newyorker--2020-03-14--How Prisons and Jails Can Respond to the Coronavirus

No one can predict exactly what will happen if the coronavirus starts to spread inside American jails and prisons , but Homer Venters can make some very educated guesses .
Venters , the former chief medical officer on Rikers Island , trained as a physician and an epidemiologist , and , in 2009 , he helped oversee efforts to contain the outbreak of the H1N1 virus inside New York City ’ s jails .
He now oversees Community Oriented Correctional Health Services ( C.O.C.H.S . )
, a nonprofit that works to improve health care in jails and prisons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outbreak inside these closed institutions has become increasingly urgent , leaders of county jails , state prison officials , and advocates have been seeking Venters ’ s expertise .
I spoke to him about the challenges of trying to control the spread of a pandemic among incarcerated people .
Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity .
Why are prisons and jails especially dangerous places to be during a pandemic ?
Jails and prisons are full of people who are at higher risk than the general public .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high rates of serious health problems .
We also , especially in the state prison systems around the country , have an increasingly older population of people .
So we have lots of people who are at high risk for serious complications .
All of the new terms of art that everybody has learned in the last two weeks , like “ social distancing ” and “ self-quarantine ” and “ flattening the curve ” of the epidemic—all of these things are impossible in jails and prisons , or are made worse by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Everything about incarceration is going to make that curve go more steeply up .
If you think about how a county jail works , the first thing upfront is that people—when they ’ re arrested in the precinct and then when they go to court and then when they get to jail—they ’ re in these court pens with lots of other people .
You could have a dozen or even two dozen people in a small pen , where there ’ s not room to really sit down , where you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re sitting on benches .
Every time we do much smaller investigations of outbreaks—if there ’ s a bacterial meningitis or if there ’ s a pulmonary TB case—those are the places we worry about and where we see transmission happening , very quickly , of communicable disease .
The jails are built to operate this way : big pens , big groups of people coming in .
Five , ten , fifteen , twenty at a time going in blocks through cells .
They start out in one cell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They might go through six or eight cells .
They don ’ t really have hand-washing access built in .
That is basically a system designed to spread communicable disease .
Once people get through that intake process , if you go to housing areas in jails and prisons today , whether it ’ s a cell or a dorm-housing area , if you go to the bathrooms , you would find that many of the sinks don ’ t work .
Many of them don ’ t have soap , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper towels to dry your hands .
What is the main strategy that should be employed to try to manage the outbreak of something like the coronavirus in a prison or a jail ?
There are different ways to do this , but basically the idea is that you want to have one area for people who are well and who have no symptoms .
You may have another place for people who are well but have very high-risk conditions .
But certainly you want to have a special place to put people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems or jails that are full—or , let ’ s say , over seventy-five per cent capacity—this process may be almost impossible for them to do .
They may not have room to spread out .
So if you can ’ t do that , if you can ’ t effectively keep the people with symptoms away from the people without symptoms , then you have a brand-new way of promoting transmission , which is separate and apart from jails being dirty or not having soap or hand-washing capacity .
This pandemic could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care is delivered behind bars .
What are some of the shortcomings of these systems ?
Many of these sheriffs and jails have a pretty minimal approach to care .
I mean , one of the basic standards in many jails is that it ’ s O.K .
to wait up to fourteen days to do a comprehensive assessment on a person who comes into jail .
The practice in a jail might be just to have a quick interaction with a nurse on the way in and then wait to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That approach to limiting care and limiting what you know about people is the exact opposite of the approach we want to take in an outbreak , where we want to know everybody who ’ s at high risk because it ’ s so important to find those high-risk patients and understand who ’ s at risk of dying if and when the virus arrives .
If the pandemic is brought under control in most communities , but it is still spreading rapidly inside our jails and prisons , what does that mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we don ’ t do a good job in jails and prisons , we will certainly prolong the life of this outbreak .
A group of doctors and public health officials working in New York City ’ s jails and hospitals have urged the city to consider releasing those individuals currently confined in the city ’ s jails who are more than sixty years old .
What do you think of that idea ?
From the standpoint of responding to this outbreak , one of the most important questions is : How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places—in jails and prisons ?
Because it ’ s going to be very , very difficult to deliver a standard of care either in the detection or the treatment of people who are behind bars .
I just have really grave concerns .
And so , if fewer people are in these systems—and , in particular , fewer people who have risk factors for serious complications—the more likely we are to succeed .
Is there anything about the coronavirus ’ s possible impact inside jails and prisons that you have not heard people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ?
Nobody is talking to the people who are detained themselves .
I told somebody yesterday the story about an evening—maybe a Friday or Saturday night—when we were out checking temperatures and doing symptom checks [ on Rikers Island ] during the first week of the H1N1 outbreak .
I was in a housing area , and an officer walked in—and they had all gotten N95 masks—and the officer had written on his mask : “ Welcome to death.
” We were in there trying to calm people and figure out who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this one act just sent a wave of agitation through everybody in the house .
I am sure that officer was terrified , too , and that ’ s why he did that dumb thing .
But I just think that the engagement with the correctional staff and people who are detained has to be a top priority , because we need them to help with the management .
A big part of that is telling us when they are sick or when somebody is sick , and not coming to work sick @ @ @ @ @

No one can predict exactly what will happen if the coronavirus starts to spread inside American jails and prisons, but Homer Venters can make some very educated guesses. Venters, the former chief medical officer on Rikers Island, trained as a physician and an epidemiologist, and, in 2009, he helped oversee efforts to contain the outbreak of the H1N1 virus inside New York City’s jails. He now oversees Community Oriented Correctional Health Services (C.O.C.H.S.), a nonprofit that works to improve health care in jails and prisons. As the question of how to contain an outbreak inside these closed institutions has become increasingly urgent, leaders of county jails, state prison officials, and advocates have been seeking Venters’s expertise. I spoke to him about the challenges of trying to control the spread of a pandemic among incarcerated people. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Why are prisons and jails especially dangerous places to be during a pandemic?
Jails and prisons are full of people who are at higher risk than the general public. We have filled them up with people who have high rates of serious health problems. We also, especially in the state prison systems around the country, have an increasingly older population of people. So we have lots of people who are at high risk for serious complications.
All of the new terms of art that everybody has learned in the last two weeks, like “social distancing” and “self-quarantine” and “flattening the curve” of the epidemic—all of these things are impossible in jails and prisons, or are made worse by the way jails and prisons are operated. Everything about incarceration is going to make that curve go more steeply up.
If you think about how a county jail works, the first thing upfront is that people—when they’re arrested in the precinct and then when they go to court and then when they get to jail—they’re in these court pens with lots of other people. You could have a dozen or even two dozen people in a small pen, where there’s not room to really sit down, where you’re sitting on the floor or you’re sitting on benches.
Every time we do much smaller investigations of outbreaks—if there’s a bacterial meningitis or if there’s a pulmonary TB case—those are the places we worry about and where we see transmission happening, very quickly, of communicable disease. The jails are built to operate this way: big pens, big groups of people coming in. Five, ten, fifteen, twenty at a time going in blocks through cells. They start out in one cell, then they go to a second cell. They might go through six or eight cells. They don’t really have hand-washing access built in. That is basically a system designed to spread communicable disease.
Once people get through that intake process, if you go to housing areas in jails and prisons today, whether it’s a cell or a dorm-housing area, if you go to the bathrooms, you would find that many of the sinks don’t work. Many of them don’t have soap, and many of them don’t have paper towels to dry your hands.
What is the main strategy that should be employed to try to manage the outbreak of something like the coronavirus in a prison or a jail?
There are different ways to do this, but basically the idea is that you want to have one area for people who are well and who have no symptoms. You may have another place for people who are well but have very high-risk conditions. But certainly you want to have a special place to put people who have developed symptoms.
For prison systems or jails that are full—or, let’s say, over seventy-five per cent capacity—this process may be almost impossible for them to do. They may not have room to spread out. So if you can’t do that, if you can’t effectively keep the people with symptoms away from the people without symptoms, then you have a brand-new way of promoting transmission, which is separate and apart from jails being dirty or not having soap or hand-washing capacity.
This pandemic could bring new scrutiny to the ways that health care is delivered behind bars. What are some of the shortcomings of these systems?
Many of these sheriffs and jails have a pretty minimal approach to care. I mean, one of the basic standards in many jails is that it’s O.K. to wait up to fourteen days to do a comprehensive assessment on a person who comes into jail. The practice in a jail might be just to have a quick interaction with a nurse on the way in and then wait to see a doctor up to two weeks. That approach to limiting care and limiting what you know about people is the exact opposite of the approach we want to take in an outbreak, where we want to know everybody who’s at high risk because it’s so important to find those high-risk patients and understand who’s at risk of dying if and when the virus arrives.
If the pandemic is brought under control in most communities, but it is still spreading rapidly inside our jails and prisons, what does that mean for everyone else?
To the extent that we don’t do a good job in jails and prisons, we will certainly prolong the life of this outbreak.
A group of doctors and public health officials working in New York City’s jails and hospitals have urged the city to consider releasing those individuals currently confined in the city’s jails who are more than sixty years old. What do you think of that idea?
From the standpoint of responding to this outbreak, one of the most important questions is: How can we have fewer people in these places—in jails and prisons? Because it’s going to be very, very difficult to deliver a standard of care either in the detection or the treatment of people who are behind bars. I just have really grave concerns. And so, if fewer people are in these systems—and, in particular, fewer people who have risk factors for serious complications—the more likely we are to succeed.
Is there anything about the coronavirus’s possible impact inside jails and prisons that you have not heard people talking about that you feel they should be?
Nobody is talking to the people who are detained themselves. I told somebody yesterday the story about an evening—maybe a Friday or Saturday night—when we were out checking temperatures and doing symptom checks [on Rikers Island] during the first week of the H1N1 outbreak. I was in a housing area, and an officer walked in—and they had all gotten N95 masks—and the officer had written on his mask: “Welcome to death.”
We were in there trying to calm people and figure out who is sick and who is not sick—and this one act just sent a wave of agitation through everybody in the house. I am sure that officer was terrified, too, and that’s why he did that dumb thing. But I just think that the engagement with the correctional staff and people who are detained has to be a top priority, because we need them to help with the management. A big part of that is telling us when they are sick or when somebody is sick, and not coming to work sick or not ignoring symptoms.
During the outbreak of the H1N1 virus on Rikers, how much tension was there inside the jails? And how tense could things get in the months ahead?
We had many difficult conversations and more than one chair thrown our way when it came to isolating people in housing areas. It was healthy young kids [sixteen years and older] who were being told they could not move anywhere. If you add in people really getting sick or dying behind bars, and then in a lot of these systems you don’t have correctional staff coming in. The basic jobs aren’t getting done.


