Very interesting study out of Denmark looking at SARS-CoV-2 reinfections:
- 0.65% symptomatic reinfections after 7 months
- in sensitivity analysis this doubled to 1.2%
- estimated ~80% short-term protection against reinfection
Studies like this make me very jealous of my Nordic colleagues. The authors had access to linked data for *the entire country of Denmark*, which is a pretty enormous strength of the research
Basically, they looked at every PCR test done in the first wave, and followed up every person to see if they had tested positive in the first, second, or both waves
Of those in the sample, 0.65% were infected twice
The BIG caveat here is that this study (as with similar ones) relies on routine PCR tests, which means that the sample is selected for people who have a symptomatic infection
While it was not statistically significant, it is interesting that the sensitivity analysis - which looked only at those who were regularly tested - found a higher incidence of reinfection than the main analysis
That being said, it provides further quite strong evidence that in the short-term (7ish months) symptomatic reinfection is rare. Asymptomatic reinfection may be more common, it is still hard to say
Something I think about a lot is that studies don't get retracted because they're bad, they get retracted because they are famous
Don't get me wrong, they are ALSO bad. It takes a truly awful study to get a scientific journal to wrest itself free of apathy and inertia to take some action
But there are 1,000s of woeful papers
Thing is, no one is paid to catch bad research. It is a thankless, time-consuming task that at best earns you the mistrust of most of your peers
The basic explanation here is that the original article looked at whether Google "residential" mobility data was correlated with COVID-19 death rates, and found no association
There are significant drawbacks with that methodology, some of which I outlined in a thread
Your daily reminder that "I'm pro-vaccine except for THIS one" is literally the most common anti-vax line there is
The second most common line is "I'm pro-vaccine but I'm also pro informed choice" usually followed by a slew of lies and misinformation portraying vaccines as dangerous
So many replies missing the point. There's a big difference between common talking points and actions - most anti-vaccine advocates SAY they are only against one vaccine but then come up with similar arguments against ALL of them
Interesting update on this paper published that purported to show that staying at home doesn't reduce COVID-19 deaths: less than a week after publication it already has a warning from the editors
Also, the authors appear to have responded to my twitter thread that was automatically uploaded to Pubpeer, which is pretty fantastic. Not sure this helps their case tho
"This is the best data available" is not really a defense about using inadequate data. If you don't have the data to answer a question, then it's not a surprise that your study fails to find an effect I think