Once again, you're unable to rule out them contracting another cold/flu virus that brought on symptoms similarly. Because, in your echo chamber, they only "had time" to contract one virus.
Whatever your fantasy desires. Keep in mind that they both tested positive for COVID-19 and had symptoms the first time.
Just means they had COVID 19. Doesn't mean anything else for sure. I'm willing to consider all possibilities. You're only willing to consider the one that says what you want it to say. That's the difference.
Policy should not be dictated on anecdotal outliers. Let me know when it's 1.4% of the entire infected population, then we have cause for some limited concern. Limited because the symptoms of reinfection in the case of these few sailors are so minimal.
Which further suggests that this is something else and not a general re-infection by the exact same virus strain (as would be unheard of under normal circumstances). Occam's Razor, and all that.
Science, medicine, and public health policy is driven by the characteristics of a disease. The public policy response would be different for a disease where 100% of the people do not acquire immunity and can easily get re-infected --- than it would be for a disease where no one gets re-infected after having it. When above 0.3% or so of a population can get re-infected a second time it has science, medicine, and public health policy ramifications. The studies and papers that defined "herd immunity" based on the Baltimore measles epidemic discussed this in some detail.
You do realize that for most diseases on the face of the earth; a small percentage of individuals can get re-infected a second time. As time goes on this probability of re-infection increases as immunity wears out. This is also why most people need vaccine boosters decades after they were vaccinated originally.
According to whom? .3% of anything should not dictate policy and the fact that it might, or does, simply demonstrates the politics of it all. Doomers are chasing total immunity while calling it herd immunity. Goal posts continue to change. Political pure and simple. Ten days and the hysteria must end or be proved correct. Body count dictates everything at this point. No bodies piling up equals threat has burned itself out.
As time goes on. Not so soon after original infection. And if this was indeed what happened, and a small percentage of individuals get reinfected so ridiculously soon, Captain Obvious is correct - this data is meaningless for policy creation and shouldn't even be shared as it is completely worthless outside of fear mongering, your favorite national past time.
We actually have the Iceland study showing only 50% of those infected have symptoms, no need to make shit up