Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection after natural infection

Boyton, Rosemary J.; Altmann, Daniel M.

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00662-0

Cited by 65 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternatively, it may suggest that many individuals working in healthcare have already been affected by COVID-19 [52], and therefore believe they are protected from getting infected again. If it is due to the latter reason, it will be important for medical schools and employers to emphasise that there is a risk of reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 [53,54]. Therefore, it remains important for individuals to be vigilant and continue following IPC protocols even if they have previously been infected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SPICE-19: a 3-Month Prospective Cohort Study of 640 Medical Students and Foundation Doctors

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction There is paucity of data around the support that medical students have been provided with, need to be provided with, and would like to be provided with during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to explore the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students and establish the support they require. Methods A prospective, observational, multicentre study was conducted in 2020. All medical students and interim foundation year 1 doctors were eligible to participate. Results Six hundred forty individuals participated from 32 medical schools. Participants reported a drop in their mood following the onset of the pandemic (p < 0.001). This drop in mood was evident in both May and August. Participants did have an improved mood in August compared to May (p < 0.001). There was a significant decrease in pandemic disease-anxiety (13.8/20 to 12.4/20, p < 0.001) and consequence-anxiety (6.3/10 to 6.0/10, p < 0.001) between May and August. Nineteen percent of participants (n = 111/596, 19%) had not received the support they needed from their university by August. The most common area of support that our participants needed and had not received from their medical schools by August was support with course material (n = 58/111, 52%). ‘Clinical knowledge’ was thought to have been affected by the greatest number of participants in both May and August. Conclusion Medical students’ mental well-being has been adversely affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings have actionable implications that can better protect medical students as they acclimatise to a working environment that has been radically changed by COVID-19.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SPICE-19: a 3-Month Prospective Cohort Study of 640 Medical Students and Foundation Doctors

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recommended bibliography: [61][62][63][64][65] • SARS-CoV-2 reinfection remains an overall infrequent event.…”

Section: Sars-cov-2 Reinfection Vs No Reinfectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The limited diagnostic data available from the first wave of infections as well as the supportive evidence required to publish descriptions of reinfections 23 has impacted our appreciation for the frequency of these events [62,63]. More recently, large observational studies on reinfection have been published.…”

Section: Reinfection and Natural Immunitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 23 Acceptable evidence in support of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection consists of testing positive by qRT-PCR at two different time points (usually separated by a period of test negativity if documented), plus distinct genome sequencing of viral isolates on each episode [ 62 , 63 ]. The lack of these data, which is expected outside research settings, hinders reporting of reinfection.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists across disciplines, policymakers, and journalists have voiced frustration at the unprecedented polarization and misinformation around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several false dichotomies have been used to polarize debates while oversimplifying complex issues. In this comprehensive narrative review, we deconstruct six common COVID-19 false dichotomies, address the evidence on these topics, identify insights relevant to effective pandemic responses, and highlight knowledge gaps and uncertainties. The topics of this review are: 1) Health and lives vs. economy and livelihoods, 2) Indefinite lockdown vs. unlimited reopening, 3) Symptomatic vs. asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, 4) Droplet vs. aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, 5) Masks for all vs. no masking, and 6) SARS-CoV-2 reinfection vs. no reinfection. We discuss the importance of multidisciplinary integration (health, social, and physical sciences), multilayered approaches to reducing risk (“Emmentaler cheese model”), harm reduction, smart masking, relaxation of interventions, and context-sensitive policymaking for COVID-19 response plans. We also address the challenges in understanding the broad clinical presentation of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. These key issues of science and public health policy have been presented as false dichotomies during the pandemic. However, they are hardly binary, simple, or uniform, and therefore should not be framed as polar extremes. We urge a nuanced understanding of the science and caution against black-or-white messaging, all-or-nothing guidance, and one-size-fits-all approaches. There is a need for meaningful public health communication and science-informed policies that recognize shades of gray, uncertainties, local context, and social determinants of health.

show abstract

“…This further complicates the debate especially if "herd immunity" is a policy factor. 12 In summary, the policies of most countries were aimed at not overwhelming the health services. The measures taken, were mostly the minimum required given the available capacity of the health service and the rate of spread, to avoid excessive collateraleconomic -damage.…”

Section: The Science Of Risk Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaccination with vector type vaccines – is it worth the risk?

Ale

Slater²,

Hartford³

2021

MRAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 has the potential to re-frame the whole debate about individual and societal risk, risk balancing, benefit-cost analysis, individual rights, societal responsibilities of individuals and responsibilities of Governments within the overall context that there are limits to what can be achieved in particular instances, and in totality across society. There has been considerable discussion and debate globally about the real and perceived risks of having a vaccination against COVID-19. This might be interpreted as having contributed to the uncertainty in the vaccine debate and contributed to doubt and even erosion of trust in some of the population. Some of this has been due to an understandable demand for immediate answers, before the necessary and detailed data were available and verified. The recent publication of unexpected negative side effects from the Astra Zeneca version of the vector-type vaccine, “vaccine induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia” (VIPIT), has been the latest complicating development, which has caused further concerns, uncertainties and confusion. The risk figures that Governments use are derived from whole population data and processed to give a smeared out average “societal” risk. But to the individuals having to make the choice, these figures may, or may not, be relevant. The corresponding societal estimate of an individual’s chance of being stuck by lightning is the well-known 1 in a million. But individuals know intuitively that for someone who never goes out in bad weather, this is way too high. Conversely someone who goes out to fly a kite in a thunderstorm has an almost certain chance of being fried. In this paper we discuss the current arguments put forward, which accept the 1 in a 100,000 as acceptable collateral damage for societal exposure. It then contrasts them against the numbers that could be derived, if it is approached from the point of view of a particular individual’s risk benefit calculations. Subsequently we discuss how communication and information by policy makers and media may influence the decisions of individuals to have or not have themselves vaccinated. While the current debate about vaccinations provides data and the central focus of this paper, the issue is a general matter, it is symptomatic of a much wider risk question which the vaccine debate has brought into focus; and not just for other vaccines and medical interventions.

show abstract

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection after natural infection

Cited by 65 publications

References 14 publications

SPICE-19: a 3-Month Prospective Cohort Study of 640 Medical Students and Foundation Doctors

SPICE-19: a 3-Month Prospective Cohort Study of 640 Medical Students and Foundation Doctors

COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection

Vaccination with vector type vaccines – is it worth the risk?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About