.

You're probably immune to the strain you got. Problem is the sucker mutates fast enough that next year's strain is just different enough for your immune system to go "Huh?" while the virus goes "MUAHAHAHA MFER!" all over your respiratory system.

However, those who gets this one are likely to have a milder case of the next one. Whether the strains get more or less lethal to newbies is a game of WhoTF knows.


https://bgr.com/2020/04/24/coronaviru​s​-vaccine-sinovac-drug-protects-monkeys​-against-covid-19/

Old school type of vaccine (chemically inactivated virus) appears to work on rhesus macaque monkeys, also said type of monkeys have been shown not to be able to be reinfected after surviving and developing antibodies.
 
2020-04-27 12:35:18 AM  
Wait, there are people who delete misleading tweets?
 
2020-04-27 1:52:29 AM  
"there is no evidence that..." is English/science speak for "there is no evidence for/against...."

Scientists don't like to say things like, "Hey dipshiats, we have no farking clue whether...so cut us a check, give us some time to figure it out, and stop interrupting our shiat with political nonsense while we're here working." Maybe they should start.
 
TWX [TotalFark]
2020-04-27 1:57:29 AM  

Peki: So like the flu.

You're probably immune to the strain you got. Problem is the sucker mutates fast enough that next year's strain is just different enough for your immune system to go "Huh?" while the virus goes "MUAHAHAHA MFER!" all over your respiratory system.

However, those who gets this one are likely to have a milder case of the next one. Whether the strains get more or less lethal to newbies is a game of WhoTF knows.


I took it to mean that the WHO doesn't have enough information to make a meaningful claim about reinfection rates, and thus reinfection rates being undefined, governments should not use recovery from COVID-19 as a particular criterion for personal safety during the pandemic.

Interestingly, it looks like some of COVID-19's effects are late to manifest, like people have gone through the pulmonary phase of the disease, only for encephalitis or vascular problems to develop, leading to strokes and in some cases heart attacks.  Someone could have had a nasty cough that wasn't serious enough to require medical intervention, recovered from it, and then gotten gravely ill from a secondary or tertiary phase of the progression of the disease, presumably showing antibodies.

Also, unfortunately it may require statistics that we don't have to demonstrate all of this.  Per another article that Fark linked to, NYC EMS collected bodies of a string of home deaths that looked like stroke or heart attack victims, where the victims' bodies were cremated before they could be tested, so it's possible that these people died of COVID-19's later phases without ever knowing they had the disease.
 
2020-04-27 2:00:06 AM  

cyberspacedout: Wait, there are people who delete misleading tweets?


People who delete misleading tweets that are entirely correct and only misunderstood because of the general public's scientific illiteracy and the media's disaster sensationalism, no less.

Hard enough to find someone who goes "I was wrong, delete." To do so when literally everyone else is wrong, rather than stand on the technicality and explain why you were right, is like internet sainthood.
 
2020-04-27 2:01:06 AM  
WHO: In good faith, let's clarify something we said earlier.
Reason: How can we find a way to criticize this?
 
2020-04-27 3:33:26 AM  

Chris Ween: foo monkey: Doesn't everyone have to take three years of science to graduate high school?

Did Trump graduate?


I dunno, but I hope all the self-aggrandizing English majors who think they can fill any position, because they can fashion complete sentences would know better than, oh shiat.  Never mind.  Science is for scientists.  Twisting words and deliberately misinterpreting them into click-bait headlines is for English majors.

my bad.
 
2020-04-27 3:34:15 AM  
Oh FFS.  The WHO never said there was no immunity.  They said there's no evidence that there's total immunity, which means that for all we know people with antibodies could still get a mild case and be contagious, so it's not safe to interpret the presence of antibodies as an indicator that someone is "safe".
 
2020-04-27 3:37:23 AM  

Chris Ween: foo monkey: Doesn't everyone have to take three years of science to graduate high school?

Did Trump graduate?


