Assessment of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in an intense re-exposure setting ================================================================================== * Laith J. Abu Raddad * Hiam Chemaitelly * Houssein H. Ayoub * Zaina Al Kanaani * Abdullatif Al Khal * Einas Al Kuwari * Adeel A. Butt * Peter Coyle * Andrew Jeremijenko * Anvar Hassan Kaleeckal * Ali Nizar Latif * Hanan F. Abdul Rahim * Mohamed G. Al Kuwari * Hamad Eid Al Romaihi * Sheikh Mohammad Al Thani * Roberto Bertollini ## ABSTRACT **Background** Reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a subject of debate. We aimed to assess the risk and incidence rate of documented SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a large cohort of laboratory-confirmed cases in Qatar. **Methods** All SARS-CoV-2 laboratory-confirmed cases with at least one PCR positive swab that is ≥45 days after a first positive swab were individually investigated for evidence of reinfection, and classified as showing *strong, good, some*, or *weak/no* evidence for reinfection. Risk and incidence rate of reinfection were estimated. **Results** Out of 133,266 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, 243 persons (0.18%) had at least one subsequent positive swab ≥45 days after the first positive swab. Of these, 54 cases (22.2%) had strong or good evidence for reinfection. Median time between first and reinfection swab was 64.5 days (range: 45-129). Twenty-three of the 54 cases (42.6%) were diagnosed at a health facility suggesting presence of symptoms, while 31 (57.4%) were identified incidentally through random testing campaigns/surveys or contact tracing. Only one person was hospitalized at or following time of reinfection swab, but still had relatively mild infection. No deaths were recorded. Risk of reinfection was estimated at 0.04% (95% CI: 0.03-0.05%) and incidence rate of reinfection was estimated at 1.09 (95% CI: 0.84-1.42) per 10,000 person-weeks. **Conclusions** SARS-CoV-2 reinfection appears to be a rare phenomenon suggestive of a strong protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection. Keywords * SARS-CoV-2 * epidemiology * COVID-19 * incidence * infection * reinfection * immunity ## INTRODUCTION The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been spreading around the globe causing severe disruptions to social and economic activities [1-3]. Qatar, a peninsula in the Arabian Gulf region with a diverse population of 2.8 million [4, 5], has experienced a large epidemic with one of the highest laboratory-confirmed rates of infection at >45,000 infections per million population [6, 7]. Antibody testing and mathematical modeling indicated that about half of the population of Qatar has already been infected [6]. The intensity of the epidemic in this country with a high risk of re-exposure to the infection, as well as the availability of a centralized data-capture system of all laboratory-confirmed infections, provided an opportunity to epidemiologically assess the presence and incidence of reinfections, a debated feature of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology whose elucidation is critical to inform global response, timing and intensity of future cycles, and impact and durability of potential vaccines [8-11]. Our primary aim was to assess the risk and incidence rate of documented reinfection in a cohort of 133,266 SARS-CoV-2 laboratory-confirmed infected persons. Since the relevant underlying question is whether risk of reinfection is appreciable or not, we implemented a conservative approach for assessing documented reinfections, that is prone to overestimate rather than underestimate risk of reinfection. However, we also conducted sensitivity analyses implementing more stringent criteria for assessing reinfection. ## METHODS ### Sources of data We analyzed the centralized and standardized national SARS-CoV-2 testing and hospitalization database compiled at Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC), the main public healthcare provider in Qatar and the nationally-designated provider for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) healthcare needs. The database covers all SARS-CoV-2 cases in Qatar and encompasses data on all polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing conducted from February 28-August 12, 2020, including testing of suspected SARS-CoV-2 cases and traced contacts as well as infection surveillance testing. The database further includes data on hospital admission of COVID-19 patients and the World Health Organization (WHO) severity classification for each infection, which is assessed through individual chart reviews by trained medical personnel [12]. More recently, data on serological testing for antibody on residual blood specimens collected for routine clinical care from outpatient and inpatient attendees at HMC were also incorporated [6]. ### Laboratory methods All PCR testing was conducted at HMC Central