[ad_1]
CONTROVERSIAL: Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell criticizes WHO claims of immunity to the coronavirus. Photo: TT via Reuters
On Friday, the World Health Organization issued a warning that there is no evidence that someone who has been infected with the crown becomes immune. Anders Tegnell thinks it is a vague work.
“At this time, we have no evidence that an antibody test can show that a person is immune or protected against reinfection,” said Maria van Kerkhove, an epidemiologist at the World Health Organization (WHO).
Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell is critical of the work.
– I have seen what they have said and I think it is a serious overinterpretation. That is a rather vague statement. You don’t know for sure. Most experts are convinced that you have immunity. There are very few cases where someone can probably be said to have been infected twice, Tegnell tells Swedish TV4.
The WHO has previously stated that they don’t know whether to become immune to covid-19, and said they needed more information to determine it. Tegnell now believes that the last statement is vague and that it cannot be interpreted that he received new information that says something specific.
With some exceptions, all viral diseases lead to a greater or lesser degree of immunity. Karolinska Institute infectious disease professor Jan Albert believes it is reasonable to assume that this also applies to the coronavirus.
– It would be extremely strange if you did not become immune for a while after going through this disease. But no one knows how long that period lasts, he tells Aftonbladet.
He is also critical of the WHO game.
– I think it’s strange. Lack of evidence for something doesn’t indicate the opposite is true, he tells the newspaper.
Sweden and several countries have invested in so-called “collective immunity” in the fight against the coronavirus, which means that the disease does not spread when a sufficient number of the population has antibodies in the body.
– Many countries suggest performing rapid serological tests to find out what they believe will be a measure of immunity. At this time, we have no evidence that the use of serological tests can show that an individual has immunity or is protected against infection again, says van Kerkhove.