His father paid for the graduation.
 
2020-04-27 3:39:07 AM  
FTA: 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 someimmunity to the virus, though they're unsure how strong it will be or how long it will last.

There is still literally NO EVEIDECNE. Not technically, but LITERALLY.

And, "scientists have good reason to expect..." is also balanced by the fat that common colds are also coronaviruses, and we do not have an immunity to those. We can also say, "Scientists have very good reason to expect there will not be an immunity to nCov-19.

The HWO was correct when they said there is no evidence. Since we do have evidence of re-infection, as well as evidence that our previous ways of detecting resolved cases are deeply flawed, telling people that we can rely on acquired herd immunity is incredibly misleading.

The WHO was not being misleading. Reason is.
 
2020-04-27 3:39:52 AM  
Okay I used a combination of all caps and bold, so I must have convinced all of you. Good day, sirs. you're welcome.
 
2020-04-27 3:48:34 AM  
We won't be fooled again.
 
2020-04-27 3:49:19 AM  

vudukungfu: Maybe everyone who doesn't have any published, peer-reviewed conclusive scientific data should juuuuust STFU until they do.
That goes for who, too.


... All they were doing was saying "HEY we don't yet have proof that you get immunity or not, stop making plans assuming this will be the case." They weren't even making a declartion of "You DON'T get immunity", they were saying "It is too soon to know."
 
2020-04-27 3:52:35 AM  

vudukungfu: Maybe everyone who doesn't have any published, peer-reviewed conclusive scientific data should juuuuust STFU until they do.
That goes for who, too.


How do you write a paper about not having data? All the WHO announcement was saying is that the assumption that people will be immune after having it was unsupported.

Peki: So like the flu.

You're probably immune to the strain you got. Problem is the sucker mutates fast enough that next year's strain is just different enough for your immune system to go "Huh?" while the virus goes "MUAHAHAHA MFER!" all over your respiratory system.

However, those who gets this one are likely to have a milder case of the next one. Whether the strains get more or less lethal to newbies is a game of WhoTF knows.


I've read a number of accounts where the second case a person got was worse, so this isn't a safe assumption either.
 
2020-04-27 3:54:33 AM  
Oh, Reason.  Cool, I've been looking for something to wipe my ass with.
 
2020-04-27 4:06:17 AM  
Was this announcement made by the WHO official that China owns?
 
2020-04-27 4:13:41 AM  
In the thread a few days ago when this first came up, I suggested that we look at the other Coronaviruses in humans (of the seven known, four cause the common cold) and see what kind of immunity we gain from those. Aside from the chucklefarks who were going at it with the "well ackshually cold is caused by rhinovirus" because they can't read, there is important precedent that we can look to.

From "Medical Microbiology", 1996:
Immunity does not persist, and subjects may be re-infected, sometimes within a year. The pattern thus differs from that of rhinovirus infections, which peak in the fall and spring and generally elicit long-lasting immunity. About one in five colds is due to coronaviruses.

Coronaviruses by their nature seem difficult for the body to build a permanent defence against. I imagine even if a vaccine does come out, we'll need regular "boosters" just like we do for Tetanus.
 
2020-04-27 4:15:35 AM  

Johnny the Tackling Alzheimers Patient: We won't be fooled again.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-27 4:21:39 AM  
How disappointed the Fark panic mongers will be.

<reads thread>

How disappointed the Fark panic mongers are.
 
2020-04-27 4:23:24 AM  
Can we not give Trump supporters any reason to feel vindicated, please?
 
2020-04-27 4:26:25 AM  
Since this was Reason website, I'm going to assume the WHO was completely correct in their assessment that chances are you can catch covid again, and are a carrier of the virus, and will spread it to other people.
 
2020-04-27 4:27:32 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: Reason is.


Reason being misleading? Gosh, it must be an article on there that doesn't talk about sex with a 9 year old being consensual under the free market.
 
