Sydney man James’ journey with coronavirus has been far from straightforward.

After testing positive on March 25, he and his girlfriend completed the mandatory two weeks in isolation.

Following that, he was cleared after not showing symptoms for more than three days - the Australian criteria for being safely able to return to “normal activities”.

“After we’d been cleared, there were a couple of days where we thought that we were all right,” James, who did not want his last name published, told 7NEWS.com.au.

“We went out.”

Five days after being cleared, the 23-year-old decided to move out of his rental unit and back into his parents’ Paddington home.

Nursing staff from St Vincent’s Hospital see local residents and backpackers at a COVID-19 testing clinic in the Bondi Pavillion. Credit: AAPIMAGE

With his dad being possibly at high risk, he decided to get tested again, to be on the safe side.

“That ended up coming back positive, even though I had no symptoms,” James said.

His doctor recommended he get tested every two days to determine if he was still infectious.

Far from conclusive

What followed was far from conclusive.

“The next test I had was negative,” James said.

“The test after that was inconclusive. The test after that was positive.”

He was told by a Sydney respiratory unit, which had been treating him, to isolate for another two weeks.

The doctor who spoke to him said he believed he may be a case of reactivation, “which is where the disease stays dormant and then reappears and symptoms would reappear”, James said.

Medical professionals carry out a coronavirus test in Bondi. Credit: BIANCA DE MARCHI / AAPIMAGE

He then got a call from a NSW public health unit telling him, “I didn’t need to keep isolating, that the doctors shouldn’t have been testing me repeatedly”.

“Apparently, they think that you can still be testing positive even if the disease still isn’t active, like it’s picking up old matter of the virus,” James said.

“I then called my GP and they recommended to go with the respiratory clinic’s recommendations and keep isolating as I still may be shedding the disease.”

Chevron Right Icon ‘The next test I had was negative. The test after that was inconclusive. The test after that was positive.’

James claims his symptoms have not reappeared.

But his latest test, less than a week ago, came back positive.

He said what troubled him was the “amount of different information I got from different departments”.

“Two weeks after being cleared and we’re still testing positive, and if the doctors think I could still be infectious, which they do, that means there’s 2000 other recovered people who could still be spreading the disease,” he said.

Reactivation evidence

Cases of coronavirus reactivation have not been widely reported in Australia, the federal Department of Health has told 7NEWS.com.au.

But in South Korea, 207 of its confirmed 10,708 cases have reportedly tested positive after being cleared.

Doctors in China’s epicentre Wuhan have claimed there is a growing number of people who have recovered from the virus, but continue to test positive without showing symptoms, Reuters reports.

More on 7NEWS.com.au

“There are numerous reports in the literature and anecdotally of this occurring overseas. This phenomenon has not been widely reported in Australia,” the Department of Health said.

“While a small number of people overseas have had a positive test after previously having negative test results, there is no clear evidence of re-infection.”

The department also said there are a number of possible reasons for positive test results occurring after negative results, including inadequacy of the size of testing samples or incorrect previous results.

In the video above: Human trial of coronavirus vaccine begins in UK

Play Video Researchers at the University of Oxford have begun human trials for a potential vaccine candidate to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. Researchers at the University of Oxford have begun human trials for a potential vaccine candidate to tackle the coronavirus pandemic.

There could also have been persisting excretion of viral ribonucleic acid (a molecule essential in biological coding) that is “not necessarily infective”.

“The immune response, including duration of immunity, to SARS-CoV-2 infection is not yet understood,” the department said.

“The concern is that there is a risk that these patients might continue to be infectious, but the actual risk is unknown.

“Patients who are discharged from isolation following recovery from COVID-19 are advised to continue to practise social distancing and enhanced hygiene measures.”