It's not about the existing evidence it's about the lack thereof, and thus it must be considered as a possibility. To do otherwise is an extremely dangerous assumption. It's valid point and I don't see that as scaremongering.

I'm not an expert but I found this preprint: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418v...

Long term dear, it takes months to years after recovery for 'evidence' (I assume you mean scientific studies) because that's what long term means. The Ebola studies took 2 years to conclusively determine long term effects.

There is several studies in pre-read discussing permanent lung scarring (not exactly surprising from what we know about serious cases spending weeks incubated) and two discussing t-cell exhaustion but they are not peer reviewed yet but you should have no problem locating them.

For SARS we saw significant long term ling damage and, in a statistically significant number of people, terminal, worsening lung scarring over 4 years, so given the strong similarities in the genome of Cov-SARS-2 it's a concern too... we will only know in a few years time.

Humans have the ability to learn from patterns. Many viruses have long term effects, especially if the initial infection was rough - I listed a few examples.

Now we can call this fearmongering and ignore the possibility, but that seems more like a reflexive reaction to dismiss a realistic, potentially dangerous threat than a serious addition to this conversation.

Other could point to a formal paper, but you can read this in the meanwhile,

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-...