newyorker--2020-03-14--What the Coronavirus Means for Watching Movies

Measures to contain the outbreak of the coronavirus have put a stop to the performing arts ; as my colleague Michael Schulman reported , Broadway shows have been suspended , and so have concerts and dance performances , sporting events , readings , museums and art galleries , and more or less any event where people gather in large numbers .
It has also led to the postponement of many movie releases , including such high-profile ones as the new James Bond movie ( unfortunately titled “ No Time to Die ” ) , “ A Quiet Place Part II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mulan , ” plus the cancellation of screenings at Lincoln Center , MOMA , Anthology Film Archives , and elsewhere .
South by Southwest , the New Directors/New Films series , and the Tribeca Film Festival were cancelled or postponed .
Strangely , multiplexes still seem to be open—though why people would risk their health and that of others for a viewing of “ The Way Back ” or “ The Invisible Man ” is beyond me .
Of all the arts , only literature lends itself more to domestic consumption than movies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of paintings and sculptures are far removed from the physical experience on which the live versions depend ; with movies , the image is ( more or less ) the same , whether consumed in a theatre or at home , in a crowd or alone—and the difference in size is one of degree , not of kind .
The proof , of course , is the modern prevalence of streaming , preceded by the prevalence of various forms of home video , all of which were taken by the movie industry as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of movie theatres .
( This fear was even the subject of congressional hearings in 1982 . )
Spoiler alert : as evidenced by box-office numbers , people like going to the movies , whether in vast numbers , for high-budget superhero movies and children ’ s movies , or in proportionately impressive numbers , for some art-house and independent films .
But it isn ’ t , for the most part , the theatre itself that ’ s the attraction ; charmless and poorly maintained multiplexes don ’ t so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studios as the soulless grottoes of Penn Station .
People go nonetheless—driven there , in part , by the sheer pleasure of getting out of the house and being sociable but also , in large part , by the sheer fact of exclusivity , the desire to see a movie while it ’ s still in its bubble of critical discourse , online chatter , and in-person enthusiasm .
If there ’ s any doubt that such exclusivity is crucial , consider that the two major multiplex chains , Regal and AMC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be available on streaming or in any other home-video format for a ninety-day period .
This is why Netflix hasn ’ t managed to get its movies , even high-profile ones , such as “ The Irishman ” and “ Marriage Story , ” into large-scale release .
Grim jokes have been flying around that the coronavirus is sponsored by Netflix ; it ’ s apparent that streaming will take the place of much—maybe most , maybe all—theatrical viewing for a while and will result in the delay , if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , film festivals , and special series that would be on the front lines of introducing new films to the public .
When South by Southwest was cancelled , it surprised me that there wasn ’ t an instant switch to an online version that would at least get movies in competition to the jurors , who could make their choices remotely , and even to badge holders ( including critics ) , who could nonetheless start festival films on a launch that would carry over into distribution and release when the crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost to the day , Brent Lang reported , in Variety , about a startup , launched by Sean Parker ( better known as the guy played by Justin Timberlake in “ The Social Network ” ) and Prem Akkaraju , called Screening Room , that would break down the barrier between new theatrical releases and home video , offering new movies in the home , for fifty dollars , at the same time as they open in theatres .
The project ’ s backers included Steven Spielberg , Peter Jackson , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind it appeared to be twofold : first , to preserve the concept of paying to see a particular movie rather than paying for a subscription to a platform ; second , to maintain the price point of theatrical viewing , where ( at least in New York ) , fifty dollars doesn ’ t even buy three tickets .
For a person watching alone , the price is ridiculous , except for a movie that one plans to see twice or more in one weekend ( I ’ ve been that person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s almost a bargain .
Despite the project ’ s prominent supporters , it ended , reportedly because of exhibitors ’ qualms and studios ’ differences .
The paradox of public events in this strange moment is that their success is measured by crowds ; exactly the kinds of movies that have their commercial success riding on high and quick box-office return are the ones that now , in the face of a pandemic , pose the greatest threat of contagion .
( I ’ ve joked that some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing , in the form of largely empty theatres . )
The result , at the moment , is that some new movies are on hold , and ones already in theatres are in trouble .
( For instance , a great new independent film , Eliza Hittman ’ s “ Never Rarely Sometimes Always , ” opens today . )
On the one hand , it seems like a natural turn , on the part of film distributors , to find a way to get new movies to viewers at home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or less all there is .
On the other hand , I also suspect that studios , distributors , and festival directors are unlikely to let what everyone hopes may be only a short-term crisis lead to fundamental , even permanent , changes in viewing habits .
In the meantime , there ’ s no shortage of great movies , recent and classic , to discover or revisit online .
How people cope and create new customs amid a pandemic .
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be quarantined ?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available .
We are all irrational panic shoppers .
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome .

