I hadn't seen the Lancet article—I was getting my latest information from the Quanta article also on the front page (https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-can-oth

I hadn't seen the Lancet article—I was getting my latest information from the Quanta article also on the front page (https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-can-other-coronaviruses-tell-us-about-sars-cov-2-20200429)—and https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-can-other-coronaviruses-... I guess it's a matter of language and personal preference, but "this global pandemic will be in abeyance for a year or so" doesn't match my informal understanding of "a long time". I also believe, as sibling postpawl (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23025675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23025675) points out, that there is still at least a divergence of opinions here, and that it is dangerous to get it wrong. (Personally, while I think voicing unpopular opinions is definitely a role we need in society, it seems to me that dismissing widely accepted opinions as due just to "talking heads on the media" puts disputants in an adversarial position that makes it more likely for people to hunker down in their existing opinions, and less likely for anyone's mind to change. Your refutation would have been more, not less, convincing to me if it had just pointed to the Lancet article.)