What’s the likelihood of getting reinfected by COVID-19? Who’s most vulnerable?

Credit: Vlada_maestro/iStock
Credit: Vlada_maestro/iStock

Coronavirus reinfections are relatively rare, but it’s more common for people 65 and older to get infected more than once, according to a study published [March 17] in the Lancet medical journal.

A team of scientists, including some from Denmark’s Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Prevention, noted that most people who have had Covid-19 seemed to have protection from reinfection that remained stable for more than six months. In the follow up after six months, the study didn’t find any evidence that protection was waning. But a check of the demographics of who was getting infected again showed it was mostly people 65 and older.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

In a commentary that ran with the study, immunologists Dr. Rosemary Boyton and Daniel Altmann of Imperial College London called the difference in reinfection rate “relatively alarming.”

“Only 80% protection from reinfection in general, decreasing to 47% in people aged 65 years and older, are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies,” they wrote.”These data are all confirmation, if it were needed, that for SARS-CoV-2 the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach and a global vaccination program with high-efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution.”

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Credit: ACSH
Viewpoint: Who and what’s to blame for the surge in vaccine-preventable diseases?
ChatGPT-Image-May-28-2026-12_56_54-PM
Viewpoint: Vaccines' non-specific effects? The ‘shoddy’ Danish couple whose 'research’ inspires RFK, Jr.’s health delusion
Organic-Produce
Viewpoint: Why you should ignore organic food advocates’ advice to avoid ‘pesticide soaked’ conventional fruits and vegetables
ChatGPT Image Jun 3, 2026, 03_14_43 PM
Viewpoint: How Earthjustice became the poster child for the abuse of special interest activist funding
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-2.12.30-PM
Some plants can poison you. So how did humans figure out what is safe to eat?
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-11.05.51-AM
Can vaping lead to cancer? New ‘association study’ raises questions of “links"
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-3.30.20-PM
Republican lawmakers spread misinformation claiming solar farms permanently destroy potato farms
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-10.19.30-AM
‘Natural’ wellness supplements linked to liver injury
edb7f6d7-2370-418f-9578-74e29678e35c
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Nicotine vaping—public health miracle, or risk to children? Professor Cliff Douglas
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-5-2026-01_17_48-PM
GLP-1 weight-loss drugs may reshape our desires and emotions
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-5-2026-02_48_23-PM
Viewpoint: How Dr.TikTok (falsely) convinced me that cortisol was running my health
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.