Measures to contain the outbreak of the coronavirus have put a stop to the performing arts; as my colleague Michael Schulman reported, Broadway shows have been suspended, and so have concerts and dance performances, sporting events, readings, museums and art galleries, and more or less any event where people gather in large numbers. It has also led to the postponement of many movie releases, including such high-profile ones as the new James Bond movie (unfortunately titled “No Time to Die”), “A Quiet Place Part II,” and Disney’s “Mulan,” plus the cancellation of screenings at Lincoln Center, MOMA, Anthology Film Archives, and elsewhere. South by Southwest, the New Directors/New Films series, and the Tribeca Film Festival were cancelled or postponed. Strangely, multiplexes still seem to be open—though why people would risk their health and that of others for a viewing of “The Way Back” or “The Invisible Man” is beyond me.
Of all the arts, only literature lends itself more to domestic consumption than movies. Recorded music and theatre and photos of paintings and sculptures are far removed from the physical experience on which the live versions depend; with movies, the image is (more or less) the same, whether consumed in a theatre or at home, in a crowd or alone—and the difference in size is one of degree, not of kind. The proof, of course, is the modern prevalence of streaming, preceded by the prevalence of various forms of home video, all of which were taken by the movie industry as the devil’s tool to wreak the end of movie theatres. (This fear was even the subject of congressional hearings in 1982.)
Spoiler alert: as evidenced by box-office numbers, people like going to the movies, whether in vast numbers, for high-budget superhero movies and children’s movies, or in proportionately impressive numbers, for some art-house and independent films. But it isn’t, for the most part, the theatre itself that’s the attraction; charmless and poorly maintained multiplexes don’t so much recall the glory days of Hollywood studios as the soulless grottoes of Penn Station. People go nonetheless—driven there, in part, by the sheer pleasure of getting out of the house and being sociable but also, in large part, by the sheer fact of exclusivity, the desire to see a movie while it’s still in its bubble of critical discourse, online chatter, and in-person enthusiasm.
If there’s any doubt that such exclusivity is crucial, consider that the two major multiplex chains, Regal and AMC, book only films that guarantee they won’t be available on streaming or in any other home-video format for a ninety-day period. This is why Netflix hasn’t managed to get its movies, even high-profile ones, such as “The Irishman” and “Marriage Story,” into large-scale release.
Grim jokes have been flying around that the coronavirus is sponsored by Netflix; it’s apparent that streaming will take the place of much—maybe most, maybe all—theatrical viewing for a while and will result in the delay, if not the cancellation, of many movie releases, film festivals, and special series that would be on the front lines of introducing new films to the public. When South by Southwest was cancelled, it surprised me that there wasn’t an instant switch to an online version that would at least get movies in competition to the jurors, who could make their choices remotely, and even to badge holders (including critics), who could nonetheless start festival films on a launch that would carry over into distribution and release when the crisis has passed.
Four years ago, almost to the day, Brent Lang reported, in Variety, about a startup, launched by Sean Parker (better known as the guy played by Justin Timberlake in “The Social Network”) and Prem Akkaraju, called Screening Room, that would break down the barrier between new theatrical releases and home video, offering new movies in the home, for fifty dollars, at the same time as they open in theatres. The project’s backers included Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and J. J. Abrams. The underlying idea behind it appeared to be twofold: first, to preserve the concept of paying to see a particular movie rather than paying for a subscription to a platform; second, to maintain the price point of theatrical viewing, where (at least in New York), fifty dollars doesn’t even buy three tickets. For a person watching alone, the price is ridiculous, except for a movie that one plans to see twice or more in one weekend (I’ve been that person); for a family of four, it’s almost a bargain. Despite the project’s prominent supporters, it ended, reportedly because of exhibitors’ qualms and studios’ differences.
The paradox of public events in this strange moment is that their success is measured by crowds; exactly the kinds of movies that have their commercial success riding on high and quick box-office return are the ones that now, in the face of a pandemic, pose the greatest threat of contagion. (I’ve joked that some of the movies I like have always created social distancing, in the form of largely empty theatres.) The result, at the moment, is that some new movies are on hold, and ones already in theatres are in trouble. (For instance, a great new independent film, Eliza Hittman’s “Never Rarely Sometimes Always,” opens today.) On the one hand, it seems like a natural turn, on the part of film distributors, to find a way to get new movies to viewers at home, now that home viewing is more or less all there is. On the other hand, I also suspect that studios, distributors, and festival directors are unlikely to let what everyone hopes may be only a short-term crisis lead to fundamental, even permanent, changes in viewing habits. In the meantime, there’s no shortage of great movies, recent and classic, to discover or revisit online.
A Guide to the Coronavirus
How people cope and create new customs amid a pandemic.
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus.
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available.
We are all irrational panic shoppers.
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome.
How pandemics change history.


newyorker--2020-03-14--Your Yoga Studio’s Updated Practices in Response to COVID-19

Subject : Coronavirus—don ’ t worry , we are on it !
As a patron of our yoga studio/Pilates studio/nail salon/hair salon/meditation space/acupuncture practice/chiropractic practice/gym , we want you to know that we are taking every precaution with regard to COVID-19 ( coronavirus ) .
Given all of the recent news and growing concerns about the global pandemic , we wanted to share with you the practices and procedures that we are implementing to keep our studios safe and clean !
-We are following the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( C.D.C . )
and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both of which say to wash your hands as often as possible and to cover your face when you cough or sneeze .
You are a disgusting excuse for a human if you didn ’ t do this already—according to the C.D.C .
and W.H.O .
-We have scheduled deep cleans of all our studio spaces on a weekly basis .
Previously , deep cleans were done on a never basis .
-We have changed our cleaning solution from diluted ylang-ylang oil to bleach .
-We bought some cans of beans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid touching their faces .
-We are closely monitoring all developments related to the new coronavirus , by browsing Twitter and Instagram stories of celebrities flying business class , wearing face masks .
-We have purchased three thousand bottles of hand sanitizer for the studio , by which we mean giant bottles of rubbing alcohol with some squirts of CVS-brand aloe vera .
-We have replaced our mural of elephants with a sign that reads “ SANITIZE AND CARRY ON.
” -We are actively putting out feelers to our richer customers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a private island until this all blows over .
( Feel free to reply directly to this e-mail ! )
-We have ordered new merch , including studio-branded hazmat suits and hot-pink face masks , available in our store as soon as the shipments arrive from China !
-We have told staff to stay home if they are feeling ill , exhibiting any signs of illness , or commute to work by subway .
-We have implemented hourly wipe-downs of door handles , water coolers , light switches , cubbies , and meditation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each class with sage and hospital-grade UV lights .
-We have installed multiple timers in the bathroom so that you can time yourself washing your hands , which no one in the history of the world has ever done for the amount of time recommended .
Set your timer to twenty seconds , or sing the happy-birthday song twice .
( Don ’ t worry about copyright—the song has been in the public domain since 2016 ! )
-We threw out our yoga blocks , because they were disgusting rectangle-shaped petri dishes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ props to the studio , if you don ’ t feel comfortable sharing .
( Shout-out to Melissa , who carried her own Pilates reformer on the G train ! )
-Instead of hands-on adjustments , we will be fixing your alignment telepathically .
-Greeting one another with a bow was still too close of contact , so going forward we will be greeting one another with double eye blinks , from six feet away .
-We ’ re reducing class sizes by fifty per cent , so that there is ample room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the C.D.C .
So don ’ t be that person who chooses a spot right next to someone when there is an entire empty row in front of you .
It was creepy when you did that before , and now it ’ s just dangerous .
-We are no longer accepting cash , to avoid additional touch points , but we are still accepting payment in the form of PayPal or Peruvian palo santo .
-Please stay home if you ’ re feeling under the weather .
But sorry , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees for our studios during this time .
Thanks for understanding .
Good luck out there , and see you at the studio !

