Anecdotes are not substitutes for science, but the OP didn't post any science. They didn't want to hear anything that could contradict their unfounded claim, but didn't use any actual data themselves.

Anecdotes are not useless, though they can be misleading. There are always exceptions to rules/trends.

Yes OP didn't provide hard numbers or citations, but countering a broad statistical claim with small scale empirical evidence is always besides the point. It tries to weaken the original claim without actually contradicting it at all.

OP didn't try to refrain people from providing opposing views or evidence that actually contradict his statements, he just asked to avoid that common fallacy.

The OP I responded to neither had hard numbers or citations. He had a subjective and wrong conclusion based on "WHO sources", which i can't find and which he neither had linked.

If you want something on long covid, here it is from NHS ( UK):

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-publishes-second-themed-rev...

> For those admitted to hospital, between 50-89% had at least one enduring symptom after two months. Of those not admitted to hospital, 20-30% experience at least one enduring symptom around one month later and at least 10% three months later;

> Long Covid appears to be more prevalent in women and in young people (including children) than might have been expected from acute Covid19 mortality;

That's not "very low"

Here's what the WHO says: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

> Data from one study shows that of more than 3,000 adults ages 18 to 34 who contracted COVID-19 and became sick enough to require hospital care, 21% ended up in intensive care, 10% were placed on a breathing machine and 2.7% died.

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-publishes-second-themed-rev... ( NHS about long Covid )

> For those admitted to hospital, between 50-89% had at least one enduring symptom after two months. Of those not admitted to hospital, 20-30% experience at least one enduring symptom around one month later and at least 10% three months later;

With any common sense. That is definitely not a "very low" risk.

And it's obvious the actual research I added doesn't suggests it either.

Note "...and became sick enough to require hospital care..." and "for those admitted to hospital...". Only a relatively small percentage of young people without chronic health problems are hospitalized after contracting COVID.

COVID is not a random disease, it's a pandemic infecting many millions of people.

The rate of infection is highest among 'younger people' and though their rates of hospitalization are lower, there's still quite a few people.

And that they may have had 'other complications' like 'obesity' or 'asthma' is almost besides the point.

10% of those admissions is going to be, overall, a potentially serious health issue, affecting quite a lot of people.

We have yet to determine what all of that amounts to and how severe it will be, but it can't be dismissed.

Relatively small != Very low

Additionally, young people without chronic diseases excludes some young people. Your original comment didn't exclude them and made the wrong association.

Chances of dying because of a thunder strike or in an airplane accident is very low.

Having long term covid issues as a young person is not.

"Relatively small" and "very low" are relative statements, and in a discussion of public-health policy like the present one, it is productive to consider them in the context of what the voting public is comfortable with.

In a number of countries, health ministers are complaining that the broad public is no longer observing restrictions, and the ruling party may even feel pressure to roll back restrictions because internal polling finds they could cost it reelection. If a voting public is unconcerned enough with those uncontroversially at-risk groups that have not yet been vaccinated, you cannot expect much sympathy for those relatively few examples of less at-risk demographics who end up with long-term symptoms, even if their risk is somewhat higher than a “thunder strike or an airplane accident”.

Perhaps don't use intensifiers when research doesn't excuse the use of them? :)

"Very low" minimizes the risk people associate with it and it's not appropriate for things that:

- needs more research

- current research doesn't support it's usage

In the context of assessing personal risk factors of readers in the midst of a global pandemic. I think it's kinda irresponsible.