2020-04-27 4:28:09 AM  

Kraig57: Johnny the Tackling Alzheimers Patient: We won't be fooled again.

[Fark user image 850x566]


I saw them onstage at Wembley last year. Was a great show, but they decided to do a stripped-down acoustic version of the song to bring it back to what it was originally written like (a Seeger-esque protest song.)

I liked it, but I was pretty sad not to get my "yeeeeeeah" or sliding across the stage :(

"Won't Get Fooled Again" (acoustic) - The Who live 6 July 2019 Wembley Stadium, London
Youtube y2G2zTt-UOk
 
2020-04-27 4:28:40 AM  

NotARocketScientist: I've read a number of accounts where the second case a person got was worse, so this isn't a safe assumption either.


Reinfection tends to up the chances the patient will transition into a fibroproliferative and cytokine phase.
 
2020-04-27 4:30:19 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


It's almost like Reason is trying to discredit the WHO.
 
2020-04-27 4:31:59 AM  
What the heck is this virus? It's gotta be either a weak attempt at Global Cooling or a Natural Selection Process?
 
2020-04-27 4:33:29 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [Fark user image 850x348]

It's almost like Reason is trying to discredit the WHO.


Probably because it's trying to support the President's policy on attacking the WHO openly. Oh, and that's because the author of this article is intimately tied to the conservative thinktank ALEC. He was also openly involved in promoting the gamergate fiasco, and is tied to anti-transgender articles on the site trying to liken trans people to Jessica Yaniv
 
2020-04-27 4:37:10 AM  

joker420: What the heck is this virus? It's gotta be either a weak attempt at Global Cooling or a Natural Selection Process?


? Dude shiat like this plagued humanity for millenia. Tuberculosis. Plague. Smallpox. Polio. We forgot how bad shiat used to be b/c of vaccines. This doesn't have to be any sinister plot, this is just us getting put on the backfoot for a bit.
 
2020-04-27 4:55:54 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [Fark user image 850x348]

It's almost like Reason is trying to discredit the WHO.


The WHO seems to do a pretty decent job of that itself.
 
2020-04-27 5:00:40 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: FTA: 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 someimmunity to the virus, though they're unsure how strong it will be or how long it will last.

There is still literally NO EVEIDECNE. Not technically, but LITERALLY.

And, "scientists have good reason to expect..." is also balanced by the fat that common colds are also coronaviruses, and we do not have an immunity to those. We can also say, "Scientists have very good reason to expect there will not be an immunity to nCov-19.

The HWO was correct when they said there is no evidence. Since we do have evidence of re-infection, as well as evidence that our previous ways of detecting resolved cases are deeply flawed, telling people that we can rely on acquired herd immunity is incredibly misleading.

The WHO was not being misleading. Reason is.


Well it's *reason*. I don't know why anyone here would expect otherwise.
 
2020-04-27 5:01:02 AM  

vudukungfu: Maybe everyone who doesn't have any published, peer-reviewed conclusive scientific data should juuuuust STFU until they do.
That goes for who, too.


Leave me out of this;  besides, you are not my supervisor!
 
2020-04-27 5:03:12 AM  
So, Reason's complaint here is that the WHO naively expected journalists to behave like responsible adults when reporting the information given to them?
 
2020-04-27 5:11:55 AM  
The only thing I've seen that points to the WHO mishandling this, is that they initially praised China's response. The Chinese government has handled this with all the lack of transparency and heavy-handedness they're known for, but you can't say they didn't hit hard (in a frankly dystopian fashion) when the nature of Covid19 became clear.

Guess you could also argue that the WHO gave too much credit to the general population, but that's a fairly common mistake among highly educated people (It's why people like Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson are so popular, they can frame complicated ideas in a widely understandable fashion). Hopefully the WHO has learned that they need to hire people more effective at communicating to the average person.

To defund them was to ignore the vast amount of important work they do that isn't conducted over twitter.
 
