As both vaccinations and acquired immunity spread, life will likely settle into a new normal that will resemble pre-COVID-19 days — with some major twists.

The big picture: While hospitalizations and deaths are tamped down, the novel coronavirus should recede as a mortal threat to the world. But a lingering pool of unvaccinated people — and the virus' own ability to mutate — will ensure SARS-CoV-2 keeps circulating at some level, meaning some precautions will be kept in place for years.

Driving the news: On Tuesday, Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky told CNBC that people might well need a new coronavirus vaccine annually in the years ahead, much as they do now for the flu.

• Gorsky's comments were one of the clearest signals that even as the number of vaccinated people rises, the mutability of SARS-CoV-2 means the virus will almost certainly be with us in some form for years to come.

Be smart: That sounds like bad news — and indeed, it's much less ideal than a world in which vaccination or infection conferred close to lifelong immunity and SARS-CoV-2 could be definitively conquered like smallpox.

• With more contagious variants spreading rapidly, "the next 12 weeks are likely to be the darkest days of the pandemic," says Michael Osterholm, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
• But the apparent effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing hospitalizations and death from COVID-19 — even in the face of new variants — points the way toward a milder future for the pandemic, albeit one that may be experienced very differently around the world.

Details: From studying what happened after new viruses emerged in the past, scientists predict SARS-CoV-2 will eventually become endemic, most likely in a seasonal pattern similar to the kind of coronaviruses that cause the common cold.

Yes, but: The existence of a stubborn pool of Americans who say they won't get vaccinated — as well as the fact that it may take far longer for children, whom the vaccines have yet to be tested on, to get coverage — will give the virus longer legs than it would otherwise have.

What's next: This means we can expect the K-shaped recovery that has marked the pandemic to continue, says Ben Pring, who leads Cognizant's Center for the Future of Work.

• With the virus likely to remain a threat, even if a diminished one, "those who are more stuck in the analog world are really going to continue to struggle," he says.
• Health security will also become a more ingrained part of daily life and work, which means temperature checks, masks, frequent COVID-19 testing and even vaccine passports for travel are here to stay.

The catch: If the inequalities seen in the early phase of the vaccine rollout persist, COVID-19 could become a disease of the poor and disadvantaged, argues Mark Sendak, the co-founder and scientific adviser for Greenlight Ready, a COVID-19 resilience system that grew out of Duke Health.

• Sendak points to the example of HIV, a disease that is entirely controllable with drugs but continues to exert a disproportionate toll on Black Americans, who take pre-exposure prophylactic medicine at much lower rates.

"If we go back to 'normal,' then we have failed."

The bottom line: While SARS-CoV-2 has proven it can adapt to a changing environment, so can we. But we have to do so in a way that is fairer than our experience of the pandemic has been so far.

Vaccine hesitancy has been dropping during the pandemic, but as many as one-third of Americans remain to be convinced.

Why it matters: The more people who put off or refuse to be vaccinated once shots become more available, the harder it will be to ultimately contain COVID-19.

By the numbers: Data from the semi-regular Axios-Ipsos Coronavirus Index shows 38% of people polled say they are not very likely or not at all likely to get a first-generation COVID-19 vaccine when it's available.

• That's down from more than 60% in the early fall, but it still represents more than enough potential vaccine refusers to make herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2 all but impossible.

Details: There are additional concerns around geographic and educational divisions on vaccine acceptance.

• Respondents in the South are more likely than the rest of the country to be vaccine hesitant, as are respondents with a high school education or less.

What they're saying: Significant vaccine refusal would mean "there's still a lot of human wood out there for this forest fire to burn," says CIDRAP's Osterholm.

• Of even greater concern are the hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries who likely won't even have the option of being vaccinated for months, years or longer.
• That would leave a vast pool for the coronavirus to continue circulating and mutating in, and it would lead to what the FT's Martin Wolf calls a kind of "long economic COVID."

Initial findings by a WHO team in China investigating COVID-19's origins appear to echo Beijing's talking points.

The big picture: Identifying the true cause of the COVID-19 pandemic is key to controlling it and preventing the next one, but geopolitical disputes are getting in the way of science.

Driving the news: On Tuesday, a WHO team concluded a two-week trip to China with a press conference announcing their preliminary findings that it was "extremely unlikely" the virus originated in a lab.

• The team said "the most likely pathway" was through an intermediary host species between humans and the virus' original animal reservoir, which is probably a bat.

Details: The possibility that the virus might have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology — a theory that had been pushed by the Trump administration and at least entertained by a minority of scientists — was always an outlier, if only because we've repeatedly seen coronaviruses and other emerging pathogens jump from animals to humans.

