SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Trump threatens to take US out of WHO entirely and stop all funding:
In a letter to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Trump alleged that "the repeated missteps by you and your organization in responding to the pandemic have been extremely costly for the world" and that the WHO must "demonstrate independence from China."
"[I]f the World Health Organization does not commit to major substantive improvements within the next 30 days, I will make my temporary freeze of United States funding to the World Health Organization permanent and reconsider our membership in the organization," Trump wrote. "I cannot allow American taxpayer dollars to continue to finance an organization that, in its present state, is so clearly not serving America's interests."
Trump posted the letter on Twitter, writing, "It is self-explanatory!"
Trump has repeatedly denied any responsibility for COVID-19 spreading in America and said on April 14 that the US would temporarily halt funding the WHO until his administration completed a review of the group's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Trump's letter yesterday said that "review has confirmed many of the serious concerns I raised last month and identified others that the World Health Organization should have addressed, especially the World Health Organization's alarming lack of independence from the People's Republic of China."
[...] Trump's letter then lists a series of claims, the first being that the WHO "consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from the Lancet medical journal."
The Lancet quickly issued a response explaining that Trump is wrong. "This statement is factually incorrect," The Lancet said. "The Lancet published no report in December, 2019, referring to a virus or outbreak in Wuhan or anywhere else in China." The Lancet's first reports on the topic were published on January 24, 2020 the statement said.
[...] Trump's letter yesterday said, "Throughout this crisis, the World Health Organization has been curiously insistent on praising China for its alleged 'transparency.'" Trump's letter did not mention that Trump himself praised China for its "transparency" on January 24 or that Trump repeatedly praised China for its coronavirus response throughout February.
[...] Health experts say Trump's travel ban had little effect on the pandemic's spread. Trump continued to downplay the virus's severity by comparing it to the flu as late as March 24, nearly two months after the WHO declared a global health emergency. Trump has also fought state governors over their cautious approaches to reopening the economy.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @01:17PM (15 children)
I'm no medical expert but I remember when the WHO said there's no evidence that antibodies provide immunity, despite tens of millions of publications from all around the world over the course of decades about how antibodies provide immunity.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @01:40PM (5 children)
For covid-19?
(Score: 2, Troll) by PocketSizeSUn on Thursday May 21 2020, @02:32PM (4 children)
The evidence for antibodies providing immunity is overwhelming and there never was any *evidence* to the contrary.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @03:25PM
*COUGH...hiv*
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 22 2020, @06:02AM (2 children)
There's a huge list of viruses that antibodies don't provide long lasting immunity. Famous ones include HIV, Herpes, virus type pneumonia and even chicken pox which resurrects after half a century or so and causes shingles.
Then there are viruses like the flu which mutate regularly enough that a slightly different one shows up that the antibodies aren't prepared for.
There's still a lot to find out about this virus and just getting good tests in large numbers has proven hard. One thing history shows is that there is usually a second worst wave
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Monday May 25 2020, @08:28PM (1 child)
On HIV specifically:
https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-antibodies-prevention-16513-1874 [poz.com]
If the same were true for the SARS et. al. then we should not be seeing PCR tests go from positive to negative as your immune system clears the virus from your system.
As for VZV (chickenpox/shingles), the common understanding is somewhat incomplete. Your original antibodies cleared the original infection almost completely* however the virus infected some nerve cells and stopped replicating. After some time you body stops producing the antibodies for the now undetected VZV. At some future time VZV starts replicating again, the exact reason is not well understood but it probably as something do with with an infected nerve cell dying, which is uncommon:
https://education.seattlepi.com/average-life-span-human-nerve-cells-4079.html [seattlepi.com]
The secondary immune response to VZV produces a distinctly different set of symptoms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingles [wikipedia.org]
So is it possible the SARS-CoV-2 acts like a virus from the zoster family? Yeah, sure, why not?
Is it likely? No, it is far more likely to behave like SARS-CoV-1 which is it's closest (well documented and researched) cousin.
Does SARS-CoV-1 antibodies confer immunity to SARS-CoV-1 infection and re-infection? Yes for about 2 years.
Is there any evidence *at* *all* to suspect that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do *not* confer immunity? No not really.
Is it possible that someone was cured of SARS-CoV-2 infection but did not develop significant antibodies?
Yes someone who is immune compromised could have relied almost entirely an antiviral or other compound that was sufficient to keep the viral load low enough and long enough for a poorly functioning immune system to clear the infection and yes not develop antibodies.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday May 25 2020, @10:03PM
You make some good points and are likely right, though we are still learning. There's also the mutation factor. I understand RNA viruses mutate more often then DNA viruses.
