The WHO changes the meaning of herd immunity.

[SAN compnerd]

Natural immunity no longer exists, only vaccine immunty now.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/lying-deletes-naturally-acquired-immunity-website/

[TrappedinCalifornia]

For the TL;DR crowd... The article you are citing is pushing an agenda similar to one you ascribe to which is parsing another article with a similar agenda that parsed what the WHO actually said.

As I just said on your thread about Fauci... In this case, it might not be so much that they were "lying" as simply providing the best GUESSTIMATE that they had built a consensus around without letting the public know that it was just that... a guess and that they didn't know. Or, in this case, what the World Health Organization is doing is addressing a "new" or "novel" virus, one to which humans have yet to achieve a level of 'natural immunity' to and they are discussing the 'safest' approach to achieving that 'immunity.'

You are selecting articles which dovetail with your take on the situation rather than going back to the original source being cited. Just like your WHO screenshots. What you failed to note, but that your linked article acknowledges, is that they are taken from Archive.org; with the screenshots being from June and October and comparing the two. Even what you placed in the quote box is from yet ANOTHER source than the one you linked to and is the article they are cribbing from.

The latter article is entitled... WHO Deletes Naturally Acquired Immunity from Its Website

It also turns out that this is the article which provides the WHO screenshots from Archive.org. Fortunately, THAT article provides an actual link to the Archive.org page.

If you go to the CDC's current Vaccines & Immunizations Glossary page, then click on the letter "H," you will be taken to where it states...

Herd immunity: See Community immunity.

Click on that link and you will find...

Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. Also known as herd immunity.

That doesn't sound like CDC eliminated "human history." So... Why the difference? First, what I just linked to was the CDC, not WHO. Second, what the original article links to is the WHO's "Newsroom Q&A Detail" page. If you go to THAT page, you won't find "herd immunity." Instead, what you find is a link to a 15 October 2020 page entitled... Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19.

Reading that page, it's clear that they aren't 'changing' the definition of 'herd immunity' so much as declaring that vaccination is a 'safer' way toward 'population immunity' than a more natural progression...

...The percentage of people who need to have antibodies in order to achieve herd immunity against a particular disease varies with each disease. For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80%.

Achieving herd immunity with safe and effective vaccines makes diseases rarer and saves lives...

What is WHO's position on 'herd immunity' as a way of fighting COVID-19?

Attempts to reach ‘herd immunity’ through exposing people to a virus are scientifically problematic and unethical. Letting COVID-19 spread through populations, of any age or health status will lead to unnecessary infections, suffering and death.

The vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus. Seroprevalence surveys suggest that in most countries, less than 10% of the population have been infected with COVID-19.

We are still learning about immunity to COVID-19. Most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks, but we don’t know how strong or lasting that immune response is, or how it differs for different people. There have also been reports of people infected with COVID-19 for a second time.

Until we better understand COVID-19 immunity, it will not be possible to know how much of a population is immune and how long that immunity last for, let alone make future predictions. These challenges should preclude any plans that try to increase immunity within a population by allowing people to get infected...

In short, what you are relying on is an article which cherry picks from another article which then acontextually compares what was said months ago to a portion of what is being said now... Not in relation to the general concept of "herd immunity," but specifically as to how the WHO stands on the concept of 'herd immunity' in relation to COVID-19 and how vaccination would be a 'safer' (fewer deaths) approach than a 'natural' one.

This is why context is important. It's a good example of why you CANNOT take article's at face value, then parrot them as definitive proof of this or that agenda.

Yes. It takes a bit of effort and often involves "walls of text" (as some describe it) to unwind the spin, but it provides illumination as to what's actually being discussed and how actual INFORMATION is being used to push various agendas from across the board.

[hunterb]

Thank you TrappedinCalifornia for showing OP’s fake news to be bullcrap.

OP you should be embarrassed and go crawl under a rock until winter is over.

[LBDamned]

Yep.. "herd"ing sheeple.

[ENTHUSIAST]

Screw the WHO Globalist scum!

Oh and Dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1678077

[CaliforniaCowboy]