4 ms·
The problem here isn't that this is a worse definition, or that it is less meaningful in terms of a genuine scientific discussion. Experts and the rest of us a
by jMyles 6y ago
The problem here isn't that this is a worse definition, or that it is less meaningful in terms of a genuine scientific discussion. Experts and the rest of us all understand that acquired immunity is real, that it is powerful, that it is very difficult to understand, and that it's part of any reasonable strategy for controlling outbreaks of infectious disease.
The problem is that we're seeing organizations that are part of public health infrastructure turn away from science and reason before we have formed replacements for them. With this move, the WHO shows clearly what many reasonable people have been saying all year: that it is really more of a trade organization, representing pharmaceutical companies and products, than a clearinghouse for science that will lead to health in our communities. This critique has of course been muddied by the many batshit conspiracy theories.
The fissure between the mainstream scientists in the academic world and the WHO is incredible to watch unfold in real time. But what will be the result? The information age brings a great opportunity to open a new and much more equitable chapter in public health, and the deprecation of trade orgs like WHO and hedge funds like AMA are perhaps a part of that.
But is there a clear path emerging? One that allows scientists to continue their work reasonable uninterrupted despite the seismic shifts that are coming into focus on the horizon?
- kaba0 6y ago“ and that it's part of any reasonable strategy for controlling outbreaks of infectious disease.” Any source on that? As far as I know every disease that would still continue to decimate us, we managed to counter through vaccines, antibiotics or general availability of some other drug. Natural immunity does work in selected individuals but if it would work in sufficient quantities, a given disease would not spread? Like, don’t you think that the cases should start decreasing or at least platou already since we’ve been fighting this virus for a year already? Of course exponential growth is not sustainable and once it will decrease from natural immunity (or because so many people died that the average distance between people greatly increases) but I would rather not wait for a significant portion of humanity to die when there are solutions on the horizon.
- jMyles 6y agoIt depends on the nature of the infectious disease and how quickly vaccines and therapeutics are developed. When vaccines are delivered - especially in places where supply chains are less developed - it's important to consider how to get them into the arms where they'll give the most benefit. Part of this is trying to focus vaccines on sub-populations that aren't already herd immune from acquired immunity. This concept is called "overshoot" (ie, you don't want to "overshoot" immunity in some sub-populations, leaving others without enough vaccine supply). There are epidemiologists who specialize specifically on overshoot, as it is one of the key problems in infectious disease response in developing nations.