currently have the disease, or have already had it.

[GoodTaste]

I understand "currently have the disease, or have already had it" as "currently have the disease, or have already had it (but now are cured)." Am I on the right track?

=================
But fascination might have turned into unhealthy political and media fixation, say disease experts. R is an imprecise estimate that rests on assumptions, says Jeremy Rossman, a virologist at the University of Kent, UK. It doesn’t capture the current status of an epidemic and can spike up and down when case numbers are low. It is also an average for a population and therefore can hide local variation. Too much attention to it could obscure the importance of other measures, such as trends in numbers of new infections, deaths and hospital admissions, and cohort surveys to see how many people in a population currently have the disease, or have already had it.


Source: Nature 03 JULY 2020
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02009-w

 

[GoesStation]

I'd say have now recovered rather than "are now cured", but yes, you've got the right idea.

 

[GoodTaste]

It seems to me that "have now recovered" is unambiguous and "have already had it" is somewhat misleading.

Is it more or less misleading? I wonder.

 

[GoesStation]

It seems to me that "have now recovered" is unambiguous and "have already had it" is somewhat misleading.

Is it more or less misleading? I wonder.

"People who have already had it" is clear and unambiguous. What else could it mean?

 

[GoodTaste]

"People who have already had it" is clear and unambiguous. What else could it mean?

The section A (A = currently have the disease) and the section B (B = have already had it) overlap. Because if you've recovered from the disease, the virus that causes the disease has been cleared from your body. So you have no more had it. Thus the expression seems to be misleading in some way.

 

[GoesStation]

The section A (A = currently have the disease) and the section B (B = have already had it) overlap. Because if you've recovered from the disease, the virus that causes the disease has been cleared from your body. So you have no more had it. Thus the expression seems to be misleading in some way.

"You have had it" remains true after you've recovered, just as "I've been to Paris" is true even though I'm currently in Ohio.

 

[Tdol]

Thus the expression seems to be misleading in some way.

I honestly don't see how. It's clear to me- you are seeing a doubt that it seems we don't. It's not like I have lived here for five years (and still do).

 

[PeterCW]

In colloquial BrE the phrase "have already had it" is well understood and there is no ambiguity.

 

[GoesStation]

It's not like I have lived here for five years (and still do).

The adverbial changes what the present perfect tells us.

I have lived here: I once lived here. I live somewhere else now.

I have lived here for five years: I moved here five years ago and have lived here ever since.

The same thing applies to having a disease.

I have had COVID-19 or I have already had COVID-19: I don't have it anymore.

I've had COVID-19 for three months: I caught the disease three months ago and still have it.