There's a logical jump from the 2nd to 3rd paragraph that bugs me, but upon reflection, I don't know if my objection is valid: > The initial results from the f

There's a logical jump from the 2nd to 3rd paragraph that bugs me, but upon reflection, I don't know if my objection is valid: > The initial results from the first large-scale study tracking the spread of the coronavirus in the county found that 2.8% to 5.6% of adults have antibodies to the virus in their blood, an indication of past exposure. > That translates to roughly 221,000 to 442,000 adults who have recovered from an infection, according to the researchers conducting the study, even though the county had reported fewer than 8,000 cases at that time. So, in the 2nd paragraph, there, a match for SARS-COV2 antibodies means an exposure. In the 3rd, it means an infection. I have always understood that exposure != infection. Yes, the former is a necessary precondition to the latter, but an exposure doesn't automatically and unconditionally become an infection. But then it occurred to me that the body probably isn't going to be generating antibodies unless a pathogen got past the body's initial lines of defense and required a more active response from the immune system. In which case then, perhaps it would be accurate to say antibodies == infection. Are we speaking then of asymptomatic carriers or those who never experienced more than mild symptoms and might not have realized they were infected? Am I splitting hairs here? Is this simply shorthand for "exposure that subsequently became an infection?", much in the same way I might freely use "LDAP Server", "Name Server", "Domain Controller" "Auth Server", to all refer to the same system in an on-prem Windows environment? Or, am I rightly objecting to unclear language that would lead to incorrect conclusions?