Time will tell and hopefully this is like many other viruses where basically once you've had it, you don't get it again. Might also prove to be like all those childhood diseases that affect children less then adults. I had most of them and the only one that almost killed me was tonsillitis, which is usually bacterial.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Thursday May 21 2020, @04:25PM (8 children)
FTFY
We have evidence that antibodies do not provide immunity for some diseases (AC said HIV, for example). COVID-19 is the "novel coronavirus", as in "we've never seen this one before", as in "we have no evidence of anything until we do new research".
I'm starting to think it's a mistake to teach biology in high school. People keep thinking the memorized generalizations they water down for the general population are some kind of universal facts, then extrapolating those "facts" in ways that may as well constitute a new religion. Next you'll be telling me that vaccines cause autism because they contain mercury.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @05:52PM (7 children)
Yea, in science we come up with general models to understand the world. Antibodies almost always confer immunity against the virus they are raised against. Therefore they are evidence for immunity. Only morons think otherwise because of a few exceptions.
But most people like you dont even believe the idiocy you are spouting, not a single person defending this would bet on it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday May 21 2020, @08:02PM (6 children)
Oh sure, antibodies probably confer immunity. But it's possible that they don't, because we have no direct evidence that they do.
Do you not understand how the immune system works? It characterizes pathogens based on chemical signatures, manufactures antibodies that attach to those signatures, and T cells destroy cells that have those antibodies attached. It's an overcomplicated process that is easy to disrupt, either by mutating different chemical signatures constantly, disrupting antibody production, interfering with T cells directly, or any number of other mechanisms that the "exceptions" are known to employ in the wild.
Then again, you probably think the WHO was just trying to seed FUD about the disease when they said there is no evidence that antibodies confer immunity. The fact is that if we act as though they do, and it turns out they don't, then previously infected people may be allowed to spread the disease everywhere and completely negate the infection reductions we are sacrificing so much to achieve through quarantine. The WHO was simply warning people not to allow previously infected people to break quarantine. The risks could be catastrophic.
Is it likely? No. But we're talking about an existential threat to humanity. Without effective quarantine, the cascading effects of this pandemic could kill significant percentages of the world population. It would be irresponsible to simply assume that this unstudied pathogen behaves exactly like all the others, especially when we know that some of those other pathogens don't behave that way.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @09:08PM (3 children)
Like I said, no one defending that idiotic claim actually believes antibodies are not evidence for immunity. I tried to bet like 5 different people $10k who defended the statement at the time and none would take it.
It is an idiotic statement, stop defending things you dont believe.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday May 21 2020, @10:13PM (2 children)
Listen, I don't believe in antibodies one way or another. That's not how science works. And if I had to take your stupid bet to stop the previously infected from breaking quarantine? I'd take out a loan. Losing $10k 99% of the time is worth saving the world 1% of the time.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @10:41PM (1 child)
Wow. Well the darwin test is on the way, good luck!
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday May 22 2020, @05:35PM
Belief is the realm of religion. In science, we presume, allow, and theorize.
The main difference is that I am prepared to drop all of my presumptions, allowances, and theories about antibodies based on new evidence. A belief in antibodies, much like a belief in God, is resistant to such disproof.
The relevant difference here is that I understand the limits of my presumptions, allowances, and theories enough to only apply them within the limits of their underlying evidence. A belief in antibodies, much like a belief in God, has no such limits to its application.
One last point: because belief is so unbounded, it is highly dangerous for people to believe things without moderation. That's why religion has priests: to direct belief in God in accordance with the most dedicated scriptural scholars, away from the random thoughts of those who spend little to no time actually studying God. It's not a perfect system, but if you insist on "believing" in antibodies, you had better allow the most dedicated medical experts to inform that belief. Trusting politicians and media personalities over the WHO in matters of medicine is equivalent to trusting L. Ron Hubbard over the Pope in matters of God.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Monday May 25 2020, @08:38PM (1 child)
Just to be pedantic, using the worst case estimate of 10% fatality rate SARS-CoV-2 is not an existential threat. Serious and damaging but far, far from threatening the *existence* of humanity.
7 billion -> 6.3 billion is still a lot of people left to pick-up the pieces.
At most you can argue that it is a threat to business as usual ...
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday May 26 2020, @03:48PM
Eh, I may be playing fast and loose with the definition of "humanity" for shock value. I think it would be reasonable to read it as "human civilization", which would be more accurate. Then again, that's not what I said.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?