Worse than we thought

Reinfections? "Reactivations?" Or just a bad test?

What if there is little post-recovery immunity?

Hence little natural, naturally increasing population immunity?

For days, people have been told by medicos that nothing like a full-scale rollback may ever be possible, and not much of one until an effective vaccine, with or without effective antivirals or other therapies, is developed and made available for widespread, indeed global, distribution.

And we have been told all along, and are still being told, that won't happen before next year, maybe late next year.

So today some of the TV talking heads are connecting the dots and saying outright a general rollback will not be possible sooner than late next year without a significant rebound, and maybe a much worse rebound than anyone thought if there is little lasting natural immunity among persons who have recovered.

What if there is no significant post-recovery immunity?

Anyway, pretty good chance the rollbacks will start soon enough to enable significant rebounds and unacceptably many new infections and deaths by Democratic and public health expert standards, anyway.

The good news?

Well, the lethality of the virus is still way, way lower than 50% or even 10%.

Still looks to be about 5% or just under.

So, if everybody got infected, we'd have about 16.5 million dead in the US, alone.

And that's better than 165 million.

But pretty devastating.

And what if it really does come back every year and there is little (or no!) natural immunity?

Update. Can a vaccine even be possible if there is no natural immunity? If there are no lastingly effective antibodies, that is? I'm guessing not.