News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by ocdtrekkie on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @08:55PM (#27523645)
And the additional note would be that later, when I had extensive direct contact with someone COVID positive, I had minor symptoms lasting two or three days. Which at least somewhat suggests I had an immune response of someone who had it.
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by lamontcg on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @09:09PM (#27523742)
No it doesn't. Most COVID infections are mild. And someone who recovers from actual COVID should have had mucosal neutralizing antibodies in your upper respiratory tract and neutralizing antibodies in your blood, so you shouldn't have had any symptoms at all.

If you had extensive direct contact with someone COVID positive and didn't take precautions then you just got kind of lucky. You weren't immune.

Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by ocdtrekkie on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @09:17PM (#27523812)
...And a year into being told it wasn't possible I had it then, there's test results saying it was found that early in my state.

Which is why talking in absolutes makes you sound less credible, not more.

Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by lamontcg on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @09:28PM (#27523880)
Those aren't your test results. That was someone else.
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by simonh on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @03:07AM (#27525714)
They’ve found extremely low numbers of possible cases in your state. The numbers found are very close to the expected false positive rate.

Meanwhile there was also an unusually bad flu going around at the same time affecting a high single digit percentage of the population. So ok it’s not impossible you caught COVID. There is a small but real chance, but it’s probably tens or even hundreds of thousands to one against.