Subject: Coronavirus—don’t worry, we are on it!
Dear customer,
As a patron of our yoga studio/Pilates studio/nail salon/hair salon/meditation space/acupuncture practice/chiropractic practice/gym, we want you to know that we are taking every precaution with regard to COVID-19 (coronavirus). Given all of the recent news and growing concerns about the global pandemic, we wanted to share with you the practices and procedures that we are implementing to keep our studios safe and clean!
-We are following the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.) and the World Health Organization (W.H.O.), both of which say to wash your hands as often as possible and to cover your face when you cough or sneeze. You are a disgusting excuse for a human if you didn’t do this already—according to the C.D.C. and W.H.O.
-We have scheduled deep cleans of all our studio spaces on a weekly basis. Previously, deep cleans were done on a never basis.
-We have changed our cleaning solution from diluted ylang-ylang oil to bleach.
-We bought some cans of beans.
-All front-desk staff will now wear straitjackets to avoid touching their faces.
-We are closely monitoring all developments related to the new coronavirus, by browsing Twitter and Instagram stories of celebrities flying business class, wearing face masks.
-We have purchased three thousand bottles of hand sanitizer for the studio, by which we mean giant bottles of rubbing alcohol with some squirts of CVS-brand aloe vera.
-We have replaced our mural of elephants with a sign that reads “SANITIZE AND CARRY ON.”
-We are actively putting out feelers to our richer customers to see if we can join them on a private island until this all blows over. (Feel free to reply directly to this e-mail!)
-We have ordered new merch, including studio-branded hazmat suits and hot-pink face masks, available in our store as soon as the shipments arrive from China!
-We have told staff to stay home if they are feeling ill, exhibiting any signs of illness, or commute to work by subway.
-We have implemented hourly wipe-downs of door handles, water coolers, light switches, cubbies, and meditation crystals.
-We clear the energy after each class with sage and hospital-grade UV lights.
-We have installed multiple timers in the bathroom so that you can time yourself washing your hands, which no one in the history of the world has ever done for the amount of time recommended. Set your timer to twenty seconds, or sing the happy-birthday song twice.(Don’t worry about copyright—the song has been in the public domain since 2016!)
-We threw out our yoga blocks, because they were disgusting rectangle-shaped petri dishes.
-We encourage you to bring your own props to the studio, if you don’t feel comfortable sharing. (Shout-out to Melissa, who carried her own Pilates reformer on the G train!)
-Instead of hands-on adjustments, we will be fixing your alignment telepathically.
-Greeting one another with a bow was still too close of contact, so going forward we will be greeting one another with double eye blinks, from six feet away.
-We’re reducing class sizes by fifty per cent, so that there is ample room between mats to follow the social-distancing suggestions of the C.D.C. So don’t be that person who chooses a spot right next to someone when there is an entire empty row in front of you. It was creepy when you did that before, and now it’s just dangerous.
-We are no longer accepting cash, to avoid additional touch points, but we are still accepting payment in the form of PayPal or Peruvian palo santo.
-Please stay home if you’re feeling under the weather. But sorry, no, we are not waiving any cancellation fees for our studios during this time. Thanks for understanding.
Good luck out there, and see you at the studio!
Love and light,
Management


newyorker--2020-03-15--Sunday Reading: Confronting Global Disasters

In 2019 , two months before the first official reports of the new coronavirus were registered in Wuhan , the U.S. government shut down a research program called Predict .
Predict , which was run by the U.S. Agency for International Development , was responsible for tracking and researching more than a thousand viruses .
At the time , the program ’ s creator blamed its closure on “ risk-averse bureaucrats.
” This week , we ’ re bringing you a selection of pieces about the ways in which we confront and manage—or , at times , mismanage—global disasters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Response to a Global Coronavirus , ” Michael Specter , a science writer who has covered pandemics extensively , reports on the efforts by the Trump Administration to limit funding for disease research and to interrupt the very initiatives developed to help safeguard the public against a large-scale outbreak .
In “ The New Estimate of Deaths in Puerto Rico Reflects a Broader and Shameful Neglect , ” Amy Davidson Sorkin writes about the tragedy of Hurricane Maria , which hit Puerto Rico late in the summer of 2017 , and assesses how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatalities after the storm .
In “ A Summer of Megafires and Trump ’ s Non-Rules on Climate Change , ” Elizabeth Kolbert examines the outbreak of widespread megafires in California and analyzes the anti-environmental policies that have exacerbated wildfire conditions in the U.S. and other areas around the world .
Finally , in “ Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich , ” Evan Osnos explores the extreme emergency plans of the super wealthy and chronicles the measures that some are taking to protect themselves , and only themselves , in the event of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these pieces are a bracing reminder of the fragility of individuals and families in the face of calamity , and the role that government and community can play in lessening the damage .
Epidemics are not a zero-sum game ; you can not ignore one to defend against another .
Some of the wealthiest people in America—in Silicon Valley , New York , and beyond—are getting ready for the crackup of civilization .
Against an infernal backdrop of widespread wildfires , the Administration announced its plan to roll back rules limiting greenhouse-gas emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump has expressed for Puerto Rico , in the wake of Hurricane Maria , is one of the reasons that a new report on the storm ’ s death toll is so crucial .

In 2019, two months before the first official reports of the new coronavirus were registered in Wuhan, the U.S. government shut down a research program called Predict. Predict, which was run by the U.S. Agency for International Development, was responsible for tracking and researching more than a thousand viruses. At the time, the program’s creator blamed its closure on “risk-averse bureaucrats.” This week, we’re bringing you a selection of pieces about the ways in which we confront and manage—or, at times, mismanage—global disasters. In “Donald Trump’s Anti-Globalist Response to a Global Coronavirus,” Michael Specter, a science writer who has covered pandemics extensively, reports on the efforts by the Trump Administration to limit funding for disease research and to interrupt the very initiatives developed to help safeguard the public against a large-scale outbreak. In “The New Estimate of Deaths in Puerto Rico Reflects a Broader and Shameful Neglect,” Amy Davidson Sorkin writes about the tragedy of Hurricane Maria, which hit Puerto Rico late in the summer of 2017, and assesses how political indifference led to an increase in fatalities after the storm. In “A Summer of Megafires and Trump’s Non-Rules on Climate Change,” Elizabeth Kolbert examines the outbreak of widespread megafires in California and analyzes the anti-environmental policies that have exacerbated wildfire conditions in the U.S. and other areas around the world. Finally, in “Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich,” Evan Osnos explores the extreme emergency plans of the super wealthy and chronicles the measures that some are taking to protect themselves, and only themselves, in the event of a global catastrophe. Taken together, these pieces are a bracing reminder of the fragility of individuals and families in the face of calamity, and the role that government and community can play in lessening the damage.
—David Remnick
Photograph by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP / Getty
Epidemics are not a zero-sum game; you cannot ignore one to defend against another.
Photograph by Dan Winters for The New Yorker
Some of the wealthiest people in America—in Silicon Valley, New York, and beyond—are getting ready for the crackup of civilization.
Against an infernal backdrop of widespread wildfires, the Administration announced its plan to roll back rules limiting greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants.
The disdain that President Trump has expressed for Puerto Rico, in the wake of Hurricane Maria, is one of the reasons that a new report on the storm’s death toll is so crucial.


