I'd say it's a waste of time. It will be a while before we know the long term health effects of COVID19 on young people. For that reason, it's irresponsible to speak conclusively about how safe or how dangerous it is for them, or whether or not it is a good idea (individually or from a social perspective) to be exposed.

I sent an email last week to someone whose brother had a massive stroke from COVID19 and is suffering from paralysis and aphasia. I believe he is younger than I am. By the data, he's recovered. There are aspects of this virus that are not very flu-like. It's not well-understood.

My grandfather had rheumatic fever as a child, and as a result, had a weakened heart that led to an early death. We do know that SARS-CoV-2 infects heart tissue as it is rich in ACE2. It's going to be a long while before we know if mild or asymptomatic cases have long term effects upon the heart, or other systems, for that matter.

It would be more responsible of the Atlantic to just say that there are unknown risks to getting COVID19, and for that reason, we might be cautious about the notion that young people needn't worry about it.

IMHO the Atlantic is not a standout in abysmal scientific reporting. We really ought to have PhD's with research backgrounds as scientific journalists.

From Amazon, the author Derek Thompson:

graduated from Northwestern University, in 2008, with a triple major in journalism, political science, and legal studies. He hasn't done much with the latter two.