WHO Deletes Naturally Acquired Immunity from Its Website | Hacker News Reader

WHO Deletes Naturally Acquired Immunity from Its Website

aier.org

38 pointstomp21 comments

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?

“ 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.

It 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.

Direct link to before and after

https://i.redd.it/hx3eyixxsy661.jpg

"The existence of the human immune system is now a conspiracy theory."

Note how almost none of the posts here on HN can refute the claims directly but instead they attack the source, make jokes about 5G and so on.

If the human immune system could effectively fight this virus than maybe there would not be goddamn 79 million infected??

As I’ve written in my other post - yes of course exponential growth will once ceize. But it is absolutely insane to think with the current trends that the outcome of waiting and doing nothing or infecting young people or every other stupid thing regarding natural immunity will effectively counter this virus - not until a significant percentage of humanity have already died.

(Also, you do realize that vaccines work by “teaching” the immune system, right?)

Ah yes, the journalistic heavyweight that is the AIER which " portray the risks of climate change as minor and manageable" and argued for a herd immunity strategy to Covid-19. Seriously.

Are you saying the the linked Archive.org pages on the site are fake?

https://i.imgur.com/x4jfg5f.jpg

https://web.archive.org/web/20201105013101/https://www.who.i...

https://web.archive.org/web/20201124094747/https://www.who.i...

So, John can you explain the Science behind these things? Thanks a lot.

Here you are:

“ There are two possible approaches to build widespread SARS-CoV-2 im- munity: (1) a mass vaccination campaign, which requires the development of an effective and safe vaccine, or (2) natural immu- nization of global populations with the virus over time. However, the consequences of the latter are serious and far-reaching—a large fraction of the human population would need to become in- fected with the virus, and millions would succumb to it. Thus, in the absence of a vaccination program, establishing herd immunity should not be the ultimate goal. Instead, an emphasis should be placed on policies that protect the most vulnerable groups in the hopes that herd immunity will eventually be achieved as a byprod- uct of such measures, although not the primary objective itself.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32433946/

The reason is simple: you don't get 5G nanobots in your bloodstream via naturally acquired immunity

Skeptic discussion:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/kj8p3o/...

The same people that would complain about "death panels" in a public health care system seem awfully eager to toss people in their 20s and 30s into the pit.

This is, as the OP states, like soviet reeditions of the biography of Stalin, or the history of the USSR. The WHO is losing any authority it might have.

is it though? come on. they’re changing one explanation on a webpage as the world around them changes. that IS how herd immunity is going to be reached. it’s unethical to continue to intentionally expose people to the virus when an efficacious vaccine (a less dangerous preventative) is available according to mainstream medical ethics. the WHO isn’t the arbiter of this or what herd immunity is.

this piece is motivated, inflammatory garbage.

> And now the “science” is actually deleting its own history, airbrushing over what it used to know and replacing it with something misleading at best and patently false at worst.

really? one webpage from an organization with little actual power? what authority DOES have WHO have? what did it have to you before?

This could be the textbook example under hyperboles.

I want my trust in science back.

Than don’t jump to conclusions based on click-bait headlines with no actual content.

its my first comment in this interesting helpfull site, and ... Im not pro or counter vaccines, simply I dont trust people who broken any kind of trust, so, If the international WHO change an important argument, like upsetting it, on the basis of speculations (is irrelevant what speculation are), I dont trust the WHO anymore.

I’m pro vaccine but don’t people ever think one step further about how doing things like this just empowers anti-Vaxers.

They already don’t trust you, how do you think you changing definitions like this is going to accomplish.

Indeed - the entire process of developing the vaccine in a timeline branded 'warp speed', relying on it as the only means to avoid lockdowns (which have never been based in anything resembling science), indemnifying the organizations who stand to profit from it, and now perhaps exacting pressure on the public to accept it - these steps all seem tailor-made to strengthen the antivax movement. It's terrifying.

mRNA is rad technology. It will be a major bummer if it gets derailed because of these blunders.

You can't dis-empower the anti-vaxers. You are bound to the truth and they are not. Everything you say, including nothing, is affirmation of the conspiracy against them.

The best you can do is handle the situation as best you know how, including changing your mind. And your messaging, as you come to understand how it works, knowing full well how the conspiracy theorists will portray each change you make.

They are a deadweight loss. You won't beat them. You have to fight the disease instead, knowing that there is an enormous force out there making your insanely difficult job even harder. Time spent appeasing them is time lost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com