In the previous coronavirus was infected ‘not fully protected against reinfection’, warns the study

In the previous coronavirus was infected ‘not fully protected against reinfection’, warns the study

by

Young people previously infected with coronavirus will not be fully protected against re-infection, according to a new study.

Researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine on Mount Sinai analyzed data on more than 3,000 healthy members of the U.S. Marine Corps from 18 to 20 years old.

They found that about 10 percent of those involved in the study who had previously been infected with Covid-19 became infected again.

Study authors have warned that despite previous infection and the presence of antibodies, vaccination is still necessary to boost immune responses, prevent reinfection, and reduce transmission.

They added that young people should, if possible, take the vaccine.

Young people previously infected with coronavirus will not be fully protected against re-infection, according to a new study

Young people previously infected with coronavirus will not be fully protected against re-infection, according to a new study

Humans ‘can be re-infected with Covid every two to four years’ as viruses change into new variants

Mutant variants of coronavirus can re-infect humans every two to four years, a top scientist has warned.

Paul Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia, said it was normal for future tribes to emerge and that it would not necessarily cause serious illness.

But he warned that ‘it’s very difficult to predict’ because ‘you never really know what each new variant will do’.

Government advisers already find that vaccines are less effective on existing variants, including as much as 30 percent less effective on the South African one.

Extremely transmissible mutations first detected in Kent and Brazil are described as a ‘variety of concern’, and are also driving a third wave in Europe.

Professor Hunter stressed that many new variants are no cause for concern, but that they should be monitored to ensure that they do not derail the roadmap for lifting the exclusion.

According to the observational study conducted between May and November 2020, 19 out of 189 marines infected with Covid contracted the virus again.

This was compared with new infections in 50% (1,079 out of 2,247) participants who had not been infected with the virus before.

Although the study was in young, fit, mostly male recruits, the researchers believe the risk of re-infection will apply to many young people.

However, the exact rate of reinfection does not apply to other institutions, due to the busy living conditions on a military basis.

The team said the close personal contact required for basic training is likely to contribute to a higher overall infection rate than elsewhere.

For example, a study among four million people in Denmark found that the risk of infection was five times higher in people who had not yet had the disease.

But researchers found that only 0.65% of those who had Covid-19 tested positive again during the first wave of Denmark during the second wave, compared to 3.3% of those who tested positive after initially being negative wash.

In addition, a pre-pressure study, including UK health workers, found that those who had not been infected before had a five times higher risk of infection than people who had an infection.

Professor Stuart Sealfon, senior author of the study, said it was important to remember that, despite a previous infection, young people could catch the virus again.

“Immunity is not guaranteed by past infections, and vaccinations that provide additional protection are still needed for those who have had Covid-19.”

Recruits who tested positive for a second infection during the study were isolated and researchers followed up with additional tests.

The levels of neutralizing antibodies were also taken from participants who were later infected and who were not re-infected during the study period.

Of the 2,346 participants followed long enough for this analysis, 189 were seropositive and 2247 seronegative at the start of the study.

In both groups, there were 1,098 (45%) new infections during the study and of the recruits who were seronegative, 1,079 (48%) became infected.

The authors studied the antibody responses of re-infected and non-infected participants to understand why these reinfections occurred.

They found that participants who were re-infected among the seropositive group had lower antibody levels against the virus than those who did not.

When comparing new infections, they found that patients who had the virus before and were re-infected had about 10 times less of the virus in their system than someone who was infected for the first time.

This suggests that some re-infected individuals could still transmit the virus, but the authors noted that it needs to be further investigated.

They found that about 10 percent of those involved in the study, who had previously been infected with Covid-19, became infected again.

They found that about 10 percent of those involved in the study, who had previously been infected with Covid-19, became infected again.

In the study, most new cases were asymptomatic – 84% (16 of 19 participants) in the seropositive group and 68% (732 out of 1,079) in the seregative group – or had mild symptoms, and no one was hospitalized.

The authors noted some limitations on the study, including that it probably underestimated the risk of re-infection in previously infected individuals.

This is because it does not take into account people with very low antibody levels after their infection in the past.

They also could not determine how seropositive recruits had contracted their previous infection, nor could they confirm it by means of a PCR test or determine how severe it was and what symptoms they had.

They found that, among the seropositive group, participants who became infected again had lower antibody levels against the virus than those who did not.

They found that, among the seropositive group, participants who became infected again had lower antibody levels against the virus than those who did not.

Researchers said they could also have missed detectable infections that occurred between PCR tests every two weeks during the study, published in the journal The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

‘Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity or immunity against subsequent infection,’ the study said.

A separate study published in the Lancet in March found that the majority of people who had COVID-19 were protected from getting it back for at least six months, but older people are more prone to reinfection than younger people.

As little as 2 percent of the positive results of lateral flow results are accurate, Matt Hancock adviser says in leaked emails after Boris Johnson called on the country to take it twice a week.

An adviser to Matt Hancock warned that only two percent of the positive results of the Covid side flow test in low-performance areas are accurate.

In the email leaked to the Guardian, it is said that senior strategist Ben Dyson warned colleagues in the health department about the unreliability of the results of the lateral flow test.

Mr. Dyson, who is an executive director of strategy at the health department and one of Matt Hancock’s advisers, has expressed fears that the reliability of positive results in certain areas could be up to two percent.

The email was reportedly sent on April 9, four days after Boris Johnson announced a multi-billion pound plan for a mass test drive in the UK – which would see Britons testing themselves twice a week with lateral flow tests test.

According to the Guardian, Mr. Dyson said in his email: ‘As of today, anyone who (says) a positive LFD result in London has, at best, a 25 per cent chance that it is a true positive, but if it is a self a reported test that is possibly as low as 10 percent (on an optimistic assumption about specificity) or as low as 2 percent (with a more pessimistic assumption).

.Source