[SpicyLemonZest]

It's a very misleading sense of uncertainty. There's every reason to believe people gain long-lasting immunity, and no way to concretely prove it right now. No public health authority is seriously considering the possibility that survivors aren't immune.

[capableweb]

In general, in science, if you're uncertain, you're considering everything, even that survivors might not be immune. There is every reason to assume anything can be possible right now, as we don't have enough data. Once we have data, you can start to reason and consider things, but we're not there yet.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I just don't think that's true. Every infectious disease expert I've seen has been very confident that survivors gain long-lasting immunity, based on their knowledge of how other coronaviruses and diseases in general work. We don't have a ton of specific data about this specific virus, but it's not accurate to say we know nothing at all.

Even if it were true, there are decisions about strategy and response that must be made now and can't wait for data to come in, and those decisions are being made under the presumption that survivors become immune.

[capableweb]

> it's not accurate to say we know nothing at all

No one is saying this. We do know things about viruses in general, but again, don't have enough data about this particular one to say anything for sure.