Here's what I don't fully understand
The WHO representative says here that antibodies don't necessarily indicate much at present and futher examination into people who fully recovered over longer periods are required. What are they expecting to find in those people apart from antibodies?
As so if people are tested now and antibodies are found and those people aren't sick and don't get sick can we then assume that they've at least had the disease and recovered?
Otherwise are we saying testing is totally bunk and we can't adequately identify antibodies in blood? Or we can identify antibodies but it doesn't mean immunity?
If that's the case what about the apparent successful antibody treatments that have been done?
Surely we do know the current significance of antibodies?
If not how are scientists already in human trials with vaccines?
Posts and, where appropriate, comments must link to a primary scientific source: peer-reviewed original research, pre-prints from established servers, and research or reports by governments and other reputable organisations. Please do not link to YouTube or Twitter.
News stories and secondary or tertiary reports about original research are a better fit for r/Coronavirus.
Still, the World Health Organization has stressed that the presumed immunity can only be proven as scientists study those who have recovered for longer periods. The agency is working on guidance for interpreting the results of antibody tests, also called serologic tests.
“Right now, we have no evidence that the use of a serologic test can show that an individual is immune or is protected from reinfection,” the WHO’s Maria Van Kerkhove said at a briefing last week.