newyorker--2020-03-15--Trump’s Discordant Display of Nativism in a Pandemic

In late July , 2014 , near Monrovia , Liberia , two Americans , Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol , contracted Ebola .
They had been working in a missionary hospital , trying to ameliorate an outbreak then racing across West Africa .
The Obama Administration dispatched an air ambulance to carry them home , swathed in white protective gear , for treatment at Emory University Hospital , in Atlanta , and this touched off a media spectacle .
The chyron story line was : Ebola comes to America .
( Brantly and Writebol soon recovered . )
Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year away from announcing his run for the Presidency , weighed in on Twitter : “ Stop the EBOLA patients from entering the U.S. .
.
.
THE UNITED STATES HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS !
” He tweeted about the epidemic dozens of times during the next months , and called for a ban on travel from West Africa ( “ STOP THE FLIGHTS !
” ) .
The White House ’ s Office of Digital Strategy later concluded that one of Trump ’ s tweets , to the two and a half million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a “ crystallizing moment ” in the Ebola crisis , as Amy Pope , Obama ’ s deputy homeland-security adviser , put it , and that Trump had “ created a level of anxiety in the country.
” He was just getting started , as we now know too well .
Last Wednesday , the President sought to reassure the nation in a prime-time address from the Oval Office , as the COVID-19 outbreak was poised to morph from seriously worrying into the stuff of a bad Hollywood pitch : Italy a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in free fall , March Madness called off , Disneyland shuttered .
The hope that Trump might someday grow into the dignity and gravity of his office was never realistic , but in this speech he put his narcissism and his reflexive nativism on exceptionally discordant display .
“ The virus will not have a chance against us , ” he said , promising that he had put in place “ the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history ” —as if diseases had nationalities .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are expanding rapidly , ” only to be contradicted the next day by Anthony Fauci , the respected director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , who told a House hearing , “ The system is really not geared to what we need right now .
.
.
.
It is a failing .
Let ’ s admit it.
” ( Last week , South Korea , with less than a sixth of the population of the United States , administered at least ten thousand novel-coronavirus tests a day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , only some thirteen thousand tests had been administered since January . )
On Wednesday , Trump advised the “ vast majority ” of Americans that the risk they faced was “ very , very low.
” Fauci had already testified , however , that “ it ’ s going to get worse , ” and that , if the response proved to be inadequate , “ many , many millions ” could be affected .
Trump won the Presidency while pledging to wall America off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has reinforced his deep-seated belief in this impossibility .
Quarantines and travel restrictions are a necessary part of a science-led approach to containing such outbreaks , because they can delay the spread of a dangerous virus , protecting hospitals from crippling surges of patients and buying time for researchers to develop treatments and vaccines .
Trump often praises himself for his decision , announced on January 31st , to limit travel from China , a policy that public-health officials had recommended .
Yet travel limitations are only a part of what is necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by governments is at least as important .
Last week , Trump blamed the European Union for allowing the virus to spread on the Continent , and , as he announced a thirty-day ban on travel to the U.S. from European countries ( the United Kingdom and Ireland , among a few other countries , were excepted—a decision with no grounding in science ) , implied that he was defending the nation from the epidemiological equivalent of a European invasion .
He reportedly did not consult the E.U .
before announcing his restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to ease European leaders ’ exasperation with him .
On this , as on so much else in his foreign policy , Trump ’ s needless provocations have undermined U.S. security ; it is absurd to suggest that the United States can contain this pandemic behind its own borders without extensive help from allies in Europe , Asia , and Latin America .
On Thursday , Joe Biden gave a speech on the crisis that sounded like the start of his presumptive general-election campaign to unseat the President .
“ This virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current Administration , ” he said .
“ Public fears are being compounded by pervasive lack of trust in this President.
” Biden ’ s victory over Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday was one of the great Houdini acts of American politics , the result of his strong support among African-Americans as well as , evidently , the desperate desire of many Democrats to be rid of Trump by whatever means may be the most plausible .
But , in the life cycle of a Presidential campaign , November is a very long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the present crisis in the election is no easier to predict than the trajectory of the pandemic itself .
The promise of Biden ’ s normalcy—his respect for science , knowledge of world affairs , capacity for gentleness and empathy , boring social-media feeds—will surely be enough for many voters , come what may .
Yet it is unusual to win the White House simply by not being the man who currently occupies it .
In 2014 , as a Twitter provocateur and fearmonger during the Ebola epidemic , Trump auditioned a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to extraordinary effect .
He presides over a social-media and talk-radio ecosystem that inspires intense devotion among his following , even as it spreads misinformation that will inevitably complicate the efforts of those who seek to navigate the pandemic by searching out reliable facts .
On Friday , at a White House press conference , he declared a national emergency— “ Two very big words ” —a move that , he said , would free up fifty billion dollars to fight the outbreak in this country .
He added , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for the slow testing rate .
The President is steering the country through a challenge of yet unknown magnitude , one in which honesty and accountability will be at a premium .
We know that he will not change .
One way to survive the pandemic may be to tune him out .
♦

Illustration by João Fazenda
In late July, 2014, near Monrovia, Liberia, two Americans, Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, contracted Ebola. They had been working in a missionary hospital, trying to ameliorate an outbreak then racing across West Africa. The Obama Administration dispatched an air ambulance to carry them home, swathed in white protective gear, for treatment at Emory University Hospital, in Atlanta, and this touched off a media spectacle. The chyron story line was: Ebola comes to America. (Brantly and Writebol soon recovered.) Donald Trump, who was then less than a year away from announcing his run for the Presidency, weighed in on Twitter: “Stop the EBOLA patients from entering the U.S. . . . THE UNITED STATES HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS!” He tweeted about the epidemic dozens of times during the next months, and called for a ban on travel from West Africa (“STOP THE FLIGHTS!”). The White House’s Office of Digital Strategy later concluded that one of Trump’s tweets, to the two and a half million followers he had at the time, was a “crystallizing moment” in the Ebola crisis, as Amy Pope, Obama’s deputy homeland-security adviser, put it, and that Trump had “created a level of anxiety in the country.”
He was just getting started, as we now know too well. Last Wednesday, the President sought to reassure the nation in a prime-time address from the Oval Office, as the COVID-19 outbreak was poised to morph from seriously worrying into the stuff of a bad Hollywood pitch: Italy a sixty-million-strong detention camp, the stock market in free fall, March Madness called off, Disneyland shuttered. The hope that Trump might someday grow into the dignity and gravity of his office was never realistic, but in this speech he put his narcissism and his reflexive nativism on exceptionally discordant display. “The virus will not have a chance against us,” he said, promising that he had put in place “the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history”—as if diseases had nationalities. He declared that “testing and testing capabilities are expanding rapidly,” only to be contradicted the next day by Anthony Fauci, the respected director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who told a House hearing, “The system is really not geared to what we need right now. . . . It is a failing. Let’s admit it.” (Last week, South Korea, with less than a sixth of the population of the United States, administered at least ten thousand novel-coronavirus tests a day, while in this country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only some thirteen thousand tests had been administered since January.) On Wednesday, Trump advised the “vast majority” of Americans that the risk they faced was “very, very low.” Fauci had already testified, however, that “it’s going to get worse,” and that, if the response proved to be inadequate, “many, many millions” could be affected.
Trump won the Presidency while pledging to wall America off from the world; the COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced his deep-seated belief in this impossibility. Quarantines and travel restrictions are a necessary part of a science-led approach to containing such outbreaks, because they can delay the spread of a dangerous virus, protecting hospitals from crippling surges of patients and buying time for researchers to develop treatments and vaccines. Trump often praises himself for his decision, announced on January 31st, to limit travel from China, a policy that public-health officials had recommended.
Yet travel limitations are only a part of what is necessary to manage a pandemic; coördinated action by governments is at least as important. Last week, Trump blamed the European Union for allowing the virus to spread on the Continent, and, as he announced a thirty-day ban on travel to the U.S. from European countries (the United Kingdom and Ireland, among a few other countries, were excepted—a decision with no grounding in science), implied that he was defending the nation from the epidemiological equivalent of a European invasion. He reportedly did not consult the E.U. before announcing his restrictions, a churlish decision that will do nothing to ease European leaders’ exasperation with him. On this, as on so much else in his foreign policy, Trump’s needless provocations have undermined U.S. security; it is absurd to suggest that the United States can contain this pandemic behind its own borders without extensive help from allies in Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
On Thursday, Joe Biden gave a speech on the crisis that sounded like the start of his presumptive general-election campaign to unseat the President. “This virus laid bare the severe shortcomings of the current Administration,” he said. “Public fears are being compounded by pervasive lack of trust in this President.” Biden’s victory over Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday was one of the great Houdini acts of American politics, the result of his strong support among African-Americans as well as, evidently, the desperate desire of many Democrats to be rid of Trump by whatever means may be the most plausible. But, in the life cycle of a Presidential campaign, November is a very long way off, and the role of the present crisis in the election is no easier to predict than the trajectory of the pandemic itself. The promise of Biden’s normalcy—his respect for science, knowledge of world affairs, capacity for gentleness and empathy, boring social-media feeds—will surely be enough for many voters, come what may. Yet it is unusual to win the White House simply by not being the man who currently occupies it.
In 2014, as a Twitter provocateur and fearmonger during the Ebola epidemic, Trump auditioned a political voice that he now exercises in full, to extraordinary effect. He presides over a social-media and talk-radio ecosystem that inspires intense devotion among his following, even as it spreads misinformation that will inevitably complicate the efforts of those who seek to navigate the pandemic by searching out reliable facts. On Friday, at a White House press conference, he declared a national emergency—“Two very big words”—a move that, he said, would free up fifty billion dollars to fight the outbreak in this country. He added, “I don’t take responsibility at all” for the slow testing rate. The President is steering the country through a challenge of yet unknown magnitude, one in which honesty and accountability will be at a premium. We know that he will not change. One way to survive the pandemic may be to tune him out. ♦


newyorker--2020-03-15--Trump, Truth, and the Mishandling of the Coronavirus Crisis

