Lots of interesting data in the latest ONS release.
First, reinfection rates continue to be low (though a little higher in the Delta period): they find 296 out of 20,262 (1.4%) people tested positive again, a rate of 12 per 100k person days (about 4 per year). However ...
First, reinfection rates continue to be low (though a little higher in the Delta period): they find 296 out of 20,262 (1.4%) people tested positive again, a rate of 12 per 100k person days (about 4 per year). However ...
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1445668294900523008
... only 137 people (0.7%) had a Ct < 30 (i.e. high viral load) when they tested positive a second time.
Further only 88 people (0.4%) reported any symptoms (see Table 1d) ...
Further only 88 people (0.4%) reported any symptoms (see Table 1d) ...
... Second, the chance of reinfection increases somewhat over time, but remains very low even after a year.
e.g. Table 2c gives estimated reinfection rates per 100k person-days = 10.8 one year after the 1st infection ...
e.g. Table 2c gives estimated reinfection rates per 100k person-days = 10.8 one year after the 1st infection ...
... and just as striking is that vaccination is not estimated to have any statistically significant effect on re-infection.
Note mid-point estimate < 1, so vaccination may have a modest additional effect, but 95% c.i. suggests we can't rule out that there is no effect at all ...
Note mid-point estimate < 1, so vaccination may have a modest additional effect, but 95% c.i. suggests we can't rule out that there is no effect at all ...
... Given growing evidence of significant vaccine effectiveness, it is looking increasingly likely that an unvaccinated person with a previous infection (even a year ago) is much less likely to get infected than someone vaccinated, say, 6 months earlier ...
...
Worth noting this is not an estimate of vaccine effectiveness as such, but an estimate of actual reinfection probability.
This may be influenced behavioural effects & other factors but it is these real world infection rates that are relevant for vaccine passports etc ...
Worth noting this is not an estimate of vaccine effectiveness as such, but an estimate of actual reinfection probability.
This may be influenced behavioural effects & other factors but it is these real world infection rates that are relevant for vaccine passports etc ...
...
Taken together, how can any Govt minster look at these data & think banning previously infected people from football & nightclubs or sacking them from their caring or nursing job will have a public health benefit?
Taken together, how can any Govt minster look at these data & think banning previously infected people from football & nightclubs or sacking them from their caring or nursing job will have a public health benefit?
(just for the clarity, discriminating against or sacking *any* unvaccinated person is unethical & also unlikely to have any significant public health benefit. It is just the case for targeting those who have been previously infected is completely non-existent)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
