Interesting. Is it misinformation if presented with the explicit disclaimer that I'm not sure about it and people should research themselves? I always understood misinformation as purposefully wrong and malicious information.

Worst case scenario (of people acting on my previous comment), people believe they can be reinfected and would practice further physical distancing. That does not seem malicious, but hey, I might be wrong.

Yes I think it is misinformation. It doesn't matter how much you hedge what you are saying, because the implication of you saying it means that you believe it.

Think about it this way, if your mother was concerned and you said, "Don't quote me on this, but as far as I know, you can be infected twice", you can bet your ass she would believe you.

Viruses can mutate, changing their protein coating so as not to be recognized by your immune system. Why do you think the common cold has not gone away, or why new flu shots are needed every season?

We simply do not know what this virus will do.

The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 came in waves, and they were different.

Immunity to coronaviruses does tend to fall within a year or so, but this is believed due to immune memory rather than viral mutation (coronaviruses have a modest mutation rate). This is a different mechanism than influenza. Subsequent reinfections are believed to be mild. A vaccine would provoke a longer immune memory by way of an adjuvant. Discussion of this in the TWIV podcast: http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-591/