Why wasn't he testing intermittently to get the 2 negatives needed to go back to work?
He had two negative tests on May 9 and May 26, according to the scientific article.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30764-7/fulltextIts been reported that the virus can linger in some and he may not have had reinfection in June, but rather a resurgence?
Several people, myself included, had rebound symptoms a few weeks after the first bout. But I wouldn't consider that a reinfection.
Right, resurgence/lingering/rebound symptoms can occur, and that makes it difficult to conclude that seemingly new symptoms are in fact a reinfection. So to consider something a reinfection, they're focusing only on those cases where the genome was sequenced for both infections, and there are significant differences between them, which would imply exposure to a new virus, rather than resurgence of the first one.
There are now 33 cases that meet that definition, and another 2325 suspected cases.
https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-tracker/https://bnonews.com/index.php/reinfection-tracker-suspected-cases/Compared to the number of primary infections, these are obviously tiny numbers, so still impossible to know whether these few people are rarities, and reinfection will be rare, or if these few people are the tip of the iceberg, and reinfections will increase over the next year.
Assumed he had antibodies? Doesn't say he was tested for antibodies before he got sick again
Yes, you make an important point. The USA Today reporter wrote "Again, the man tested positive for the virus, even though he still had antibodies to the virus in his bloodstream, Kerwin said." But Kerwin et al's article in Lancet (link above) shows that antibodies were measured only on June 6, a day after the second positive virus test on June 5, and they hadn't tested for antibodies before then. "A major limitation of our case study is that we were unable to undertake any assessment of the immune response to the first episode of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also could not assess fully the effectiveness of the immune responses (eg, neutralising antibody titres) during the second episode, when the individual was antibody-positive for total antibody assay to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein."
So you're right, that it's possible that this person either failed to produce antibodies the first time (unlikely, since antibodies seem necessary for recovery), or made them and then they disappeared completely (unlikely, because antibodies are usually broken down slowly after infection is over). But they agree that this missing data point makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions from this one case:
"If our patient is a case of reinfection, it is crucial to note that the frequency of such an occurrence is not defined by one case study: this event could be rare. The absence of comprehensive genomic sequencing of positive cases in the USA and worldwide limits the advances in public health surveillance needed to find these cases. Certainly, limitations in screening and testing availability for SARS-CoV-2 exacerbate the poor surveillance efforts being undertaken not only to diagnose COVID-19 but also to obtain actionable genetic tracking of this agent.
I understood it the exact opposite way.
He reported on 4/27 that his symptoms resolved and he felt fine. However, because he did NOT have the 2 negatives he remained in isolation. Why would he remain in isolation if he'd yes gotten the 2 required negatives?
He felt fine on 4/27, but because 2 negatives were required before returning to work, he remained in isolation at home and didn't return to work. During that isolation, he had the two negative tests on May 9 and May 26, after which he came out of isolation and returned to work.