• But many experts have criticized the WHO team for ruling out further investigation into a lab leak with a press conference before compiling a full report with clear data.

Between the lines: It didn't escape notice that even as it dismissed the idea of a lab leak, the WHO team opened the door to the possibility that the virus actually originated outside of China, coming into the country via contamination of frozen food.

• There's even less known evidence for that hypothesis than a lab leak, but it is one that has been embraced by Beijing as it seeks to downplay its early failures to contain COVID-19.

Our thought bubble: It's impossible to judge an investigation before its full findings are known, and the reality is that we may never know the true story of COVID-19's origins given the geopolitical stakes involved.

• But this investigation was a chance to highlight the very real danger of spillover from labs doing high-tech work with animal viruses — a danger that is growing by the year — and it would be a mistake to squander it.

Elon Musk is funding a $100 million innovation contest to identify effective and economical ways to remove and store carbon dioxide.

Why it matters: An innovation contest with a nine-figure award could help encourage the development of new ways to approach what scientists increasingly agree is one of the most vital ways to address climate change.

Driving the news: On Monday XPRIZE, a nonprofit that runs incentive contests meant to solve humanity's biggest challenges, announced the launch of a competition for innovators and teams around the world to demonstrate the ability to draw and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or oceans.

• The $100 million prize — by far the largest in XPRIZE's history — is sponsored by Elon Musk and the Musk Foundation.

What they're saying: "The math is showing that we need to develop the new capability of removing carbon emissions from anywhere, anytime we need it," says Marcius Extavour, who leads XPRIZE's energy efforts.

Details: Teams will be judged on their ability to produce a working prototype that can remove at least 1 ton per day, with the aim to economically scale to the gigaton level.

• The main criteria will be fully considered cost per ton of removal, with added considerations for environmental benefit and permanence.

The bottom line: As Extavour told Axios, "We need dozens or hundreds of approaches to get to where we need to be on carbon removal." Musk's $100 million could get us there faster.

Africa's quiet cryptocurrency revolution (DW)

• I do not understand crypto — it's like gold but made of computer chips or something — but this piece makes a strong case for its utility in international remittances.

Farming fish in the sky (Megan Tatum — Hakai)

• When your country comprises all of 281 square miles, food security is always on your mind, so it's not surprising that Singapore is leading the way on vertical fish farms.

Variant-proof vaccines — invest now for the next pandemic (Dennis Burton and Eric Topol — Nature)

• Two pandemic experts make the case for developing broadly protective antibodies that could be a silver bullet against emerging diseases.

Now recruiting: online army of volunteer tutors to fight "COVID slide" (Greg Toppo — The 74)

• Students have experienced crippling learning loss during the pandemic, and free online tutors could be one way to help reverse the damage.

Credit: "30 Rock." (For Gen Z readers, this was a popular television show between 2006 and 2013 that satirized "Saturday Night Live," a sketch program you probably know from YouTube clips.)

This whole generational conflict thing has gone too far.

The big picture: Pollsters and the media love to play up the differences between Gens Z and X, between millennials and Boomers, but generational borders are always in flux, and who you are has much more to do with where you are in life than who you happen to share birth years with.

What's happening: A piece this week in Canada's Walrus magazine made the case that TikTok is the new front for a generational war between Gen Z and the millennials.

• This is dumb.
• Not the story itself, which is a cogent exploration of the unique dynamics of TikTok, but the fact that Gen Z is apparently spending valuable seconds making fun of millennials for their love of Harry Potter.

Don't get me wrong: I love making fun of millennials as much as anyone else, especially if they insist on telling you their Hogwarts house. As a 42-year-old Gen Xer, I've been living in the shadow of that demographic Death Star for years.

Be smart: As Philip Bump noted in the Washington Post in 2015, generations are constantly being recalculated and renamed, which is why Gen X has also been known as "Grunge Kids," "13th Gen" and "20-Nothings."

• That last one makes my point: What we think of as a fixed generational identity has more to do with where a group of people is in their journey through life.

Details: Gen Z is more progressive and quick to adopt technology? Well, have you ever met a teenager, like, ever?

• Baby boomers trend more conservative and are interested in holding onto their power? Yes, that sounds like an older person.
• Gen X is stressed out dealing with parenthood and midlife worries? Judd Apatow has news for you: THIS IS 40.

The catch: Demographic makeup and changing technological options obviously do make a difference from generation to generation, which is why your grandma probably isn't stanning TikTok.

• But seriously, check out "31 pictures of grandparents who were wildly hot when they were younger." They used to be totally cool, because generally speaking, younger people — not specific generations — are cool.

The bottom line: We all used to be young, and most of us will eventually be old.

• And that's the most essential generational fact there is.