There's "no evidence" coronavirus survivors can't be reinfected, WHO says
by Sophie Lewis
April 25, 2020 / 12:52 PM / CBS News
Quote
The World Health Organization (WHO) said there is "no evidence" that survivors of COVID-19 cannot be reinfected with the virus. In a statement Saturday morning, WHO warned that antibodies may not adequately protect survivors, leaving them vulnerable to a second coronavirus infection.
The warning came as several countries, including the United States, are considering allowing people who have recovered to carry "immunity passports" or "risk-free certificates." That documentation would allow survivors to return to work and other activities under the assumption that they are immune from the virus. ...
April 24, 2000
WHO: "Immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19
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....
I didn't say he got reports in November, I said, and provided earlier citations that the Administration was getting live data dumps from WHO via American CDC personnel within the organization. A competent Administration would have been on top of that. No, I don't expect the POTUS to be able to be an expert in quantitative statistics and predictive models. But I do expect him to appoint people to his Cabinet that do and certainly would have known better as to advise him against gutting funding for the CDC, disassembling a top notch pandemic response team, and firing the person who was working in China specifically to be the eyes and ears of zoonotic outbreaks. amiclear?
Maybe it's a latent-dormant thing, like chickenpox and shingles. Who knows!
I thought I posted this in one of my previous posts but I posted a different article ( IMO that one is interesting too), this one shows that is what some are thinking, virus going dormant and causing an exacerbation later.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 minute ago, Daisy4RN said:
I thought I posted this in one of my previous posts but I posted a different article ( IMO that one is interesting too), this one shows that is what some are thinking, virus going dormant and causing an exacerbation later.
This virus has spread to every corner of the world regardless of what government or who was in office in their respective countries (as is the case in a pandemic) and it seems no matter the approach, it still got in.
The mission of The Who is to provide early warning of such incidents, and yet they failed to do so. In this case, however, even early warning had little impact on whether the virus got into a country or not. I do not think cutting funding is the proper response but I think The leadership of The Who should be examined closer.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
16 minutes ago, juniper222 said:
This virus has spread to every corner of the world regardless of what government or who was in office in their respective countries (as is the case in a pandemic) and it seems no matter the approach, it still got in.
The mission of The Who is to provide early warning of such incidents, and yet they failed to do so. In this case, however, even early warning had little impact on whether the virus got into a country or not. I do not think cutting funding is the proper response but I think The leadership of The Who should be examined closer.
In your opinion when should the early warning have been given?
In your opinion when should the early warning have been given?
If we have to wait for WHO or anyone else to deliver it in third grade PPT format on a silver platter and force them to take it seriously, we were already in deep deep stuff.
I suggest there's a whole lot of evidence that points to the larger problem being that the early warnings were missed or disregarded because former expertise in the form of pandemic surveillance had been disassembled and there was no one at a leadership level that would listen until it could no longer be denied months later and there was a concern it would hurt them politically.
I'd also note that the purpose of pandemic response teams and leadership responsibility is not to keep the virus from ever reaching your border to so much as contain it when it does. SARS COV 1 spread to over 2 dozen countries. And yet the USA managed to contain it to under 200 deaths , not because it was any less contagious. at the time the CDC had resources and competent resources and had quickly put 800 top experts to work *with* WHO , rather than expecting WHO to spoonfeed them.
Hoosier_RN, MSN
3,968 Posts
thanks for sharing. The information changes each day, its hard to keep up!