AIBU To think now I've had it I should be less restricted by restrictions?

[AssCants]

Crappy title but shrug.

Mostly recovered from covid after positive test.

I never had Hard Symptoms, just normal autumnal flu stuff.

All fine and sandy now, kept to the rules all along - no physical contact with anyone except my buble since March, and now I'm unwilling to create a Close Contact with anyone.

My town is tier 2.

SURELY as I've had this virus, I've got to be exceedingly low risk?

I'd like to go abroad. Do I have to self isolate upon return? I think yes, but AIBU to think this is illogical?

@Janevaljane

Aren't the antibody tests famously unreliable?

They are. There is no way of knowing how immunity to coronavirus works. This is why we need to be cautious.

I'm curious and confused by this idea of spreading it once you've had it. My dd has just recovered from it at uni and is out of her isolation period. She'd really like to come home this weekend but obviously doesn't want to put us at any risk. I'm not sure how she would, and can't find any clear information on how that could happen. Can anyone clarify?

@PenelopePilchard

Yes OP, 2 people around the world have caught it twice.

We're all fucking doomed.

[sceptical] [sceptical]

This is what I was going to say. I've heard oh literally 2 second cases. Appreciate that there's no proof that you can't be reinfected, but I feel like you OP. I'm so bloody resentful of the restrictions when I'm no danger to anyone

@Janevaljane

Aren't the antibody tests famously unreliable?

Our REACT 2 study is shedding light on the accuracy of a number of different at-home finger-prick antibody tests and has also evaluated how easy they are to use in the home. Out of 11 different tests studied, the best could correctly identify individuals with coronavirus antibodies over 80% of the time, while also correctly ruling out those who don’t in more than 98% of tested individuals. These were found to be suitable for large-scale surveillance studies and one test has now been rolled out across England for this purpose. www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/groups/react-study/faqs/

(The React 2 serological study results were adjusted to allow for the percentage of people who may not have had detectable antibodies. )

Just because you possible have temporary immunity from becoming unwell with COVID a 2nd time, you may still be able to carry it as pass it onto others. Therefore the restrictions are to protect the people around you too, just as they do for you. You’re still a vector.

The other issue is you could catch it again and be Asymtomatic - which means you carry the virus and spread it but not ill.

So you are being called selfish because you could infect others thinking you’re fine and no longer at risk.

you may still be able to carry it as pass it onto others. Therefore the restrictions are to protect the people around you too, just as they do for you. You’re still a vector

But how though? How do you physically pass it on to others?

The only reason there are so few confirmed reinfections is that in order to prove this, you need to have viral material from both infections to compare the strains. The confirmed cases are where there is evidence of different viral strains to show in cannot be reactivation of the original virus. Therefore most cases of reinfection will not be able to be proven even though they are occurring as it could be either reinfection or reactivation. The count is further hampered by how few were even tested in the first wave. Some form of ‘second infection’ is happening rather a lot though...

There are actually at least six proven cases of reinfection. The shortest time between positive to tests for two infections was only 48 days. This is really concerning because it was hoped we would have 2-4 years of useful immunity. Since we're already picking up cases it looks like we'll all be susceptible every year on average.
The reinfection cases that have been found are definitely the tip of the iceberg as the level of proof required at the moment is ridiculously high. It's not just a case of two positive tests (which would be a big enough hurdle since most people couldn't get tested in the spring), the original sample must still be available for sequencing. I'm seeing more and more people saying they've had two positive tests, a positive antibody test followed by a positive PCR or that they had the classic covid symptoms in March and have now tested positive.

I don't think you are selfish to think and question about it. But selfish to think you don't need to self isolate after returning from holiday abroad just because you already had it, when reinfection is possible and there's no guidance to say you don't need to.

You had physical contact with your Buble? As in Michael?

The rules apply to everyone - including those who have had it already.

We're just all doomed, aren't we?

Can you imagine if having had covid meant you weren’t subject to restrictions? You’d need some kind of certificate to prove you’d had it.

Then some people would start selling forged certificates/positive test results.

And other people would have Covid parties so all the people who were low risk and thought that meant they were invincible could catch covid and get a certificate.

And people without a certificate wouldn’t be able to get jobs in shops and pubs and we’d have to make “covid status” a protected characteristic to stop the discrimination.

