Months, not years. If we're still at high levels of community spread for years, we've done something very wrong. The faster the vaccinated percentage goes up, the shorter those months will be.
Define normal? Is 75,000 cases 800 deaths daily normal, nationally? Do you have a smaller or larger number in mind?
I'm honestly asking. What's your number for normal?
Not some "at some point we have to", but a real metric. In your opinion, if you're making the call. Is 75,000 cases 800 deaths daily the new normal? Is the new normal higher or lower than that?
I'm not wondering what any of the science people are saying. They'll provide all the advice in the world about what actions will cause the numbers to go up or down. It's a policy decision then about weighing those actions and the change on the numbers against the other "not COVID" things those actions will impact. If we want to talk about when we should stop different actions, assuming we're not fighting about if the actions actually work, we should at least decide if the goal even matters.
So, what's "normal"? What's the level of daily cases and daily deaths nationally when we're all just fine with the number?
(It's not 0. Not even close to 0, well above that. But, it's not what those values were today either.)
As I’ve suggested previously, “normal” puts COVID deaths at a similar level to what the United States experiences every year for influenza deaths, about 36,000 on average. Hospitalizations have averaged 442,000 over the same time frame.
The CDC estimates that the most influenza deaths in a single flu season was 61,000, with 810,000 hospitalizations. Restrictions were not put in place at that level, so perhaps something closer to these numbers should be when we return to normal.
Perhaps these numbers are too strict. After all, there is flu season when deaths and hospitalizations are higher. So perhaps 100,000 annual deaths and 1,000,000 annual hospitalizations are "normal", assuming COVID deaths and hospitalizations are more evenly distributed throughout the year.
I can imagine some making the argument that the numbers should be higher. At what point does the cost of the restrictions outweigh the benefits?
Conversely, maybe these numbers are not strict enough. Deaths and hospitalizations are likely to rise once restrictions end. Perhaps the target numbers should be even lower.
You may not agree with any of this reasoning, and that's OK. Different people will have different opinions on what constitutes "normal".
Rather, the point is to show that, using data, it
is possible to identify a level at which we can return to normal.
With multiple vaccines and 15 months of data, it simply is unacceptable for the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to continue to dodge the question with ambiguous responses such as "this will end, for sure, when we get the level of infection very low."
My concern is that Dr. Fauci wants a number
much lower than any of the numbers I have outlined above, and is afraid to say it. If he has a number in mind, he should be prepared to defend it with science. If he does not have a number in mind, then what the heck is he doing?