BBC - 'No evidence' that virus recovery gives immunity

Jedi boro

Jedi boro

Well-known member
Story they are running now

  1. World Health Organization says people who have recovered may not be protected against reinfection

Well this kind of changes things a little doesn’t it.
 
zorro_mfc said:
Story they are running now


  1. World Health Organization says people who have recovered may not be protected against reinfection

Well this kind of changes things a little doesn’t it.
Click to expand...
It's the media's latest scare tactic.

Started with
Ventilator procurement then,
Lockdown measures then,
Boris is poorly,
Lack of PPE then,
Care home deaths,
Now it's youll never be safe from it. Well no **** we already know that but has anybody noticed recently the media make catching it sound like your definitely going to hospital? Couldnt be further from the truth.
 
It doesn’t matter too much if immunity isn’t achieved, it’s about whether a second or third dose could be just as deadly, but most importantly, if it’s detectable.
 
RandySavage said:
It's the media's latest scare tactic.

Started with
Ventilator procurement then,
Lockdown measures then,
Boris is poorly,
Lack of PPE then,
Care home deaths,
Now it's youll never be safe from it. Well no **** we already know that but has anybody noticed recently the media make catching it sound like your definitely going to hospital? Couldnt be further from the truth.
Click to expand...
I wasn't worried about crime until the daily briefing tonight. I don't know what I should be frightened of but it's a scary presentation.
 
atypical_boro said:
It doesn’t matter too much if immunity isn’t achieved, it’s about whether a second or third dose could be just as deadly, but most importantly, if it’s detectable.
Click to expand...

Except that if people can get reinfected, even if subsequent versions are milder, it gives the virus greater chance to continue spreading around the population. This increases the probability of significantly more people contracting it, including the elderly and vulnerable who we are trying to protect.
 
Billy Horner said:
Except that if people can get reinfected, even if subsequent versions are milder, it gives the virus greater chance to continue spreading around the population. This increases the probability of significantly more people contracting it, including the elderly and vulnerable who we are trying to protect.
Click to expand...

Well that’s why I said if it’s detectable. If you knew you’d had it you’d self-isolate. The problem is if you don’t.
 
RandySavage said:
It's the media's latest scare tactic.

Started with
Ventilator procurement then,
Lockdown measures then,
Boris is poorly,
Lack of PPE then,
Care home deaths,
Now it's youll never be safe from it. Well no **** we already know that but has anybody noticed recently the media make catching it sound like your definitely going to hospital? Couldnt be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

Careful you'll be called a right wing nut job like I have or you'll be told that you don't believe people are dying from coronavirus. 👌
 
If there is no immunity from re infection , how will a vaccine work?

I thought the principle of a vaccine is that you give someone a very mild dose and this protects them from the full blown virus/disease etc
 
Redwurzel said:
If there is no immunity from re infection , how will a vaccine work?

I thought the principle of a vaccine is that you give someone a very mild dose and this protects them from the full blown virus/disease etc
Click to expand...

If a vaccine stops people getting a killer dose, by allowing all or most people’s bodies to learn to fight it, then it would still be worth everyone having one surely?

We wouldn’t be isolating if we managed to get to a point where it didn't hospitalise anyone.
 
The BBC's journalism, analysis and fact checking leaves a lot to be desired. Lot's of air and space to fill with stories collated from other sources.

We get re-infected with the common cold all the time. We have all head it in some form or other probably as many times as we have had birthdays. It will be the same with this coronavirus, unless they do manage to pull a rabbit from the hat in the shape of an effective virus (not looking good so far ... one such vaccine was abandoned this week when found to be ineffective). Most science papers about this coronavirus have been saying that immunity, if we get any, will be short term. However, our immune systems will get better at dealing with it ... so it is likely to become less and less dangerous each time. For most of us it isn't remotely dangerous at all now.
 
Kinda makes you think why are we all sitting at home 🤔 but then again the NHS probably would have been swamped if we’d just carried on. As Borolad says it may well end up being like the common cold that you get sometimes but you build up some resistance to its worst effects



🐔
 
Funky_Chicken said:
Kinda makes you think why are we all sitting at home 🤔 but then again the NHS probably would have been swamped if we’d just carried on. As Borolad says it may well end up being like the common cold that you get sometimes but you build up some resistance to its worst effects



🐔
Click to expand...

This seems like the only logical way out of this.

Which means we can’t go on self-isolating forever either way. At some point those of us who are able to are going to have to take our chances with it. This lockdown period was really about not overwhelming the NHS at one time, not about “beating” the virus.

I’ve no doubt at all lockdowns will become something we have to get used to on a semi-regularly basis. But we won’t stay in it permanently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top