3 ms·
That assumes you can't get it twice, which we don't know yet. It also assumes there are no long-term effects, and there are already reports of lung fibrosis.
by 01100011 7y ago
That assumes you can't get it twice, which we don't know yet. It also assumes there are no long-term effects, and there are already reports of lung fibrosis. You're better off delaying it as long as possible. Work from home if you can, and try to avoid non-essential travel while people work on better treatments.
- mullingitover 7y ago> That assumes you can't get it twice I'm assuming you can get it twice, based on recent news[1], that's why I said: > If it wasn't possible to be reinfected [1] https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/484942-japan-confirms-first-case-of-person-reinfected https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
- 01100011 7y agoSorry, missed that.
- alwillis 7y agoAccording to this podcast featuring a Harvard epidemiologist, someone can get it twice: https://pca.st//episode/ca05539a-1c01-4862-9e86-8882e5e42178 https://pca.st//episode/ca05539a-1c01-4862-9e86-8882e5e42178
- cmurf 7y agoShort term reinfection is extremely unlikely. Natural immunity 1-3 years. https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1233338746789036032 https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/12333387467890360... Long duration shedding even after recovery is a more likely explanation than than re-infection. But even that's not good news if someone is contagious after they've recovered. https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1231662145156374528 https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1231662145156374528