Laboratory or at Sidra Medicine Laboratory, following standardized protocols. Nasopharyngeal and/or oropharyngeal swabs (Huachenyang Technology, China) were collected and placed in Universal Transport Medium (UTM). Aliquots of UTM were: extracted on the QIAsymphony platform (QIAGEN, USA) and tested with realtime reverse-transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) using the TaqPath™ COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) on a ABI 7500 FAST (ThermoFisher, USA); extracted using a custom protocol [13] on a Hamilton Microlab STAR (Hamilton, USA) and tested using the AccuPower SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR Kit (Bioneer, Korea) on a ABI 7500 FAST; or loaded directly to a Roche cobas® 6800 system and assayed with the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche, Switzerland). The first assay targets the S, N, and ORF1ab regions of the virus; the second targets the virus’ RdRp and E-gene regions; and the third targets the ORF1ab and E-gene regions. Serological testing was performed using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche, Switzerland), an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay that uses a recombinant protein representing the nucleocapsid (N) antigen for the determination of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Qualitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 results were generated following the manufacturer’s instructions (reactive: cutoff index ≥1.0 vs. non-reactive: cutoff index <1.0). ### Inclusion criteria All SARS-CoV-2 laboratory-confirmed cases with at least one PCR positive swab that is ≥45 days after a first positive swab were considered as *suspected cases* of reinfection. The 45-day cutoff was informed by data from observational cohorts of SARS-CoV-2 infected persons [14, 15], and was set to account for the duration of prolonged PCR positivity of several weeks in these patients. The cutoff determination was further informed by the distribution of the time difference between the first positive swab and subsequent positive swabs among SARS-CoV-2 cases with multiple swabs (Figure 1). The tail of this distribution indicates that a cutoff of 45 days (at the 99th percentile) provides an appropriate mark for defining the end of prolonged PCR positivity: a subsequent positive swab within 45 days of the first positive swab is likely to reflect prolonged PCR positivity (due to non-viable virus fragments) rather than reinfection, and thus should not be included in analysis. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/26/2020.08.24.20179457/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/26/2020.08.24.20179457/F1) Figure 1. Distribution of the time difference between the first swab and subsequent swabs among all laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases with more than one positive swab. The cutoff of 45 days was at the 99th percentile, and thus provides an appropriate mark for defining the end of the prolonged polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity. ### Suspected reinfection case classification Suspected cases of reinfection, that is cases fitting above indicated inclusion criteria, were classified as showing either *strong* evidence, *good* evidence, *some* evidence, or *weak* (or *no)* evidence for reinfection (Box 1). The classification was based on holistic quantitative and qualitative criteria applied to each investigated case of reinfection. The criteria included the pattern and magnitude of the change in PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value across repeated swabs, the time interval between subsequent swabs, PCR testing site (such as outpatients at primary care, hospital emergency, or inpatient hospitalization), purpose of PCR testing (such as appearance of symptoms, contact tracing, or survey/testing campaign), age, history of COVID-19-related hospital admission, and case severity per WHO classification [12]. Overall, swabs with Ct <30 (suggestive of active recent infection) at least 45 days after the first positive swab were considered as showing *strong evidence for reinfection*. Swabs with Ct ≥30 at least 45 days after the first positive swab were considered as showing *good evidence for reinfection* if PCR positivity was associated with *contextual evidence* supporting the status of “reinfection” including appearance of symptoms (often as proxied by being diagnosed at a health facility), if the infection was diagnosed through contact tracing (indicating recent exposure to an infected person), if the change in Ct value from the last swab was to a lower Ct value (indicating increasing viral load), and/or if the repeated swabbing did not follow a regular pattern and time interval between repeated swabs was not short (to exclude cases under clinical management that are indicative of poor control of first infection). Shorter durations bordering the cutoff of 45 days with Ct values ≥30 