> infection can lead to persisting illness, including in young, previously healthy people (ie, long COVID). It's hilarious. Even a dozen of scientists didn't m

> infection can lead to persisting illness, including in young, previously healthy people (ie, long COVID). It's hilarious. Even a dozen of scientists didn't manage to actually provide evidence that "long COVID" exists in significant numbers. All they cite is an editorial.[1] > like other seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 is capable of re-infecting people who have already had the disease, but the frequency of re-infection is unknown. In other words: It happened a couple of times, but there is no evidence it happens frequently enough to worry about. Millions of people have been infected, of course edge cases occur. > Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics How exactly can we get recurrent epidemics when the pandemic hasn't ended yet? > It would also place an unacceptable burden [...] What's acceptable is subjective, there can't be a scientific consensus on it. > health-care workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Lockdowns (including those euphemistically called "restrictions") cause trauma too, and they affect much more people. Psychologists are critical of lockdowns and social isolation.[2][3] > Such an approach also risks further exacerbating the socioeconomic inequities and structural discriminations already laid bare by the pandemic. The pandemic is at fault? Not the lockdowns? Too bad the authors don't provide any evidence. > Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand, to name a few countries, have shown that robust public health responses can control transmission, The island nation of Japan has defeated Covid. The island nation of New Zealand is even more successful, having defeated Covid twice so far. Vietnam is a single-party state and shouldn't be a role model either. > the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Apparently we have no idea when safe and effective vaccines arrive we can use to protect our societies and economies, which supports the authors' arguments. > The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months. Now we do know when safe and effective vaccines arrive we can use to protect our societies and economies, which also supports the authors' arguments. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02796-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02796-2 [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53037702 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53037702 [3] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/4/14/doctors-note-the-psychological-effects-of-social-distancing https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/4/14/doctors-note-th...