3 ms·
You've linked to an article from August 2020 when it was still very much hoped that reinfections are just a fluke - virus particles not cleaned from the system
by yread 5y ago
You've linked to an article from August 2020 when it was still very much hoped that reinfections are just a fluke - virus particles not cleaned from the system or something like that. We have better data now, that comes from different methods and agrees quite well:
"Protection against repeat infection was 80·5% (95% CI 75·4–84·5).... among those aged 65 years and older, observed protection against repeat infection was 47·1% (95% CI 24·7–62·8)"
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00575-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
"A study of blood donors in the city of Manaus has found that 1 in 6 of those infected with the coronavirus were reinfected with the P.1 variant."
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1353 https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1353
"A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection,"
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00675-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- TMWNN 5y ago>You've linked to an article from August 2020 That's when the article was first published. As it states, it is updated twice a week. Look at the most recent entries.
- yread 5y agoI see. I didn't study it much after checking that my mom (hospitalized twice 4 months apart) and our music teacher at school (3 months apart) were not listed there. They use a pretty strict measure for "confirmed" - a case study being published. Care to comment on the studies I've linked?