Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Crikey.I’m not sure how much the WHO can be trusted, but they Tweeted this a few hours ago.
View attachment 122776
Thanks. Not very clear that initial message then.
Crikey.I’m not sure how much the WHO can be trusted, but they Tweeted this a few hours ago.
View attachment 122776
The media have been very poor in this crisis imo. I read several reports on that WHO statement and not one put the headline quote into perspective as you have done.The WHO (if you read the actual brief) were correctly sounding a note of caution about proposals to treat everyone that tests positive to antibodies as entirely 'safe' (eg not just won't get the virus again, but also, and more importantly, will not be able to spread it). What they are saying is that countries need to plan ahead based on science and evidence, not assumptions, and as of now the evidence does not exist to make us certain about how those with antibodies may react to future exposure (it is all about T-cells apparently).
They acknowledged (and have now re-clarified) that antibodies are LIKELY to give some level of immunity but it's not certain enough yet to roll out a mass programme of 'immunity passports' without further evidence (Which should come in fairly quickly I'd imagine).
Unfortunately, WHO made the naive assumption that the media, and certain global leaders, will read and report what they say with some degree of responsibility.
The WHO (if you read the actual brief) were correctly sounding a note of caution about proposals to treat everyone that tests positive to antibodies as entirely 'safe' (eg not just won't get the virus again, but also, and more importantly, will not be able to spread it). What they are saying is that countries need to plan ahead based on science and evidence, not assumptions, and as of now the evidence does not exist to make us certain about how those with antibodies may react to future exposure (it is all about T-cells apparently).
They acknowledged (and have now re-clarified) that antibodies are LIKELY to give some level of immunity but it's not certain enough yet to roll out a mass programme of 'immunity passports' without further evidence (Which should come in fairly quickly I'd imagine).
Unfortunately, WHO made the naive assumption that the media, and certain global leaders, will read and report what they say with some degree of responsibility.
Even as someone who is in no way a virologist, or a scientist of any kind, the original input from them seemed false. The human body is resistant to something it's just fought off in virus form for a while anyway, the debate was over how long that was for and not whether it even happened (as they seemed to insinuate).
My understanding from reading is that it's never been that simple. If you have had it, then for sure, it seems to be considered unlikely that you'd get it again, but not 100% certain. And so far there is no actual evidence, just assumptions. I have also read that most experts consider that if you did get it again it would very likely be as a mild, or asymtomatic, form (which is great for those that have it, but not so much for those around them if they become re-infected and contagious while assuming they are completely safe).
The brief also notes that, as yet, the antibody tests are not completely reliable (that is likely to change soon, but it is where we are NOW).
These areas of uncertainty just raise questions about the wisdom of pressing ahead too fast with immunity passports.
https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19
The good news here is that the WHO continues to provide good, cautious, evidence based advice, and most governments will be listening!
The WHO (if you read the actual brief) were correctly sounding a note of caution about proposals to treat everyone that tests positive to antibodies as entirely 'safe' (eg not just won't get the virus again, but also, and more importantly, will not be able to spread it). What they are saying is that countries need to plan ahead based on science and evidence, not assumptions, and as of now the evidence does not exist to make us certain about how those with antibodies may react to future exposure (it is all about T-cells apparently).
They acknowledged (and have now re-clarified) that antibodies are LIKELY to give some level of immunity but it's not certain enough yet to roll out a mass programme of 'immunity passports' without further evidence (Which should come in fairly quickly I'd imagine).
Unfortunately, WHO made the naive assumption that the media, and certain global leaders, will read and report what they say with some degree of responsibility.
Alan Pardew refuses bonus for avoiding relegation and urges club to give it to either the clubs non playing staff or the Dutch health services.
https://www.skysports.com/football/...r-IlTRDKiDXm45B8PGlU2EF8Qi9N1TCjNNxbzghaYztc4
Good work Alan, you are still a dancing cockwomble, but this is a very kind gesture.
We can now travel out of country, associations up from 2 people to 10. Shops opening tomorrow. On May 11, outdoor areas of restaurants will be allowed to open. Restaurants will be able to open interior areas from May 25. Hotels will also be able to resume operations from May 25.
Infections seem to be decreasing, so light at the end of the tunnel here. Too early for the UK.
It’ll be interesting to see how Denmark, Austria and the Czech Republic get on. Hopefully all goes well.
No alcohol for 5 weeks (as I don't drink at home) and now 2 stone and 2lbs lighter. Now down to a more respectable 12 and a half stone. How much must I have been drinking in the pubs before? Has been a bit of a wake up call, but a positive one.