There are two reasonable ways to interpret what “a 2–3 year process to get back to some sort of [normal]” means, and they give opposite verdicts:

1. If “normal/lower level” just means getting back to single‑digit unemployment (under ~10%)

   • The U.S. unemployment rate (U‑3) peaked at 14.7% in April 2020 and was 13.3% in May 2020, around when the prediction was made.
   • It fell below 10% by August 2020 (8.4%), only about three to four months after the spike, not 2–3 years later.
   • By December 2020, it was already down to 6.7%.

   These data imply that the move from ~15% to clearly lower, single‑digit unemployment happened in well under a year, so on that interpretation his 2–3 year timeline is wrong. (bls.gov)

2. If “normal/lower level” means returning roughly to pre‑pandemic labor‑market conditions (~3.5–4% unemployment)

   • Before COVID, the unemployment rate was about 3.5% (February 2020). (bls.gov)
   • The rate kept improving through 2021 and reached 3.9% by December 2021, and around 3.5% again in mid‑2022 (e.g., July 2022 was 3.5%), essentially back to its pre‑COVID level.
   • From May 2020 (~13.3%) to December 2021 (3.9%) is ~1.5 years; to mid‑2022 (3.5%) is about 2.1–2.2 years—squarely inside his "2 to 3 year" window for getting back to something like the old normal.

   On this stricter endpoint definition, his 2–3 year horizon is roughly correct. (fortune.com)

Because the podcast quote stops at “some sort of, you know …” and the user’s normalization adds its own gloss (“e.g., around single‑digit unemployment”), we can’t be sure which level Sacks meant: any single‑digit rate (which happened fast) or a near‑full normalization to ~3.5–4% (which did take about 2 years). Both readings are plausible and lead to opposite grades, so the fairest overall judgment is ambiguous.