Just yesterday the news had an article about how a national level soccer player for Sweden who had been infected previously in the past managed to get infected again and infect parts of the team.
The player in question had been infected about a year ago initially (before the British strain was found) and with the British strain now being the main one in Sweden I don't think it's a far fetch to say that re-infections of a different strain is actually quite likely once a certain amount of time has passed.
Off topic, but at this stage I find this geographical naming of strains being much more confusing than useful.
Besides risking moral overtones ("the British strain? Typical - when they aren't being Hollywood baddies they're busy incubating viruses") it only tagged where a strain was first isolated, not necessarily its geographic origin (not that it actually matters whether the Kent variant actually came from that Home County)
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-08/covid-19-variants-del...
So a geographic label was widely used before Biden without apparently causing ructions. It was adopted because the released name for the variant, lineage B.1.1.7, was less convenient or distinctively memorable for the public. If it had been repeatedly referred to as the "Kentish virus" by senior politicians then a similarly hostile reaction might have been seen as was for "Chinese virus".
> Coronavirus variants get Greek names — but will scientists use them? From Alpha to Omega, the labelling system aims to avoid confusion and stigmatization.
Based on my own personal experience (see my other post in this thread), I agree.
Unless someone gets a PCR positive, has the virus sequenced, and then gets a separate positive later, has the virus sequenced again and can confirm they were actually infected again with live virus (perhaps using live viral culture) they can’t really be sure.