The bad news is that WHO says that there is no evidence that getting an infection prevents a recurrence. The good news is that WHO has not been a particularly reliable source of information.
[Update a while later]
They’ve retracted:
4 thoughts on “Recurring Infections”
Comments are closed.
to be fair, Moran’s PJ Media piece, just like every other act of journalism about the WHO’s statement, wildly over-interpreted it. Forgetting absence of evidence != evidence of absence, etc. (don’t take this as a defense of the WHO)
At this point, with hundreds of thousands who have recovered, and WHO’s ability to have tested hundreds if not thousands of blood samples from those who have recovered, for them to state there is no evidence that having had the infection confers any immunity is significant. Or am I missing something obvious?
It would be, if that’s what they actually said. But this is a classic “absence of evidence” situation. From the article quoting the WHO: “At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity . . .”
That’s a “we don’t know the answer”, not a “evidence of absence” statement.
I wouldn’t believe anything the WHO said anyway, but I think the headlines were wrong on this one.
Seems to me the WHO has been a complete clown show for years now. The left infiltrate any trusted organization and subvert it from within. The WHO is just one of many.
Shut them all down.