Lab confirms 1st coronavirus reinfection in the US

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Earlier this week, the world was dealing head-on with what was believed to be the world's first documented case of coronavirus reinfection in Hong Kong.

Now, less than a week later, researchers in the United States are reporting their first documented case of a patient who got COVID, recovered and then got it again.

Scientists say that although reinfection is likely possible, it's also extremely rare. This is the first documented reinfection among nearly 6 million COVID-19 cases to date.

Nevertheless, the first documented reinfection is notable in how quickly the patient seemed to be reinfected after his initial recovery.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/lab-confirms-1st-coronavirus-reinfection-in-the-us/ar-BB18tWXp?li=BBnb7Kz

So much for acquired immunity.

[fescuerescue]

1. Just 1?

That's good news really.

Even in common virus's, there is a small reinfection rate. Only 1 case out of millions is really good news.

[Ms. Toad]

4. There have been others.

This is just the first case in which reinfection was documented by sequencing the genomes of viral samples from both infections - and they are too different to have been from mutations within the infected person.

There are documented reports of people who fully recover, test negative for an extended period of time (months), become ill again (often more ill than the first time), and begin testing positive again. People have been suggesting they were relapses from the initial infection . . . but no one did genomic sequencing to confirm or dispel that pretense. Now that it has been documented, I think it is fa more likely that these earlier cases were new infections that just weren't seqenced to confirm it.

It is uncommon. I don't think the disease is prevalent enough yet to call it rare.

[fescuerescue]

9. Right. But this is the first confirmed

out of millions.

And it sounds like the other cases number small.

Even if it turns out that it's 1 out of 100. That would be GREAT news. 1 our 24.8 million is a good thing.

[Ms. Toad]

10. Well -

I'm not necessarily convinced it is anything other than an illusion.

Remember the overall infection rate is rather low, and now you're looking at the infection rate in a much smaller population - which is likely to be overly cautious (having been throuh it once alrady). I think there is too little data to mean anything - especially since many potential re-infectinos are being discouraged from thinking of them as anything other than a relapse.m Until we recognize the possibility of substantive reinfections, those cases aren't gong to be reported at anything close to the rate at which they are occurring.

[NutmegYankee]

2. It may be related to individual immune response.

Some people fail to develop a good immunity even after vaccination. This could be one of those cases.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Two different strains of the disease.

That is how they confirmed it was a new infection, not a relapse.

[NutmegYankee]

13. The key is was it different enough?

While the researchers can confirm it was a different strain, it might still be close enough for most to fight it off. Some people just never develop good immunity, even in common vaccinations. That is why herd immunity is so vital.

[Bettie]

3. Actually, there are always some people who can

get reinfected with viruses.

But, most won't, so this is where herd immunity comes in.

[AmericanCanuck]

6. A repeat positive test is not reinfection.

It just means that the virus can grow again and again in nasopharyngeal mucus away from the immune system and can be detected with PCR.

There is no evidence that any so called "reinfected" person ever got ill from the second exposure.

[judeling]

7. Actually this case shows that it can be even worse

First case was more mild then the second.

This is not an unexpected, if unwelcome result. We just don't know enough and wont for some time. There were already indications that immunity had a limited time.

We are not yet a year in, it will be several more yet. This is going to be with us possibly forever, just how bad we don't know yet.

[andym]

8. NO-- sequences were too divergent

"At first, the researchers wondered if the virus had been hiding in his body the whole time -- mutating, changing and eventually developing into something that caused him to get sick with COVID-19 a second time. But they ultimately rejected this theory, saying that the two viruses were so different that it would have been nearly impossible for the virus to change that quickly inside his body. The only explanation was that he had been infected by a slightly different version of the coronavirus."

[Blue_true]

12. Researchers sequenced both viruses in the Nevada man, they were different. nt

[Blue_true]

11. The Nevada man got sicker from the reinfection than he was from the first.

He landed in the hospital with pneumonia after the reinfection, the first case was mild symptoms.