and with no contextual evidence supporting the status of “reinfection” were indicative of *some evidence for reinfection*, but not strong nor good evidence for reinfection, as they are more likely to reflect the long tail of the prolonged PCR positivity distribution (Figure 1) [14, 15]. Age ≥70 years, repeated swabs on hospitalized patients, and severe or critical WHO disease classifications were considered as contextual factors indicative of poor infection control of the first infection rather than reinfection. Cases that had such contextual factors (and implicitly did not fit the criteria of strong, good, or some evidence for reinfection) were considered to have *weak (or no) evidence for reinfection*. Of note that hospitalized COVID-19 cases often had multiple subsequent swabs administered to them as part of clinical care, and repeated swabbing was standard earlier in the epidemic, as the criteria for discharge from an isolation facility required at least two subsequent PCR negative swabs. This was changed later on to a time-based criteria per updated WHO recommendation [16]. ### Reinfection risk and rate Documented reinfection *risk* was assessed by quantifying the proportion of cases with *strong or good evidence for reinfection* out of all laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases. *Incidence rate* of documented reinfection was calculated by dividing the number of cases with strong or good evidence for reinfection by the number of person-weeks contributed by all laboratory-confirmed cases who had their first positive swab ≥45 days before day of analysis. The follow-up person-time was calculated starting from 45 days after the first positive swab and up to the reinfection swab, all-cause death, or end-of-study censoring. ### Sensitivity analyses Since we implemented a conservative approach prone to overestimate risk of documented reinfection, several sensitivity analyses were conducted implementing more *stringent criteria* for assessing reinfection: 1) exclusion of cases where the Ct value for the first and/or subsequent positive swab was unknown or with a value ≥35 (to exclude potential PCR false-positive cases), 2) changing the ≥45-day cutoff to a ≥60-day cutoff to further exclude potential cases of longterm prolonged PCR positivity, and *(most stringent)* 3) setting definition of active recent infection at Ct cutoff value of <25 (instead of <30) and excluding any suspected reinfection case with Ct value >25. ### Ethical approval Studies were approved by HMC and Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar Institutional Review Boards. ## RESULTS ### Main analysis Figure 2 illustrates the selection process of SARS-CoV-2 eligible cases and summarizes the results of their reinfection status’ evaluation. Out of 133,266 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, 117,458 had only one single positive swab and thus were excluded from further analysis. Of the remaining 15,808 cases with multiple swabs, only 243 persons had *at least* one subsequent positive swab that is ≥45 days from the first positive swab, and thus qualified for inclusion in analysis. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/26/2020.08.24.20179457/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/26/2020.08.24.20179457/F2) Figure 2. Flow chart describing the selection process of SARS-CoV-2 eligible cases and summarizing the results of their reinfection status’ evaluation. Individual investigation of each of the 299 positive swabs collected ≥45 days after the first positive swab for these 243 cases yielded 54 cases with *strong* or *good* evidence for reinfection. Of these, 35 had *strong* evidence for reinfection, as the Ct value was <30 for the reinfection swab. The remaining 19 were considered to have *good* evidence for reinfection, as the reinfection swab Ct value was ≥30. An additional 26 cases showed *some* evidence for reinfection, while evidence was *weak* for the remaining 163 cases. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 54 cases classified as showing strong or good evidence for reinfection. Almost all cases were males, but this reflects the focus of the epidemic in craft and manual workers [6]. The median age was 33 years (range: 16-57) and the median time between the *first* swab and the *reinfection* swab was 64.5 days (range: 45-129). The median Ct value was 28 (range: 14-37): it was 22 (range 14-29) for the 35 swabs classified with strong evidence (Ct <30) and 32 (range: 30-37) for the remaining swabs (Ct ≥30). View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/26/2020.08.24.20179457/T1) Table 1. Characteristics of individuals classified as showing strong or good evidence for reinfection. Twenty-three cases (42.6%) were diagnosed at a health facility, suggesting presence of symptoms while 31 (57.4%) were identified incidentally either through random testing campaigns/surveys (n=15; 27.8%) or contact tracing (n=16; 29.6%), suggesting