[gnusty_gnurc]

> It's possible they'll have permanent organ damage and shorter lives.

It's clear to me that people use this argument as a virtual escape hatch from any critical argument about the response to coronavirus.

We don't really even have a specific number of how many people were infected - never mind the number of people with long-term effects. We don't even really know the long-term effects (and descriptions are relatively vague). It's probable that the prevalence and severity of those effects are overstated.

Given the evidence so far, it seems reasonable to assume the overwhelming majority of healthy people are not at risk from the virus. And appealing to things we don't know and assuming the worst-case isn't realistic - it's a convenient way to justify medieval mitigation methods that decimate the economy and violate civil liberties, while casting any objectors as misanthropes.