Protection conferred by SARS-CoV-2 infection across a spectrum of reinfection symptoms and severities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against reinfection. This study analysed this protection across different reinfection symptoms and severities, comparing the preomicron and omicron eras. METHODS: A nationwide, matched, test-negative, case-control study was conducted in Qatar from 5 February 2020 to 12 March 2024. The preomicron analysis used a sample of 509 949 positive and 8 494 782 negative tests, while the omicron analysis included 682 257 positive and 6 904 044 negative tests. Data were sourced from Qatar's national databases for COVID-19 laboratory testing, vaccination, hospitalisation and death. RESULTS: Effectiveness of preomicron infection against preomicron reinfection was estimated at 80.9% (95% CI: 79.1% to 82.6%) for asymptomatic reinfection, 87.5% (95% CI: 86.1% to 88.9%) for symptomatic reinfection, 97.8% (95% CI: 95.7% to 98.9%) for severe COVID-19 reinfection, 100.0% (95% CI: 97.5% to 100.0%) for critical COVID-19 reinfection and 88.1% (95% CI: 50.3% to 97.2%) for fatal COVID-19 reinfection. For omicron infection against omicron reinfection, the estimates were 46.4% (95% CI: 36.9% to 54.4%) for asymptomatic reinfection, 52.8% (95% CI: 44.4% to 60.0%) for symptomatic reinfection, 100.0% (95% CI: 55.4% to 100.0%) for severe COVID-19 reinfection, 100.0% (95% CI: 15.1% to 100.0%) for critical COVID-19 reinfection, and 75.2% (95% CI: -58.8% to 97.5%) for fatal COVID-19 reinfection. Effectiveness over time since previous infection showed no discernible decline in protection against all forms of reinfection in the preomicron era, but a rapid decline against asymptomatic and symptomatic reinfections in the omicron era. CONCLUSIONS: A gradient of protection against reinfection is evident, with the highest protection observed against severe forms of COVID-19. Over time, this gradient becomes more pronounced, as protection against asymptomatic and symptomatic reinfections decreases, while protection against severe outcomes remains strong.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".