The best of modern Presidents , Franklin Delano Roosevelt , believed in the responsibilities of government and the realities of fact .
Despite his place in America ’ s patrician caste , he suffered the consequences of an earlier epidemic , and he derived from it a code of empathy and endurance .
In August , 1921 , when Roosevelt was thirty-nine , he came down with polio while at his summer retreat on Campobello Island .
From then on , he was unable to walk and could stand only with the aid of steel-and-leather braces that reached from his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sense of mission , however , would not be denied .
At the 1924 Democratic Convention , Roosevelt—sweating profusely , swaying slightly at the rostrum—spoke for thirty-four minutes and set off an hour-long demonstration of cheering and the choruses of “ The Sidewalks of New York.
” Four years later , Roosevelt became the governor of New York , and , in 1932 , he was elected to the first of four terms as President .
The quotation that defined his temperament was revealed in his first Inaugural Address , which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common difficulties ” of a Great Depression and the dawning of Fascism in Europe .
“ In every dark hour of our national life , ” he said , “ a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.
” In asking Congress for the authority to “ wage a war against the emergency , ” Roosevelt fearlessly answered what his biographer Jean Edward Smith called “ the spiritual need of the people , the need for hope , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commenced what he had promised , a radical campaign to rescue the economic well-being of the American people .
The crisis that has now enveloped the nation is a vastly different one—a pandemic called COVID-19 .
The Presidency that faces it is also a vastly different one .
Donald Trump ’ s ascent has been framed by two of his most characteristic remarks : “ I alone can fix it ” and “ I don ’ t take responsibility at all , ” and the journey from one to the other has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump ’ s response has been to minimize it , downplaying the realities of the new coronavirus while bragging about what an “ amazing ” job he ’ s been doing .
He squandered the most valuable resource in a pandemic : time .
When the virus was first identified , in January , Tom Bossert was one of several prominent voices in the realm of emergency preparedness to sound a warning .
“ We face a global health threat , ” he said on Twitter .
The problem was that Bossert—a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep experience in emergency management—was a former Administration figure , having been pushed out last year .
Scott Gottlieb , who called for immediate preventive measures , including the closure of public venues to slow the spread of the virus , was another such voice , but he was the former head of the Food and Drug Administration under Trump .
“ What the American people need to brace themselves for is a large rate of sickness and death in this country , ” Bossert told me .
Actions to reduce the spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those actions , will have profound consequences .
Bossert recalled the decision by Philadelphia authorities during the Spanish-flu epidemic of 1918 to allow a Liberty Loan parade to raise money for the war effort .
On a late September day , two hundred thousand people marched up Broad Street and , at parade ’ s end , listened to a concert by John Philip Sousa .
Within three days , the cities ’ hospitals were overflowing ; thousands were dead .
“ Bodies stacked like cordwood ” became the phrase of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast , officials took quick , extreme measures to close schools , churches , theatres , and playgrounds––the measures that we refer to in our new language of pandemic as “ social distancing.
” In the end , the per-capita death rate from influenza in St. Louis was half that of Philadelphia .
It is a saddening experience to read Beth Cameron ’ s recent account , in the Washington Post , of what happened to the office she led during the Obama Administration : the National Security Council Directorate for Global Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump Administration closed it .
Cameron writes that she was “ mystified ” by the decision , one that left the United States less prepared for pandemics such as the current one .
When Yamiche Alcindor , a reporter for “ PBS NewsHour , ” asked the President at a Rose Garden press conference last week why he shut down the office , Trump ’ s response was evasive and petulant : “ I think it ’ s a nasty question.
” Testifying before Congress , Anthony Fauci , the director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diseases at the National Institutes of Health , allowed , “ It would be nice if the office was still there.
” You had to wonder why Trump didn ’ t replace Fauci with Elizabeth Holmes .
Bossert , who has been pressing for a far greater sense of urgency since January , said he did not want to spend too much time criticizing anyone for actions taken or not taken in the early stages of the crisis .
“ While there are myriad questions that are legitimate about the Administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nevertheless did us a favor this week by yelling ‘ fire ’ while there is still time to do something about that fire , ” he said .
“ That is critical .
While the fire is still on the stove , you can ’ t sit back and watch it burn .
It will spread.
” The Trump Administration has been more interested in setting fires than in investing in fire prevention or containment : it has been eager to dismantle the “ administrative state , ” to upend a raft of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement and the nuclear pact with Iran ) , and to reduce spending for science , health , the environment , and emergency preparedness .
Expertise has offended Trump .
He has found his enemies not among foreign dictators but among members of the American “ deep state , ” including career diplomats and intelligence analysts , as well as university teachers , journalists , congressional Democrats , and “ disloyal ” Republicans––dissenters of all kinds .
His circle of loyalists is so lacking in policy expertise that the writing of his speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week was left mainly to his nativist immigration counsellor Stephen Miller and Trump ’ s son-in-law , Jared Kushner .
The Administration ’ s stumbling response to the pandemic was , alas , no surprise .
Trump ’ s response to Hurricane Maria , which devastated Puerto Rico , in September , 2017 , and left three thousand people dead , was at least as shambolic .
Now , as he tries to craft a response to COVID-19 , he remains , at best , distracted by ego .
Just hours before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he went on Twitter to complain about “ another phony & boring hit piece ” in Vanity Fair .
In a rational universe , Trump would have no chance at reëlection .
But , even if the Democratic Party front-runner , Joe Biden , despite all his flaws , runs a coherent , competent , and dignified race , there are no guarantees .
Is it a stretch to wonder whether Donald Trump has given thought to postponing or otherwise derailing the November election ?
Just days ago , Vladimir Putin had his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow him to remain in office , if he wishes , until 2036 .
Trump did not protest , and no one expected that he would .

