2 ms·
There is already a decent understanding of documented reinfections. The first such cases came out a year ago, e.g.: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200406006700
by pama 5y ago
There is already a decent understanding of documented reinfections. The first such cases came out a year ago, e.g.: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200406006700320 https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200406006700320 , or https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-doctor-reinfected-with-coronavirus-3-months-after-recovering-635550 https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-doctor-reinfect... By the end of last summer there were clear documented cases with secondary infection from a different viral strain than the original one, e.g: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3681489 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3681489 The original publication (and the reply that I cite that raises some concerns, but leaves the main argument in place) estimated that the protection from a past infection is about 83%, so significantly smaller than that from the 2-dose mRNA vaccines. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n124/rr-0 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n124/rr-0
- jokethrowaway 5y agoWhile I agree reinfections are likely to exist in small numbers, the tests we're using are often not great so it's hard to say whether those were covid or something else. This year I've been heavily sick several times (and the flu almost never caused me all this pain before in my life) and it was never covid. If one of the test returned a false positive I would have been convinced it was covid. If I actually got covid again I would have believed I was one of the rare reinfections.
- cuchoi 5y agoPCR tests are more likely to give you a false negative than a false positive.