> You're saying that we should assume "normal situation" in the face of evidence that your assumptions do not hold. Not really! As you say, this virus is new.

> You're saying that we should assume "normal situation" in the face of evidence that your assumptions do not hold. Not really! As you say, this virus is new. Soooooo, we are short on info. So, we should entertain several possibilities. I didn't say "should" and, to entertain more than one possibility, only said "If"! Biggie difference. Yup, we don't know. If we do a lot of very well designed and executed statistical trials, controlled, double blind, randomized, simple random sample, stratified sample, etc., then maybe in five years we will know enough to be sure on all the major points, across seasons, ages, other medical conditions, reinfection, spreading via HVAC systems, therapeutics with dosages, side effects, and contraindications, vaccines with number of shots, contraindications, etc. Ah, just wait five years!!!! Well, nope, to paraphrase, we go to war with the info we have and not the info we want. So, for the info we have, from the history of viruses, once recovered, then likely immune for a long time; for now we have to take that seriously and maybe are in effect forced to act as if we believe it. Yup, there are reports of "reinfection" from maybe China or South Korea -- I didn't pay much attention to those reports due to concerns about, call it, data quality. But, net, yup, maybe in some cases, maybe even in all cases, recovery does not mean immunity. At high cost, we will be finding out with some relatively good data, and in less than five years! Did I mention high cost?