just makes no sense, how do you know who is low risk especially at the start and how does that gain highly effective therapeutics?

It became apparent fairly early that the elderly and obese/co-morbid were at the highest risk. This is basically the default for risk groups for most diseases, i.e. already sick, frail, immuno-compromised, etc. It's axiomatic.

how does that gain highly effective therapeutics?

Convalescent plasma is a highly effective therapeutic. Convalescent plasma is from previously infected people that have recovered. It has a plethora of antibodies in it.

I take it you didn't actually read the link I put up above. Here it is again.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3939/rr-5

It's a critique of a paper that came to the conclusion that convalescent plasma therapy was ineffective. The comment in the link is pointing out a fault in the original paper, namely that for what amounts to antibody therapy to be effective, it must be administered as early as possible when someone is infected. This makes sense since a virus multiplies in the body and if you give a therapeutic that destroys the pathogen after it has already caused a bunch of damage then of course it will seem that it's ineffective. The original paper basically administered the plasma too late for it to be effective, i.e. they did optimally utilize it.

Given that SARS-COV-2 is forecasted to become endemic, this is why I think purposely infecting low risk people on a voluntary basis is a smart thing to do. Upon being infected they will also produce a diverse and comprehensive antibody profile and then their plasma can be used as a therapeutic for others should they need it. Our immune system already produces therapeutics and the whole billions (trillions now?) spent on ineffective mRNA "vaccines" was entirely pointless and a waste of resources.

When you can, it's best to work with nature, not against it. Our governments have chosen to work against nature in a way that will inevitably fail. It's already established that the mRNA "vaccines" are leaky and don't train the immune system to neutralize the virus. A single infection of a virus results in between 10⁹ to 10¹¹ new virions. The mutation rate of SARS-COV-2 may be anywhere between every few thousand bases to a few million.

Original SARS

The mutation rate in the SARS-CoV genome was estimated to be 0.80 – 2.38 × 10³ nucleotide substitution per site per year which is in the same order of magnitude as other RNA viruses. The non-synonymous and synonymous substitution rates were estimated to be 1.16 – 3.30 × 10³ and 1.67 – 4.67 × 10³ per site per year, respectively.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.19.444774v1.full.pdf

We estimate a genomic mutation rate of 3.7x10⁶ nt-1 cycle-1 28 for a lineage of SARS-CoV-2 with the originally described spike protein (CoV-2-D) and of 2.9x10⁶ nt-1 cycle-1 30 for a lineage carrying the D614G mutation that has spread worldwide (CoV-2-G).

The SARS-COV-2 genome is 30,000 bp. If we take the lowest rate of mutation and the lowest number of virions produced from an infection, then during a single infection approximately 10⁹ virions produced, times 30,000 bases per virion, gives a total of 30,000,000,000,000 bases during a single infection. Divided by the mutation rate of 2.9x10^6, gives 10.34 million mutated virions produced in a single infection. If the mutation rate is towards the lower end and every few thousand bases, then a single virion replication event will produce a new virion with low tens number of new mutations. I don't know the number of cycles of infection that a single virion will undergo in a single infection but if it's more than one, which I think is likely, then you can see how quickly mutations can become cumulative. As far as evolution pressure and chance go, a viral infection is evolution with a warp drive. This is no different than the problem with antibiotic resistance. It's a numbers game that we cannot statistically stay ahead of.

Anyway, unless you're living like Ted, it's very likely that you'll be able to avoid an endemic virus. This virus originally had a quite a low lethality overall and what we're doing is likely to make things worse. Time will tell, let's hope I'm wrong.