The best of modern Presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, believed in the responsibilities of government and the realities of fact. Despite his place in America’s patrician caste, he suffered the consequences of an earlier epidemic, and he derived from it a code of empathy and endurance. In August, 1921, when Roosevelt was thirty-nine, he came down with polio while at his summer retreat on Campobello Island. From then on, he was unable to walk and could stand only with the aid of steel-and-leather braces that reached from his ankles to his hips. His ambition and sense of mission, however, would not be denied. At the 1924 Democratic Convention, Roosevelt—sweating profusely, swaying slightly at the rostrum—spoke for thirty-four minutes and set off an hour-long demonstration of cheering and the choruses of “The Sidewalks of New York.”
Four years later, Roosevelt became the governor of New York, and, in 1932, he was elected to the first of four terms as President. The quotation that defined his temperament was revealed in his first Inaugural Address, which he delivered as the nation faced the “common difficulties” of a Great Depression and the dawning of Fascism in Europe.
“In every dark hour of our national life,” he said, “a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.” In asking Congress for the authority to “wage a war against the emergency,” Roosevelt fearlessly answered what his biographer Jean Edward Smith called “the spiritual need of the people, the need for hope, not despair.” The next morning, he commenced what he had promised, a radical campaign to rescue the economic well-being of the American people.
The crisis that has now enveloped the nation is a vastly different one—a pandemic called COVID-19. The Presidency that faces it is also a vastly different one. Donald Trump’s ascent has been framed by two of his most characteristic remarks: “I alone can fix it” and “I don’t take responsibility at all,” and the journey from one to the other has been long and excruciating.
Confronted by crisis, Trump’s response has been to minimize it, downplaying the realities of the new coronavirus while bragging about what an “amazing” job he’s been doing. He squandered the most valuable resource in a pandemic: time.
When the virus was first identified, in January, Tom Bossert was one of several prominent voices in the realm of emergency preparedness to sound a warning. “We face a global health threat,” he said on Twitter. The problem was that Bossert—a Homeland Security adviser and an official with deep experience in emergency management—was a former Administration figure, having been pushed out last year. Scott Gottlieb, who called for immediate preventive measures, including the closure of public venues to slow the spread of the virus, was another such voice, but he was the former head of the Food and Drug Administration under Trump.
“What the American people need to brace themselves for is a large rate of sickness and death in this country,” Bossert told me. Actions to reduce the spread of the virus, and the timing of those actions, will have profound consequences. Bossert recalled the decision by Philadelphia authorities during the Spanish-flu epidemic of 1918 to allow a Liberty Loan parade to raise money for the war effort. On a late September day, two hundred thousand people marched up Broad Street and, at parade’s end, listened to a concert by John Philip Sousa. Within three days, the cities’ hospitals were overflowing; thousands were dead. “Bodies stacked like cordwood” became the phrase of the day. In St. Louis, by contrast, officials took quick, extreme measures to close schools, churches, theatres, and playgrounds––the measures that we refer to in our new language of pandemic as “social distancing.” In the end, the per-capita death rate from influenza in St. Louis was half that of Philadelphia.
It is a saddening experience to read Beth Cameron’s recent account, in the Washington Post, of what happened to the office she led during the Obama Administration: the National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense. In 2018, the Trump Administration closed it. Cameron writes that she was “mystified” by the decision, one that left the United States less prepared for pandemics such as the current one.
When Yamiche Alcindor, a reporter for “PBS NewsHour,” asked the President at a Rose Garden press conference last week why he shut down the office, Trump’s response was evasive and petulant: “I think it’s a nasty question.” Testifying before Congress, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, allowed, “It would be nice if the office was still there.” You had to wonder why Trump didn’t replace Fauci with Elizabeth Holmes.
Bossert, who has been pressing for a far greater sense of urgency since January, said he did not want to spend too much time criticizing anyone for actions taken or not taken in the early stages of the crisis. “While there are myriad questions that are legitimate about the Administration’s timeliness and decision-making processes, the President nevertheless did us a favor this week by yelling ‘fire’ while there is still time to do something about that fire,” he said. “That is critical. While the fire is still on the stove, you can’t sit back and watch it burn. It will spread.”
The Trump Administration has been more interested in setting fires than in investing in fire prevention or containment: it has been eager to dismantle the “administrative state,” to upend a raft of international agreements (notably the Paris climate agreement and the nuclear pact with Iran), and to reduce spending for science, health, the environment, and emergency preparedness. Expertise has offended Trump. He has found his enemies not among foreign dictators but among members of the American “deep state,” including career diplomats and intelligence analysts, as well as university teachers, journalists, congressional Democrats, and “disloyal” Republicans––dissenters of all kinds. His circle of loyalists is so lacking in policy expertise that the writing of his speech on the coronavirus from the Oval Office last week was left mainly to his nativist immigration counsellor Stephen Miller and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
The Administration’s stumbling response to the pandemic was, alas, no surprise. Trump’s response to Hurricane Maria, which devastated Puerto Rico, in September, 2017, and left three thousand people dead, was at least as shambolic. Now, as he tries to craft a response to COVID-19, he remains, at best, distracted by ego. Just hours before the Oval Office speech on Wednesday, he went on Twitter to complain about “another phony & boring hit piece” in Vanity Fair.
In a rational universe, Trump would have no chance at reëlection. But, even if the Democratic Party front-runner, Joe Biden, despite all his flaws, runs a coherent, competent, and dignified race, there are no guarantees. Is it a stretch to wonder whether Donald Trump has given thought to postponing or otherwise derailing the November election? Just days ago, Vladimir Putin had his loyalist legislature amend the Russian constitution to allow him to remain in office, if he wishes, until 2036. Trump did not protest, and no one expected that he would.
Pretexts for postponing the election are not hard to conjure. There’s no shortage of public-health officials warning of the possibility of alarming medical and social conditions ahead, especially if a second surge of COVID-19 arrives in the fall: overrun hospitals, soaring rates of infection and illness, a stalled economy. Thankfully, Trump would face significant, probably insurmountable, obstacles in trying to alter the date of the election. Federal law demands that the ballot take place “on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.” The Constitution requires that a new Congress gather on January 3rd and a new President be sworn in on January 20th. Legal scholars agree that, even if Trump appealed for emergency powers, he would not have the authority to put off the election.


newyorker--2020-03-15--The Hard Fight for a Coronavirus Spending Bill in the House

Inside the Capitol on Thursday morning , as the House of Representatives negotiated an emergency bill to help temper the economic fallout of the novel coronavirus outbreak , a congressional staffer lurking in a dim corridor whispered into his cell phone , “ This place is going to turn into a ghost town , like , tomorrow.
” Not far away , three staffers greeted a hesitant Defense Department official with a handshake each , insisting that they were from a “ pretty old-fashioned office.
” On the second floor , caterers wheeled metal carts of salads and roast beef @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the Irish Prime Minister , who ’ d gathered for their annual St. Patrick ’ s lunch .
“ There ’ s still a zillion fucking tourists here , ” a reporter outside of Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s office remarked , taking a photo and posting it to Twitter .
A day earlier , Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , had testified in a committee that the spread of coronavirus was certain to get worse , but the extent would depend on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst-case scenario had already arrived , and then hope that it never did .
I asked a congressman whether he was concerned that none of Fauci ’ s public-health recommendations—most importantly , maintaining distance from others—had been put into place , even within the Capitol itself .
“ Off the record , ” he said , “ I thought the decision was made not to have tours.
” By Friday morning , the Capitol had finally emptied as House staff , who ’ d worked through the night , negotiated the language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier , Congress had allotted $ 8.3 billion in spending on public-health measures related to the disease itself—scaling up the production of tests , and funding research and preparedness efforts .
But the economic consequences have the potential to be just as devastating , with millions of people unable to get tested because they couldn ’ t afford it , and not staying home from work if they have symptoms , also because they couldn ’ t afford it .
.
Millions of children who are fed by national school-breakfast and -lunch programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meals , as schools closed , because their families couldn ’ t afford it .
At an Oversight Committee hearing , Katie Porter , a Democrat who represents Orange County , California , had illustrated the prohibitive costs associated with only the first phase of addressing the outbreak .
She held up a whiteboard and laid out , line by line , the expense of getting a COVID-19 test , which totalled more than thirteen hundred dollars .
She then explained to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a law existed allowing him to decree that every American who needed testing could get it for free .
Redfield , after some pressuring from Porter , reluctantly promised to employ the law as needed .
“ The fact that it had to come to this rather dramatic confrontation in the hearing is really a loss of time , of potential lives , ” Porter told me when I met her in her office afterward .
“ It causes people not to believe in government when we have good laws , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a tiny handful of Trump appointees who just aren ’ t delivering on what the law and the people could do.
” Porter noted that the same law would also allow the C.D.C .
to eventually authorize full payment for treatments—including isolation or quarantine , which can become very costly .
Testing , in other words , was only the beginning .
In her exchange with Redfield , the C.D.C .
director , had initially responded to her demand for a commitment by saying that the C.D.C .
was working with Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could “ operationalize that , ” noting that their “ intent ” was for all Americans to get the care that they needed .
“ I do think this is part of a larger pattern from the Administration , particularly top-level officials where we have seen some distressing patterns , of a lack of familiarity with their subject matter , an unwillingness or inability to decide things , and just sort of lead , ” she said .
“ This isn ’ t a time to ‘ intend to consider opportunities to operationalize.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Representative Donna Shalala , of Florida , who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services under Bill Clinton , has for years been advocating for what she called “ redundant ” public-health resources for local and state departments .
“ We have to invest in our public-health infrastructure , ” Shalala told me when I caught her coming off a TV interview outside the House .
“ Every time I use that phrase , people ’ s eyes glaze over.
” During the previous days ’ debates on the measures laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased funding for unemployment benefits , and free testing—she said , Republican members of Congress had complained that there wasn ’ t enough time to fully consider such efforts .
“ Shoot , we had hearings in 1933 on unemployment insurance , ” Shalala said .
“ If you go back , with each of these programs , we have a history in this Congress.
” Two weeks of paid sick leave , for example , which most wealthy countries already have , was a measure that had been sitting on the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sticking point in the intervening fifteen years was the lack of will to pass it .
Democrats had put together a bill that provided federal funding , through tax credits , to employers for two weeks of emergency sick leave paid at two-thirds of an employee ’ s normal salary ( though there was a provision that required a “ public official ” to determine that the employee was ill with the virus ) .
The legislation also provided funding to insurers to waive any cost sharing associated with testing for the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for children , the elderly , low-income pregnant women , and local food banks , as well as to states in case of increased unemployment-insurance payouts .
Republicans had , predictably , taken issue with many of these measures .
“ A lot of it toward the end was ideological stuff , ” a senior Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations told me .
“ They were trying to do things to undermine the mandate for leave .
Because they don ’ t believe in paid leave.
” By Friday morning , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker ’ s chambers , everyone wanted to know whether the hold up was with the White House or the House Republicans .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s House Republicans , ” a Democratic congresswoman said .
Pelosi has , in the past year , taken to negotiating bills with the Treasury Secretary , Steven Mnuchin .
“ You know , because who else are you going to talk to ?
” the senior Democratic aide said .
Mnuchin was the only one in the Administration , he observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of facts .
Trump had continued to tweet all week about the need for a payroll tax cut , though Mnuchin had already let it drop in the face of Democratic opposition .
As Friday morning stretched on with no vote in sight , Pelosi had twenty phone calls with Mnuchin , mostly , she claimed , negotiating the technicalities of language .
When asked if she had spoken with Trump at all during the week , Pelosi said , “ No .
There was no need for that.
” By noon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment from the President that he would tweet his support for the bill , which came shortly before 9 P.M. , a signal that House Republicans were permitted to support it .
Just before 1 A.M. on Saturday morning , the bill passed , with three hundred and sixty-three votes in favor , and forty Republican votes against , a decidedly bipartisan victory considering the circumstances .
The Senate is expected to pass a similar version on Monday .
I ’ d asked Shalala what her greatest concern was going forward .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she said .
“ I worry about him stepping all over the message because he ’ s so concerned about reassuring people.
” Shalala represents Miami , a port district filled with cruise ships , restaurant workers , taxi drivers , and people who cater to tourists on the beach , many of whom would be devastated if the economy ground to a halt .
“ This is a mental-health bill , ” Shalala told me .
“ This is a bill to reassure the American people that we have their backs.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available .
We are all irrational panic shoppers .
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome .

