4 ms·

WHO Deletes Misleading Tweet That Spread Paranoia About Covid-19 Reinfection

12 points by mrfusion 7y ago

capableweb 7y ago
Sounds like the only misleading happening here was peoples understanding of how science works. Just because something is not confirmed doesn't mean it's not true. Tweet reportedly said: > There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection. How can they then write that the tweet is misleading? Bloomberg News et al that reported "WHO Warns You May Catch Coronavirus More Than Once" and similar should be the ones shamed for misinformation here, not WHO.
- fingerlocks 7y ago
  I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that having antibodies for a virus does in fact protect you from the virus. Like it's baked into the definition of "antibody". That's why it sounds a bit misleading to me. But I have Biology 101 level of knowledge, so I'm curious to learn why it's not misleading.
  - gus_massa 7y ago
    It will protect for the exact strain of the virus and similar strains for some time. Probably the reports that people is reinfected a few weeks after they get cured are wrong. It is not clear how long will last the immunity. For example the vaccine against tetanus must be taken again every 10 years, other vaccines protect you forever.
    - fingerlocks 7y ago
      So yeah, the tweet is misleading..?
      - gus_massa 7y ago
        Disclaimer: I'm not a virologist and not even a medical doctor. From a previous thread, I remember that someone said that with other coronavirus the protection last a few months. Let's hope that this strain produces a longer immunity.
- elmerfud 7y ago
  It's not misleading but the problem is the policy adopted by most countries (and the message coveyed to people) is that having the infection can convey immunity. The real question should be why are countries taking economic and what will ultimately be life destroying policy measures when there's no evidence that those policies will lead to the desired results of herd immunity and often are specifically against the advice of the WHO. The WHO specifically recommends against travel bans, but nearly every country has implemented one. They specifically state the negative social and economic impact of such bans and how they do not work to prevent the spread. https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re... I'm not sure about other countries but policy and public perception in the US seem to be largely based on TV doctors and armchair statistics majors instead of the advice of the WHO.
- nangz 7y ago
  It is misleading because basically every virus ever has produced some degree of immunity to reinfection. And because saying "there is no evidence that.." is often a weazelish way that doctors with unproven prior beliefs push their personal theories. WHO should say "there is no strong evidence either way, however based on our understanding of similar viruses there is likely to be at least some residual immunity post infection." Tedros has apparently been on a hiring spree focused more on "representation and diversity" than competence and experience: https://www.politico.eu/article/tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-gives-who-a-headache/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-g... And it's likely that the world is now paying the price for overemphasis on wokeness as well as pandering to the corrupt ccp.
- oceliker 7y ago
  It's misleading because there is no evidence either way. It's just not been studied yet (in humans, at least -- it's been studied in other animals). Pretty much everyone equates "there's no evidence for X" to "X is wrong" in their mind. Maybe they are committing a logical fallacy, but the point of WHO's tweets is to provide accurate information to people. They can't just say "well, what we said is technically correct, so it's people's fault for not understanding!" A responsible way of conveying the same information would be "Whether people who have recovered from the virus are protected from a second infection is currently unknown". This way it doesn't seem to take a stance either way.
Leary 7y ago
When the British government was choosing to go down the herd immunity path, it was the WHO that warned against that approach. It is not as if the WHO has no value.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
Funnily enough, the geniuses at Reason made the same mistake in https://reason.com/2020/04/25/no-poison-control-calls-arent-suddenly-spiking-after-trumps-disinfectant-comments/ https://reason.com/2020/04/25/no-poison-control-calls-arent-.... There is no data on poison control calls after March, which means there is no evidence that poison control calls have spiked since Trump's press conference. That doesn't mean that poison control calls haven't spiked since the press conference.
aaron695 7y ago
The media's behaviour in all this has been a disgrace. WHO should have known better and their lack of media awareness is a problem. But we need to hold the media accountable. I in someways hope they never recover, they seem too broken. This is also seen in world leaders from all countries saying something and the media putting it in headlines as a true statement. As thought the leader of X knows the expected death toll with accuracy? This was also seen in the media not asking the most basic questions in January or February. They are supposed to be our 4th Estate [edit] Honestly, Fox reported this current WHO snafu best just quickly looking at the 3 headlines from CNN, BBC, Fox - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/25/us/who-immunity-antibodies-covid-19/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/25/us/who-immunity-antibodie... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52425825 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52425825 https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-immunity-not-assured-after-infection-who-says-imperiling-passport-idea https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-immunity-not-assu...
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  The New York Times (via Reuters) covered it correctly. https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/25/world/americas/25reuters-health-coronavirus-who.html https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/25/world/americas/25... The Washington Post also covered it correctly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/25/coronavirus-latest-news/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/25/coronavirus-... All three of your articles also reported it correctly. Even the Bloomberg article was correct except for a single word ("finding"). This looks like a tempest in a teapot to me.
  - aaron695 7y ago
    Those two headlines are not reported correctly. I don't know if you are being obtuse or don't understand the issue. We have know since last century Coronavirus's can reinfect you. Since January we have discussed how long C19 might give immunity. So for WHO/media to put out a headline like they have they must have collated or found new information that breaks us from our current beliefs. They have not.
    - 7y ago
dopylitty 7y ago
Experts need to stop beginning sentences with the phrase “there is no evidence that” to encourage or discourage behavior. When you’re dealing with a novel disease there’s not much randomized controlled evidence of anything so the best you can do is guess how situations work. Rather than saying “there’s no evidence that” previous infection leads to immunity they could say “there are known diseases where recovery does not confer permanent immunity so don’t rely on that when creating policy” Rather than say “there’s no evidence” that people have caught covid by touching their groceries and then touching their faces they could say “covid appears to spread by droplets and you should clean anything which might have come in contact with such droplets or wash your hands after every time you touch such things”