minimal symptoms if any. Nine cases were hospitalized at any time, all but *one* occurred following the first infection episode and mostly for isolation purposes. Only one case had sufficient symptoms to warrant clinical assessment (during primary infection), but was classified with “mild” severity per WHO classification. No deaths were recorded. Of note that the vast majority of infections in Qatar occurred in young and healthy men and had limited severity [6]. Antibody test results were available for 48 out of the 243 assessed individuals (Table 2), of whom 30 (62.5%) had detectable antibodies. Of the 13 with strong evidence for reinfection *and* available antibody results, seven (53.9%) were sero-negative. Meanwhile, both individuals with good evidence for reinfection, three of the four individuals with some evidence for reinfection, and 19 of the 29 individuals with weak evidence for reinfection, were seropositive. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/26/2020.08.24.20179457/T2) Table 2. Distribution of cases according to reinfection and antibody statuses (for individuals with complete information for these statuses). Risk of documented reinfection was estimated at 0.04% (95% CI: 0.03-0.05%)—that is a total of 54 reinfections in the cohort of 133,266 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infected persons. Incidence rate of reinfection was estimated at 1.09 (95% CI: 0.84-1.42) per 10,000 person-weeks—that is a total of 54 reinfection events in a follow-up person-time of 495,208.7 person-weeks. ### Sensitivity analysis The sensitivity analysis excluding all cases where Ct value for the first and/or subsequent positive swab was unknown or with a value ≥35 (to exclude potential PCR false-positive cases) reduced the number of cases with strong evidence to 21 and with good evidence to 5. Risk and incidence rate of reinfection were estimated at 0.02% (95% CI: 0.01-0.03%) and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.36-0.77) per 10,000 person-weeks, respectively. The sensitivity analysis changing the ≥45-day cutoff to a ≥60-day cutoff to further exclude potential cases of long-term prolonged PCR positivity reduced number of cases with strong evidence to 25 and with good evidence to 7. Risk and incidence rate of reinfection were estimated at 0.02% (95% CI: 0.02-0.03%) and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.75-1.50) per 10,000 person-weeks, respectively. The most stringent sensitivity analysis excluding any suspected reinfection with Ct value >25 reduced number of cases to 19 (all with strong evidence). Risk and incidence rate of reinfection were estimated at 0.01% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02%) and 0.38 (95% CI: 0.24-0.60) per 10,000 person-weeks, respectively. ## DISCUSSION Results indicate supportive (albeit not conclusive) evidence for presence of reinfections in the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic of Qatar, but the risk for documented reinfection was rare at only 4 reinfections per 10,000 infected persons. This finding is striking as the epidemic in Qatar has been intense with half of the population estimated to have been infected [6]. Considering the strength of the force of infection, estimated at a *daily* probability of infection exceeding 1% at the epidemic peak around May 20 [6], it is all but certain that a significant proportion of the population has been repeatedly exposed to the infection, but such re-exposures hardly led to any documentable reinfections. Indeed, of all identified reinfections, nearly two-thirds (57%) were discovered accidentally, either through random testing campaigns/surveys or through contact tracing. None were severe, critical, or fatal, all reinfections were asymptomatic or with minimal or mild symptoms. These findings suggest that most infected persons do develop immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least few months, and that reinfections (if they occur) are well tolerated and no more symptomatic than primary infections. Further follow up of this cohort of infected persons over time may allow elucidation of any potential effects of waning of immunity. Other lines of evidence for this cohort also support this conclusion. Among 2,559 PCR positive persons where an antibody test outcome was available [6], and where the first positive PCR test was conducted >3 weeks before the serology test to accommodate for the delay in development of antibodies following onset of infection [14, 15], 91.7% were antibody positive [6]. The high antibody positivity was also stable for over three months [6], as described elsewhere [9]. The epidemic curve in Qatar was further characterized by rapid growth followed by rapid decline [6], at a time when levels of social and physical distancing restrictions were fairly stable. This points to susceptibles-infected-recovered “SIR” epidemic dynamics with most infections eliciting immunity against reinfection. This