Inside the Capitol on Thursday morning, as the House of Representatives negotiated an emergency bill to help temper the economic fallout of the novel coronavirus outbreak, a congressional staffer lurking in a dim corridor whispered into his cell phone, “This place is going to turn into a ghost town, like, tomorrow.” Not far away, three staffers greeted a hesitant Defense Department official with a handshake each, insisting that they were from a “pretty old-fashioned office.” On the second floor, caterers wheeled metal carts of salads and roast beef among dozens of Friends of Ireland, including the Irish Prime Minister, who’d gathered for their annual St. Patrick’s lunch. “There’s still a zillion fucking tourists here,” a reporter outside of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office remarked, taking a photo and posting it to Twitter. A day earlier, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had testified in a committee that the spread of coronavirus was certain to get worse, but the extent would depend on how quickly we began behaving as though the worst-case scenario had already arrived, and then hope that it never did. I asked a congressman whether he was concerned that none of Fauci’s public-health recommendations—most importantly, maintaining distance from others—had been put into place, even within the Capitol itself. “Off the record,” he said, “I thought the decision was made not to have tours.”
By Friday morning, the Capitol had finally emptied as House staff, who’d worked through the night, negotiated the language in the emergency package. A week earlier, Congress had allotted $8.3 billion in spending on public-health measures related to the disease itself—scaling up the production of tests, and funding research and preparedness efforts. But the economic consequences have the potential to be just as devastating, with millions of people unable to get tested because they couldn’t afford it, and not staying home from work if they have symptoms, also because they couldn’t afford it. . Millions of children who are fed by national school-breakfast and -lunch programs might not be able to eat regular meals, as schools closed, because their families couldn’t afford it.
At an Oversight Committee hearing, Katie Porter, a Democrat who represents Orange County, California, had illustrated the prohibitive costs associated with only the first phase of addressing the outbreak. She held up a whiteboard and laid out, line by line, the expense of getting a COVID-19 test, which totalled more than thirteen hundred dollars. She then explained to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Robert Redfield, who was testifying, that a law existed allowing him to decree that every American who needed testing could get it for free. Redfield, after some pressuring from Porter, reluctantly promised to employ the law as needed. “The fact that it had to come to this rather dramatic confrontation in the hearing is really a loss of time, of potential lives,” Porter told me when I met her in her office afterward. “It causes people not to believe in government when we have good laws, we have good people, and then there are a tiny handful of Trump appointees who just aren’t delivering on what the law and the people could do.”
Porter noted that the same law would also allow the C.D.C. to eventually authorize full payment for treatments—including isolation or quarantine, which can become very costly. Testing, in other words, was only the beginning. In her exchange with Redfield, the C.D.C. director, had initially responded to her demand for a commitment by saying that the C.D.C. was working with Health and Human Services to see how they could “operationalize that,” noting that their “intent” was for all Americans to get the care that they needed. “I do think this is part of a larger pattern from the Administration, particularly top-level officials where we have seen some distressing patterns, of a lack of familiarity with their subject matter, an unwillingness or inability to decide things, and just sort of lead,” she said. “This isn’t a time to ‘intend to consider opportunities to operationalize.’ What does that even mean?”
Representative Donna Shalala, of Florida, who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services under Bill Clinton, has for years been advocating for what she called “redundant” public-health resources for local and state departments. “We have to invest in our public-health infrastructure,” Shalala told me when I caught her coming off a TV interview outside the House. “Every time I use that phrase, people’s eyes glaze over.” During the previous days’ debates on the measures laid out in the bill—paid sick leave, increased funding for unemployment benefits, and free testing—she said, Republican members of Congress had complained that there wasn’t enough time to fully consider such efforts. “Shoot, we had hearings in 1933 on unemployment insurance,” Shalala said. “If you go back, with each of these programs, we have a history in this Congress.” Two weeks of paid sick leave, for example, which most wealthy countries already have, was a measure that had been sitting on the House floor since at least 2004. The sticking point in the intervening fifteen years was the lack of will to pass it.
Democrats had put together a bill that provided federal funding, through tax credits, to employers for two weeks of emergency sick leave paid at two-thirds of an employee’s normal salary (though there was a provision that required a “public official” to determine that the employee was ill with the virus). The legislation also provided funding to insurers to waive any cost sharing associated with testing for the virus, and guaranteed money for nutrition-assistance programs for children, the elderly, low-income pregnant women, and local food banks, as well as to states in case of increased unemployment-insurance payouts. Republicans had, predictably, taken issue with many of these measures. “A lot of it toward the end was ideological stuff,” a senior Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations told me. “They were trying to do things to undermine the mandate for leave. Because they don’t believe in paid leave.” By Friday morning, as representatives began to trickle out of the Speaker’s chambers, everyone wanted to know whether the hold up was with the White House or the House Republicans. “I don’t think it’s House Republicans,” a Democratic congresswoman said.
Pelosi has, in the past year, taken to negotiating bills with the Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin. “You know, because who else are you going to talk to?” the senior Democratic aide said. Mnuchin was the only one in the Administration, he observed, able to stipulate to the same set of facts. Trump had continued to tweet all week about the need for a payroll tax cut, though Mnuchin had already let it drop in the face of Democratic opposition. As Friday morning stretched on with no vote in sight, Pelosi had twenty phone calls with Mnuchin, mostly, she claimed, negotiating the technicalities of language. When asked if she had spoken with Trump at all during the week, Pelosi said, “No. There was no need for that.”
By noon on Friday, Pelosi had secured a commitment from the President that he would tweet his support for the bill, which came shortly before 9 P.M., a signal that House Republicans were permitted to support it. Just before 1 A.M. on Saturday morning, the bill passed, with three hundred and sixty-three votes in favor, and forty Republican votes against, a decidedly bipartisan victory considering the circumstances. The Senate is expected to pass a similar version on Monday. I’d asked Shalala what her greatest concern was going forward. “The President of the United States,” she said. “I worry about him stepping all over the message because he’s so concerned about reassuring people.” Shalala represents Miami, a port district filled with cruise ships, restaurant workers, taxi drivers, and people who cater to tourists on the beach, many of whom would be devastated if the economy ground to a halt. “This is a mental-health bill,” Shalala told me. “This is a bill to reassure the American people that we have their backs.”
A Guide to the Coronavirus
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus.
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available.
We are all irrational panic shoppers.
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome.
How pandemics change history.