Right, and I'm in favor of considering anecdotal evidence in general. But at the moment, since the anecdotal evidence doesn't have any support in my own personal experience and since the Goldberg et al. study shows low rates of post-breakthrough reinfection, my vibe is that the anecdotes are rare outliers. And Omicron is driving reinfect…
Right, and I'm in favor of considering anecdotal evidence in general. But at the moment, since the anecdotal evidence doesn't have any support in my own personal experience and since the Goldberg et al. study shows low rates of post-breakthrough reinfection, my vibe is that the anecdotes are rare outliers. And Omicron is driving reinfections for the unvaccinated just as much, if not more, than the Covid-vaccinated - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/reinfections-in-israel - likely due to the altered tropism in favor of the upper respiratory tract, circumventing resident T Cells leftover from "Wuhan-strain" infections. Realistically, it will be months before there are any studies providing data on post-Omicron reinfection rates, for either the naive / recovered / vaccinated.
Thanks. Both in the UK, whose data I used, and in Israel, they rely on PCR tests only (no record of symptoms). As many of my readers pointed out this is going to significantly muddle the picture for analysis. The first test could be a false positie, or the second. I am myself not sure how to deal with it. It is important.
Right - before Omicron, the low rate of reinfection was itself an effective "control" against false positives. It essentially didn't matter if the positive PCR was "false," since having a positive PCR conferred a ~.1 likelihood of later positive PCR. So you could say reinfections were rare, because it would be true even if all reinfections were false.
Now that Omicron "second positives" (reinfections) happen at the same rate as first positives, there's no way to decipher if they are false positives or true reinfections. For the moment I'm inclined to bet on the latter.
My own definition of a "real Covid case" is a positive test, accompanies with a fever. I understand why this is inconvenient for health authorities to measure.
Right, and I'm in favor of considering anecdotal evidence in general. But at the moment, since the anecdotal evidence doesn't have any support in my own personal experience and since the Goldberg et al. study shows low rates of post-breakthrough reinfection, my vibe is that the anecdotes are rare outliers. And Omicron is driving reinfections for the unvaccinated just as much, if not more, than the Covid-vaccinated - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/reinfections-in-israel - likely due to the altered tropism in favor of the upper respiratory tract, circumventing resident T Cells leftover from "Wuhan-strain" infections. Realistically, it will be months before there are any studies providing data on post-Omicron reinfection rates, for either the naive / recovered / vaccinated.
Thanks. Both in the UK, whose data I used, and in Israel, they rely on PCR tests only (no record of symptoms). As many of my readers pointed out this is going to significantly muddle the picture for analysis. The first test could be a false positie, or the second. I am myself not sure how to deal with it. It is important.
Right - before Omicron, the low rate of reinfection was itself an effective "control" against false positives. It essentially didn't matter if the positive PCR was "false," since having a positive PCR conferred a ~.1 likelihood of later positive PCR. So you could say reinfections were rare, because it would be true even if all reinfections were false.
Now that Omicron "second positives" (reinfections) happen at the same rate as first positives, there's no way to decipher if they are false positives or true reinfections. For the moment I'm inclined to bet on the latter.
My own definition of a "real Covid case" is a positive test, accompanies with a fever. I understand why this is inconvenient for health authorities to measure.