assessment has limitations. We assessed risk of only *documented* reinfections, but other reinfections could have occurred but went undocumented, perhaps because of minimal or no symptoms. It is possible that with the primed immune system following the primary infection, reinfections are milder and shorter and thus less likely to be documented [10]. While risk of reinfection appears limited, reinfected persons could possibly transmit the virus as the Ct value was quite low, indicating high viral load, in some of the reinfections. Antibody testing outcomes were available for only a number of cases, limiting use and inferences of the link between antibody status and risk of reinfection. We found evidence for reinfections using epidemiological criteria, but this evidence cannot be conclusive unless it is confirmed with sequencing analysis of the paired viral samples. It is possible that some of the identified reinfections may not have been true reinfections. The possibility of a false positive swab cannot be excluded. It is also possible that some of the cases may just be poorly-controlled primary infections, long-term virus carriers, or persons shedding non-viable viral fragments for a prolonged time. The sensitivity analyses accounting for such limitations suggested that we may have overestimated the already low risk of reinfection. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 reinfection appears to be a rare phenomenon. This suggests that immunity develops after the primary infection and lasts for at least a few months, and that immunity protects against reinfection. #### Box 1. Classification of suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection based on strength of supporting evidence Suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection: all laboratory-confirmed cases with at least one polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive swab that is ≥45 days after a first positive swab. *Strong* evidence for reinfection: individuals having positive swabs with PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value <30 at least 45 days after the first positive swab. No contextual evidence supporting poor control of first infection such as age ≥70 years, repeated swabs on hospitalized patients, and severe or critical World Health Organization disease classifications. *Good* evidence for reinfection: individuals having positive swabs with PCR Ct value ≥30 at least 45 days after the first positive swab, but where PCR positivity was associated with contextual evidence supporting the status of reinfection: * Appearance of symptoms (often as proxied by being diagnosed at a health facility) * Infection diagnosis through contact tracing (indicating recent exposure to an infected person) * Lower Ct value compared to last positive swab (indicating increasing viral load) * Irregular and spaced-out pattern for repeated swabbing (to exclude cases under clinical management that are indicative of poor control of first infection). No contextual evidence supporting poor control of first infection such as age ≥70 years, repeated swabs on hospitalized patients, and severe or critical World Health Organization disease classifications. *Some* evidence for reinfection: individuals having positive swabs with PCR Ct value ≥30 at least 45 days after the first positive swab, but typically bordering the cutoff of 45 days. PCR positivity was **not** associated with evidence supporting the status of reinfection (listed above). *Weak* evidence for reinfection: individuals having swabs with PCR Ct value ≥30 at least 45 days after the first positive swab, but typically bordering the cutoff of 45 days. PCR positivity was associated with contextual evidence indicative of poor infection control of the first infection rather than reinfection (such as age ≥70 years, repeated swabs on hospitalized patients, and severe or critical World Health Organization disease classifications). ## Data Availability Data are available within the manuscript. ## Author contributions LJA conceived and co-designed the study and led the statistical analyses. HC co-designed the study, performed the data analyses, and wrote the first draft of the article. HHA contributed to analysis of data. All authors contributed to data collection and acquisition, database development, discussion and interpretation of the results, and to the writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. ## Competing interests We declare no competing interests. ## Funding The authors are grateful for support provided by the Ministry of Public Health, Hamad Medical Corporation, and the Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Biomathematics Research Core, both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar. The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors. ## Acknowledgement We would like to thank Her Excellency Dr. Hanan Al Kuwari, the Minister of Public Health, for her vision, guidance, leadership, and