OLDER adults who have recovered from Covid are much more likely to catch it again within months than younger age groups, according to the first large-scale study to assess reinfection risk.
Danish researchers, whose findings are published in the Lancet today, found that protective immunity in those aged 65 and older was just 47 per cent, compared to more than 80% for those younger than 65.
Experts described the findings as "relatively alarming" given that previous research had painted a picture of reinfections as an "extremely rare event".
The authors said it emphasised the importance of measures to protect the elderly, including physical distancing and vaccinations, even if they have previously fought off the virus.
Dr Steen Ethelberg, head of zoonotic infection at the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen, said: “Our study confirms what a number of others appeared to suggest: reinfection with Covid-19 is rare in younger, healthy people, but the elderly are at greater risk of catching it again.
"Since older people are also more likely to experience severe disease symptoms, and sadly die, our findings make clear how important it is to implement policies to protect the elderly during the pandemic.
"Given what is at stake, the results emphasise how important it is that people adhere to measures implemented to keep themselves and others safe, even if they have already had Covid-19.
"Our insights could also inform policies focused on wider vaccination strategies and the easing of lockdown restrictions.”
READ MORE: 'Up to one in four' Scots now have protective Covid antibodies
It comes as much of continental Europe is facing a third wave of coronavirus and the slow rollout of the immunisation programme has been plunged deeper into crisis with the suspension of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in several countries - including Denmark - over a blood clots scare.
Regulators insist the vaccine is safe and there is no causal link.
To date, there have been more than 120 million known cases of Covid worldwide and nearly 2.7 million deaths.
However, the degree to which catching Covid confers protection against repeat infection has been poorly understood.
In other coronaviruses, such as those which cause the common cold, immunity wanes within around 11 months, but lasts two to three years in the case of the much deadlier coronaviruses, SARS or MERS.
In the first large-scale study of its kind, the Danish researchers analysed patient data from the first and second waves of Covid in Denmark during 2020.
READ MORE: Blood clot scare was last thing Europe's struggling vaccine rollout needs
The country has one of the most comprehensive testing regimes in the world, with four million people - 69% of the population - taking a PCR test in 2020.
The TestCenter Denmark system is free, available nationwide, and open to people with or without symptoms.
Among the 11,068 people who had tested positive for Covid during the first wave, between March and May, 72 tested positive again during the second wave from September to December 2020 (a 0.65% reinfection rate).
Among younger Danes - the under-65s - there were 9,137 positive cases during the first wave and 55 cases of reinfection in the second wave (0.6%).
For those aged 65 and older, there were 1,931 positive cases during the first wave and 17 cases of reinfection during the second wave (0.88%).
Ratios of positive and negative test results were calculated taking account of differences in age, sex, and time since infection, and then adjusted for factors such as cumulative exposure risk and number of PCR tests.
From this, the researchers were able to extapolate that the protective immunity rate for the 65-plus age group was 47% compared to 80.5% for the under 65s.
READ MORE: 'No evidence whatsoever' that vaccines causing blood clots
The authors noted that the "natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults" could explain why they were more vulnerable to reinfection, as well as more susceptible to serious illness as a result of the virus.
Co-author Dr Daniela Michlmayr, a virologist at Staten Serum Institut, said their analysis "did not identify anything" to suggest that the level of immunity acquired from infection - even if it is only 47% - declines in the six months following recovery from Covid.
The time period of the study meant it was not possible to evaluate the risk of reinfection from some of the newer - more transmissible - Covid variants, such as the Kent, South African, and Brazil variants, which began spreading towards the end of 2020 and did not reach Denmark until 2021.
The Brazil variant in particular was associated with a severe outbreak in the city of Manaus, where it originated, despite previously high infection rates in the local population.
READ MORE: Why Brazil's Covid variant turned herd immunity on its head
The authors noted that detailed clinical information is only available if patients are admitted to hospital, so it is not possible to say whether repeat infections are milder than the first - although this would be expected.
Professors Rosemary Boyton and Daniel Altmann, of Imperial College London, describe the findings as "relatively alarming".
In a comment article linked to the study, they write: “Set against the more formal reinfection case reports that are based on differential virus sequence data and make reinfection appear an extremely rare event, many will find the data reported [here] about protection through natural infection 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 add: “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 programme with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel