2 of the 44 reinfections are ‘possible’ reinfections and the other two are only ‘probable.’ So my presumption here is that we had zero cases of reinfections that caused serious illness, since none of them were even confirmed. So...
I didn’t look at the study itself, but how do they know the initial infections were “real” infections? Is it possible they are effectively just finding the false positive rate from the initial infection testing?
2 of the 44 reinfections are ‘possible’ reinfections and the other two are only ‘probable.’ So my presumption here is that we had zero cases of reinfections that caused serious illness, since none of them were even confirmed. So...
I didn’t look at the study itself, but how do they know the initial infections were “real” infections? Is it possible they are effectively just finding the false positive rate from the initial infection testing?
Agreed on both comments. Hopefully the pre-print is more clear