So there's this simple graph:
(Which I got from this tweet.)
Ontario Public Health's PACS—Post-Acute COVID Syndrome—percentage for "persists for at least six months" is also 20%.
We don't know what's "long COVID"—not being able to clear the disease and having flare ups due to viral reservoirs—and what's lasting damage. This is something we'd need years more data about, and we're all trapped in this horror movie before we know anything much. We are now pretty sure that COVID is cumulative—having it this time makes having it next time more likely and worse—so the graph above is indefensibly optimistic in using constant odds. Current circulating varieties have a lot of immune escape and are certainly infectious before people become symptomatic, so for planning purposes, everyone is infected. (Get an elastomeric respirator; get P100 cartridges for it; wear it continuously outside your dwelling. Try to live.)
You'd think this would be creating much more concern than the initial outbreak; we now know a lot more about how bad it is, and this is really notably bad. A severe disease that doesn't create lasting immunity, which spreads prior to symptoms (so there's no selection pressure not to kill you), which causes loss of immune function, and which is easy to catch (to undersell the spreadingest disease in human history), is not something we've got a precedent for or much in the way of robust narratives. (Plus we move it around, and the outcomes for diseases with long-distance travel are different.)
So where's the concern?
Everyone making decisions with the civil power wants the world to be less complicated.
Whether that's because they really don't like having to pick success instead of control, because they don't care who dies as long as their profit numbers look good, because they're old and haven't got the mental flexibility anymore (gerontocracy is not good at sudden change), or because they actively want to forcibly simplify society until their slave-holding desires are something society cannot readily suppress doesn't really matter on the observational scale. What matters is that there's a systemic failure; the people making the decisions want the world to be simple and aren't willing to live in a world that is not. If they can only sacrifice enough of us, they'll get their wish; the world will be a lot simpler.
(No, China does not then win by default. Global economic collapse doesn't do anything good for China and then they've got the same agricultural failure to worry about everyone else has got. It's really past time to switch the narrative from man-versus-man to man-versus-past-mistakes.)