Re: anecdotal re-infection
Anecdotal doesn't mean "not documented" or necessarily "unreliable", it means not systematically studied. We've got two well documented cases, what does that mean overall? What I said was if re-infection was widespread at six months then we would have more than anecdotal evidence by now; what percentage of people who've had it once to this point have had it again? Hard to tell, sure, but 2 out of 32 million is 0.000006%. If it is 6*10^-6% then that basically makes no difference to a vaccine campaign, it'd have to be heading towards the double-digit percents to matter much.
Let's ask a different question; one of those two was a 25 year old apparently not immune compromised, and contracted a serious case of covid. Does this mean the "only old people are at risk, we should all go back to normal" brigade are wrong about their fundamental premise? The numbers are the difference between systematic and anecdotal.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
