The long run effects could be positive. The shock pushed many firms to adopt new technologies that may be cost effective in the medium run and increase potential output and welfare (less time commuting, more efficient meetings, etc). Such beneficial effects have to be weighted vs the medium run consequences of the scars that will be left by the shock (higher public and private debts, more unemployment). My main point is that there are forces pushing both ways, even though in the long run I do not see why the negative ones should we. It seems feasible to go back to doing whatever was done before the shock. Of course there is a lot of uncertainty on how things will work out as it depends on key policy choices.