12 points by mrfusion 7y ago

Sounds like the only misleading happening here was peoples understanding of how science works. Just because something is not confirmed doesn't mean it's not true. Tweet reportedly said: > There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection. How can they then write that the tweet is misleading? Bloomberg News et al that reported "WHO Warns You May Catch Coronavirus More Than Once" and similar should be the ones shamed for misinformation here, not WHO.

fingerlocks 7y ago
I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that having antibodies for a virus does in fact protect you from the virus. Like it's baked into the definition of "antibody". That's why it sounds a bit misleading to me. But I have Biology 101 level of knowledge, so I'm curious to learn why it's not misleading.
- gus_massa 7y ago
  It will protect for the exact strain of the virus and similar strains for some time. Probably the reports that people is reinfected a few weeks after they get cured are wrong. It is not clear how long will last the immunity. For example the vaccine against tetanus must be taken again every 10 years, other vaccines protect you forever.
  - fingerlocks 7y ago
    So yeah, the tweet is misleading..?
    - gus_massa 7y ago
      Disclaimer: I'm not a virologist and not even a medical doctor. From a previous thread, I remember that someone said that with other coronavirus the protection last a few months. Let's hope that this strain produces a longer immunity.
elmerfud 7y ago
It's not misleading but the problem is the policy adopted by most countries (and the message coveyed to people) is that having the infection can convey immunity. The real question should be why are countries taking economic and what will ultimately be life destroying policy measures when there's no evidence that those policies will lead to the desired results of herd immunity and often are specifically against the advice of the WHO. The WHO specifically recommends against travel bans, but nearly every country has implemented one. They specifically state the negative social and economic impact of such bans and how they do not work to prevent the spread. https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re... I'm not sure about other countries but policy and public perception in the US seem to be largely based on TV doctors and armchair statistics majors instead of the advice of the WHO.
nangz 7y ago
It is misleading because basically every virus ever has produced some degree of immunity to reinfection. And because saying "there is no evidence that.." is often a weazelish way that doctors with unproven prior beliefs push their personal theories. WHO should say "there is no strong evidence either way, however based on our understanding of similar viruses there is likely to be at least some residual immunity post infection." Tedros has apparently been on a hiring spree focused more on "representation and diversity" than competence and experience: https://www.politico.eu/article/tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-gives-who-a-headache/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-g... And it's likely that the world is now paying the price for overemphasis on wokeness as well as pandering to the corrupt ccp.
oceliker 7y ago
It's misleading because there is no evidence either way. It's just not been studied yet (in humans, at least -- it's been studied in other animals). Pretty much everyone equates "there's no evidence for X" to "X is wrong" in their mind. Maybe they are committing a logical fallacy, but the point of WHO's tweets is to provide accurate information to people. They can't just say "well, what we said is technically correct, so it's people's fault for not understanding!" A responsible way of conveying the same information would be "Whether people who have recovered from the virus are protected from a second infection is currently unknown". This way it doesn't seem to take a stance either way.

Leary 7y ago

When the British government was choosing to go down the herd immunity path, it was the WHO that warned against that approach. It is not as if the WHO has no value.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

Funnily enough, the geniuses at Reason made the same mistake in https://reason.com/2020/04/25/no-poison-control-calls-arent-suddenly-spiking-after-trumps-disinfectant-comments/ https://reason.com/2020/04/25/no-poison-control-calls-arent-.... There is no data on poison control calls after March, which means there is no evidence that poison control calls have spiked since Trump's press conference. That doesn't mean that poison control calls haven't spiked since the press conference.

aaron695 7y ago

The media's behaviour in all this has been a disgrace. WHO should have known better and their lack of media awareness is a problem. But we need to hold the media accountable. I in someways hope they never recover, they seem too broken. This is also seen in world leaders from all countries saying something and the media putting it in headlines as a true statement. As thought the leader of X knows the expected death toll with accuracy? This was also seen in the media not asking the most basic questions in January or February. They are supposed to be our 4th Estate [edit] Honestly, Fox reported this current WHO snafu best just quickly looking at the 3 headlines from CNN, BBC, Fox - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/25/us/who-immunity-antibodies-covid-19/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/25/us/who-immunity-antibodie... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52425825 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52425825 https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-immunity-not-assured-after-infection-who-says-imperiling-passport-idea https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-immunity-not-assu...

lern_too_spel 7y ago
The New York Times (via Reuters) covered it correctly. https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/25/world/americas/25reuters-health-coronavirus-who.html https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/25/world/americas/25... The Washington Post also covered it correctly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/25/coronavirus-latest-news/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/25/coronavirus-... All three of your articles also reported it correctly. Even the Bloomberg article was correct except for a single word ("finding"). This looks like a tempest in a teapot to me.
- aaron695 7y ago
  Those two headlines are not reported correctly. I don't know if you are being obtuse or don't understand the issue. We have know since last century Coronavirus's can reinfect you. Since January we have discussed how long C19 might give immunity. So for WHO/media to put out a headline like they have they must have collated or found new information that breaks us from our current beliefs. They have not.
  - 7y ago

dopylitty 7y ago

Experts need to stop beginning sentences with the phrase “there is no evidence that” to encourage or discourage behavior. When you’re dealing with a novel disease there’s not much randomized controlled evidence of anything so the best you can do is guess how situations work. Rather than saying “there’s no evidence that” previous infection leads to immunity they could say “there are known diseases where recovery does not confer permanent immunity so don’t rely on that when creating policy” Rather than say “there’s no evidence” that people have caught covid by touching their groceries and then touching their faces they could say “covid appears to spread by droplets and you should clean anything which might have come in contact with such droplets or wash your hands after every time you touch such things”