support. We also would like to thank Dr. Saad Al Kaabi, Chair of the System Wide Incident Command and Control (SWICC) Committee for the COVID-19 national healthcare response, for his leadership, analytical insights, and for his instrumental role in enacting the data information systems that made these studies possible. We further extend our appreciation to the SWICC Committee and the Scientific Reference and Research Taskforce (SRRT) members for their informative input, scientific technical advice, and enriching discussions. We also would like to acknowledge the dedicated efforts of the Clinical Coding Team and the COVID-19 Mortality Review Team, both at Hamad Medical Corporation, and the Surveillance Team at the Ministry of Public Health. * Received August 24, 2020. * Revision received August 24, 2020. * Accepted August 26, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.World Health Organization (WHO), WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 −11 March 2020. *Available from: [https://www.who.int/da/soeeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19\---|11-march-2020](https://www.who.int/da/soeeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19\---|11-march-2020). Accessed on* March 14, 2020. 2020. 2. 2.De Walque D., et al., How two tests can help contain COVID-19 and revive the economy. *Available from: [http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/766471586360658318/pdf/How-Two-Tests-Can-Help-Contain-COVID-19-and-Revive-the-Economy.pdf](http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/766471586360658318/pdf/How-Two-Tests-Can-Help-Contain-COVID-19-and-Revive-the-Economy.pdf). Accessed on* April 16, 2020. Research & Policy Briefs, World Bank Malaysia Hub., 2020. 3. 3.Kaplan J., Frias L., and McFall-Johnsen M., A third of the global population is on coronavirus lockdown. *Available from: [https://www.businessinsider.com.au/countries-on-lockdown-coronavirus-italv-2020-3](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/countries-on-lockdown-coronavirus-italv-2020-3) Accessd on:* April 25, 2020. Business Insider Australia, 2020. 4. 4.Planning and Statistics Authority-State of Qatar, Qatar Monthly Statistics. *Available from:* [https://www.psa.gov.aa/en/paaes/default.aspx](https://www.psa.gov.aa/en/paaes/default.aspx). Accessed on: may 26,2020. 2020. 5. 5.Planning and Statistics Authority-State of Qatar, The Simplified Census of Population, Housing & Establishments. *Available from: [https://www.psa.gov.qa/en/statistics/Statistical%20Releases/Population/Population/2018/Population\_social\_1\_2018\_AE.pdf](https://www.psa.gov.qa/en/statistics/Statistical%20Releases/Population/Population/2018/Population\_social_1_2018_AE.pdf) Accessed on:* April 2, 2020. 2019. 6. 6.Abu-Raddad, L.J., et al., Characterizing the Qatar advanced-phase SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. medRxiv, 2020: p. 2020.07.16.20155317v2. 7. 7.Al Kuwari, H.M., et al., Characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the State of Qatar, *February 28-April 18, 2020.* medRxiv, 2020: p. 2020.07.15.20154211. 8. 8.Seow, J., et al., Longitudinal evaluation and decline of antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 infection. medRxiv, 2020: p. 2020.07.09.20148429. 9. 9.Wajnberg, A., et al., SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust, neutralizing antibody responses that are stable for at least three months. medRxiv, 2020: p. 2020.07.14.20151126. 10. 10.Kellam, P. and W. Barclay, The dynamics of humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection and the potential for reinfection. J Gen Virol, 2020. 11. 11.Makhoul, M., et al., Epidemiological impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: mathematical modeling analyses. medRxiv, 2020: p. 2020.04.19.20070805. 12. 12.World Health Organization, Clinical management of COVID-19. *Available from: [https://www.who.int/publications-detail/clinical-manaaement-of-covid-19](https://www.who.int/publications-detail/clinical-manaaement-of-covid-19). Accessed on:* May 31st 2020. 2020. 13. 13.Kalikiri, M.K.R., et al., High-throughput extraction of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs using solid-phase reverse immobilization beads. medRxiv, 2020: p. 2020.04.08.20055731. 14. 14.Sethuraman, N., S.S. Jeremiah, and A. Ryo, Interpreting Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA, 2020. 15. 15.Wajnberg, A., et al., Humoral immune response and prolonged PCR positivity in a cohort of 1343 SARS-CoV2 patients in the New York City region. medRxiv, 2020: p. 2020.04.30.20085613. 16. 16.World Health Organization, Criteria for releasing COVID-19 patients from isolation. *Available from: [https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/criteria-for-releasina-covid-19-patients-from-isolation](https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/criteria-for-releasina-covid-19-patients-from-isolation). Accessed on* July 01, 2020. 2020.