WHO needs to improve its communication on this.
When they say “no evidence” they mean something like “no definitive proof, yet”.
But the average person is going to read it as “there’s no immunity to coronavirus”, which is likely false and not a good summation of the evidence.
When they say “no evidence” they mean something like “no definitive proof, yet”.
But the average person is going to read it as “there’s no immunity to coronavirus”, which is likely false and not a good summation of the evidence.
The consensus of the evidence, as best as I can tell, is that there’s very likely to be some degree of immunity, although we don’t know how absolute it is and for how long it confers and there's still a lot to be learned about it. nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opi…
WHO has fucked this up on other issues too, such as masks. Definitive proof is hard to come by in the early stages of a new disease. So you have to work through priors, probabilities, incomplete evidence. theguardian.com/world/2020/apr…
