[0x1221]

So let's assume that building immunity is even a possibility even though there is no evidence to support this while there exists substantial evidence to the contrary (people getting reinfected)?

Not happy to be living in the UK if that's really the plan.

[_bxg1]

> while there exists substantial evidence to the contrary (people getting reinfected)?

No. There are instances of people testing negative and then testing positive again, but the strong consensus is that this probably results from faulty testing and/or changes in how viral material manifests at different stages in a person's infection. The chance is very small that people are truly getting re-infected.

[TMWNN]

>No. There are instances of people testing negative and then testing positive again, but the strong consensus is that this probably results from faulty testing and/or changes in how viral material manifests at different stages in a person's infection. The chance is very small that people are truly getting re-infected.

This is also why testing everyone and anyone is a bad idea. Half or more of positive tests of people without symptoms being tested because they are in close contact with infected seem to be false positives. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32133832 I've seen something else I can't find at the moment that says that only about 10% of those with both potential COVID19 symptoms and a contact history indicative of possible contact are positive. It's both pointless and dangerous to have someone get a false positive reading, perhaps do self-quarantine for 14 days, then go out and promptly get (not re)infected.

The US government (and I think UK too) is getting a lot of criticism for restricting testing to those who meet the requirements of symptoms and contact history, but it's almost certainly because the CDC is aware of this. The Canadian government, too; Prime Minister Trudeau is not being tested, although his wife is positive, because he is asymptomatic. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/03/12/sophie-...