2020-04-27 5:23:20 AM  
The coronavirus is going to be especially hard on millennials and gen-z'ers.
No more group butt chugging events.
 
2020-04-27 5:29:13 AM  
If it mutates as rapidly as the cold virus, we wouldn't ever get a practical immunity. Unless we live on an island where ships don't come.
http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/journal/issue/j​o​urnal_38_3/stride.pdf
 
2020-04-27 5:32:15 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: And, "scientists have good reason to expect..." is also balanced by the fat that common colds are also coronaviruses, and we do not have an immunity to those.


No, we do build an immunity to those if you are exposed to them. However, "common colds" are just upper respiratory tract infections, and there are over 200 viruses able to give you one of those, and some of them mutate and your immunity isn't as effective. Alpha coronavirus, rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, enteroviruses...the most common source are the 80 or so know rhinoviruses, but they'll all give you a cold. Hell, the influenza virus can give you a cold if it only infects the upper respiratory tract.

You could literally catch a cold every year for your entire life and still not be immune to ALL of the viruses that give you colds. That's one of the key reasons there isn't a cold vaccine - there would need to be over 200 of them to even have a chance.

But the idea of "we don't form immunity" is false. We do...but only to the that particular virus that gave us that infection. Doesn't really help against different forms of that virus, or different viruses. We evolved a system to fight off infection and remember what caused it to make it easier the next time. Some viruses developed the ability to mutate and dodge that.

The relative stability of the four known human infecting alpha coronaviruses actually bodes well for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. It's not a slam dunk (for one thing, SARS-CoV-2 is a beta coronavirus like SARS and MERS) but it does hint at some measure of lasting immunity. All we really need is a year or so, then it becomes a "vaccine and booster" or "annual flu shot part 2" style vaccine.
 
2020-04-27 5:34:26 AM  

foo monkey: Doesn't everyone have to take three years of science to graduate high school?


i remember taking 1 year of Science. our teacher Mr.Sullivan assaulted Kennet Steele because Kennet killed our fruit fly experiment.and I think Kennet's name was actually Kenneth but he had quite the speech defect (bedabeck).
 
2020-04-27 5:35:14 AM  

Shaggy_C: In the thread a few days ago when this first came up, I suggested that we look at the other Coronaviruses in humans (of the seven known, four cause the common cold) and see what kind of immunity we gain from those. Aside from the chucklefarks who were going at it with the "well ackshually cold is caused by rhinovirus" because they can't read, there is important precedent that we can look to.

From "Medical Microbiology", 1996:
Immunity does not persist, and subjects may be re-infected, sometimes within a year. The pattern thus differs from that of rhinovirus infections, which peak in the fall and spring and generally elicit long-lasting immunity. About one in five colds is due to coronaviruses.

Coronaviruses by their nature seem difficult for the body to build a permanent defence against. I imagine even if a vaccine does come out, we'll need regular "boosters" just like we do for Tetanus.


This is weird, because my wife and I both caught bad colds in the past two days, while still in lockdown. I've been asking myself...where did _this_ virus come from while we are staying inside?

These cold viruses must be airborne and longer lasting or something.
 
2020-04-27 5:38:04 AM  

Shaggy_C: Kraig57: Johnny the Tackling Alzheimers Patient: We won't be fooled again.

[Fark user image 850x566]

I saw them onstage at Wembley last year. Was a great show, but they decided to do a stripped-down acoustic version of the song to bring it back to what it was originally written like (a Seeger-esque protest song.)

I liked it, but I was pretty sad not to get my "yeeeeeeah" or sliding across the stage :(

[YouTube video: "Won't Get Fooled Again" (acoustic) - The Who live 6 July 2019 Wembley Stadium, London]


Holy crap they are old.
 
2020-04-27 5:40:39 AM  
Don't click on Reason links. It's like giving a precocious twelve year old a copy of Atlas Shrugged. If you're not paying attention then you might think you're doing an intelligent thing but only mental poisoning can come of it. For the exact same reasons.
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.