The New York Times, October 12, 2020
On March 16, President Trump stood before reporters and announced that drastic nationwide restrictions were needed to halt the coronavirus.
The guidelines, “15 Days to Slow the Spread,” were accompanied by a grim chart. Based on a prominent model by London’s Imperial College, the chart illustrated how many Americans might die if nothing were done.
The line rose sharply, then drifted slowly down until finally, at the far right end of the graph, the number of new cases reached zero. Our national nightmare would end by October 2020 — that is, right about now. If no action was taken, about 2.2 million Americans would die.
Clearly, the pandemic has not ended. So far some 215,000 Americans have lost their lives to the coronavirus, and reliable estimates suggest that the number could reach 400,000.
Nonetheless, there is a collective accomplishment here worth acknowledging. In the Imperial College report, the authors underscored that their worst-case estimate would almost certainly not be realized, thanks to human nature: “It is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous changes in population behavior even in the absence of government-mandated interventions.”
In the day-to-day fights over reopening schools or bars, it is easy to forget that there was a time when canceling large public gatherings did not seem necessary. That there was a time when leading health officials said that only sick people and hospital workers needed to wear masks.
Today masks are widely accepted. Various polls show that the number of Americans who wear them, at least when entering stores, went from near zero in March to about 65 percent in early summer to 85 percent or even 90 percent in October.
The slow but relentless acceptance of what epidemiologists call “non-pharmaceutical interventions” has made a huge difference. The next step is pharmaceutical interventions.
Some are already modestly successful, like the antiviral drug remdesivir and steroids like dexamethasone. But in the near distance are what Dr. William Schaffner, a preventive medicine specialist, has called “the cavalry” — vaccines and monoclonal antibodies.
It’s tempting to look at the first vaccine as President Trump does: an on-off switch that will bring back life as we know it. “As soon as it’s given the go-ahead, we will get it out, defeat the virus,” he said at a September news conference. But vaccine experts say we should prepare instead for a perplexing, frustrating year.
Come spring, there may be several so-so vaccines that provide only moderate protection available, with no way to know which is best. Some could be abruptly withdrawn from the market if problems arise. A successful first vaccine could also hamper the development of others, if, for example, volunteers drop out of an ongoing trial to get the authorized vaccine.
Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic, said that we should expect “complexity and chaos and confusion.”
Yet even with those warnings, experts are saying with genuine confidence that the pandemic in the United States will be over far sooner than they expected, possibly by the middle of next year.
That is still some time off. Many warn that this autumn and winter may be grim; indoor dining, in-classroom schooling, contact sports, travel and family holiday dinners may all drive up infections.
Even, then, if the cavalry is in sight, it is not here yet.
Copyright 2020 The New York Times Company. Reprinted with permission.