Half of the article was about how the author is surprised by how bad a quote-unquote "mild" case of COVID can actually be. They're making the point that even if

Half of the article was about how the author is surprised by how bad a quote-unquote "mild" case of COVID can actually be. They're making the point that even if you aren't hospitalized, this shit is pretty rough for some people. Not deadly, and not even necessarily long-lasting (as the author was careful to specify); just shitty. I think that is a very fair presentation of a story. I call you out for the agenda thing only because I think purported fear of an agenda is kind of an argument-red-flag; it just means you don't like the conclusions that are suggested by the data available. We talk a lot about agenda, bias, narrative -- sometimes, a lot of people see the same set of facts and come to the same conclusion, not because they're Sheep and being controlled by the Thought Police, but because one conclusion is fairly correct. This is coming off more antagonistic towards you, in particular; I don't mean that, and I don't mean to suggest you're a conspiracy theorist or whatever. I just mean that sometimes, a clear conclusion from an article isn't an agenda so much as it is reasonably logical fact-presentation and basic analysis.