Bloody nightmare.

@JellyBabiesSaveLives

Can you imagine if having had covid meant you weren’t subject to restrictions? You’d need some kind of certificate to prove you’d had it.

Then some people would start selling forged certificates/positive test results.

And other people would have Covid parties so all the people who were low risk and thought that meant they were invincible could catch covid and get a certificate.

And people without a certificate wouldn’t be able to get jobs in shops and pubs and we’d have to make “covid status” a protected characteristic to stop the discrimination.

Bloody nightmare.

There was talk at one point of "covid passports", idea ditched for pretty much all those reasons.

I work in the NHS, most of our ward staff and therapists caught covid back in March/April/ May (confirmed with positive tests). We had to undergo covid antibody testing via blood test a month ago and I know of at least 4 members of staff who know they definitely have had covid who now have no detectable trace of antibodies in their system and have been advised that they will be just as prone to catching it again. As others have said, the virus mutates into different strains and there's some journal-published evidence that suggests people are not retaining antibodies.

So I think the take home message is don't assume that having had means that a) You can't catch it again and b) that you couldn't still be a carrier and give it to someone else. That's why adhering to restrictions is still important, frustrating as it is for us all.

Interesting question. Glad you were fine OP.

To respond to why someone said it was selfish, it is selfish as in while you may have some immunity you can still pass it on to others. So you may not get it again but you can still infect your friend, who infects their mother, who in the worse case scenario dies. The whole, well I'm fine is part of the problem at why the cases are increasing. Not saying that's what you are saying, but just part of the attitude problem attitudes towards this virus overall.

There is also the side of the coin that we have largely abandoned herd immunity theory awhile ago. It seems you WILL have some immunity from the virus but it's short lived. Different people have shown to have substantially different degrees of immunity, some having immunity many many months on and others losing it weeks later. It is shown to decrease over time in all people. So there is now way of saying you are ok for 6 months, 12 months or even 1 month later.

The interesting thing about the case that was published recently was that he has tested negative a few times after having tested positive for it, first exposure was mild but the second case was only a couple of months later I think (off the top of my head), it's one of the few confirmed cases because he had a positive, followed by 2 negatives and then a positive, whereas there could be a lot more cases like this but we don't have the actual evidence to confirm it.

That short of a time between the cases is alarming as we assumed even with diminished resistance, you would have had a lot longer than that.

The second interesting thing was in his case the second time he had it he was more severely affected than the first. He actually needed hospitalised that time although fully recovered. That is alarming as typically when we are exposed to viruses we are better as dealing with them if exposed to them again, so that is atypical of how we would expect the virus to act. I guess alarmingly it may suggest that subsequent exposures could potentiality be worse than initial exposure.

However, that's all based off one case, so we can't really take evidence form it, other than to say, we don't know enough about the virus yet and therefore anyone, previous confirmed cases or not, is at risk.

I just want to know if my daughter, who tested positive a couple of weeks ago and is now out of her isolation period, can come home from uni for the weekend. With or without Michael Buble.

Everything is so confusing. After a long time in the parenting game I usually have a fairly strong instinct for what's safe and sensible and what's stupid but I'm totally at sea with all this.

@janevaljane depends which type you have- the fingerprick tests aren't as reliable as you'd like them to be, but the full blood test is. 😊

Someonesayroadtrip, it's very scary that second infection could be worse. It reminds me of bee sting. If you are allergic to it, second sting is fatal.

With or without Michael Buble

Preferable with. I’ll self isolate with him if you’re struggling.

Very few reports of people getting it twice.

YANBU

@AssCants

Really? Is that it?

Thought there was only one chap in China and now an Alamabama case?
That's statistically negligible isn't it?

Nope, have had cases of reinfection here in the Netherlands as well. Sorry. Not much, since we hardly tested in march so can't prove many, but have had them.

I think the reason there are only a few examples of people who've had it twice is because feasting in the early days was mainly limited to the most poorly.

This is of course entirely anecdotal but I know someone who was sure they had it in April, whole family with all 3 symptoms for a couple of weeks who has since had it again, this time with a positive test. There will be plenty others.

It's stands to reason that your are LESS likely to catch it statistically but there's no way of knowing

aargh I meant testing not feasting!