newyorker--2020-05-22--Immunity Passports and the Perils of Conferring Coronavirus Status

In January , a Swedish entrepreneur named Joakim Hultin co-founded Sidehide , a new digital app intended to streamline hotel reservations .
Weeks later , some of the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 were reported in Europe .
Almost instantly , Hultin told me , “ demand stopped.
” Before the pandemic , Sidehide was working with a London-based company called Onfido , which uses artificial intelligence and facial recognition to verify identities .
Hultin learned that Onfido had created a way for users to upload a serology test to a private server and use facial biometric data to unlock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He asked the company to build that capacity into his app .
In June , Sidehide will launch again , in a few Miami hotels , having added what is being called an “ immunity passport.
” Patrons who have been tested for COVID-19 antibodies and are shown to have them will have that information embedded in a QR code , to be scanned by hotel staff upon arrival .
The Miami launch is a test , a proof of concept , and , if it works , Hultin is hopeful that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Officials from Delta Air Lines and Heathrow Airport have expressed interest in immunity passports . )
The idea , Hultin said , is to let the hotel staff know “ the guest is safe.
” In April , Onfido raised a hundred million dollars in venture capital .
In a press release announcing the deal , Onfido ’ s attorneys noted that the pandemic presented the company with the opportunity “ to work on a new set of use cases , ” which range from “ virtual voting and passport/visa applications through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing to track the spread of a virus without compromising user privacy.
” Recently , Onfido submitted a proposal to members of the U.K. Parliament ’ s science and technology committee , as they consider ways to lift stay-at-home orders , including the development of immunity passports .
The M.P.s are following the lead of the Chilean government , which is issuing documents that allow anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 to go back to work and move around freely during quarantine .
( Onfido has not worked on that program . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical community—and from infectious-disease specialists around the world , who say that it ’ s too early to know if people who have had the virus are immune to reinfection or incapable of spreading the disease—the government started calling the documents “ release certificates ” rather than immunity passports .
Either way , they confer the same benefits .
Onfido ’ s C.E.O.
, Husayn Kassai , told me , “ As a society , is it acceptable for people who have had the virus and recovered to signal that or not ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not one for us to answer.
” Other companies are pitching similar products .
COVI-Pass is an immunity passport that uses VCode—a proprietary cryptographic image , similar to a QR code—that can be scanned at a distance of a hundred metres .
It will reveal if a person has tested positive for antibodies , flash green if a person has tested negative for the virus , and red if tests show that they have the virus or don ’ t have antibodies , or if their test result has expired .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s time to be retested . )
The app can “ geo-fence ” a point of entry , prohibiting visitors with a red light from entering a building or stadium or school .
“ I believe that all governments will move toward a global health passport , which will be as common as carrying a driver ’ s license or a passport , because this is not going to be the last pandemic we have , ” Adam Palmer , the C.O.O .
of COVI-Pass , said .
A recent press release from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.K. , states that the passes were in the process of being shipped “ to both the private sector and governments in over fifteen countries , ” including Italy , France , India , and the United States .
COVI-Pass would not say , specifically , which companies and governments in these countries had purchased the product .
But Louis-James Davis , the C.E.O .
of VST Enterprises and the creator of VCode , did mention that the company ’ s V-Health Passport , which also documents users ’ COVID-19 status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ venues in the U.K. this summer .
The passport will have to be scanned in order to buy a ticket online , and then again at the stadium , before approaching the gate .
The deployment of immunity passports raises a number of logistical and ethical concerns .
In the United States , testing could become a barrier to getting a pass : diagnostic testing has been limited , and serology tests , which measure COVID-19 antibodies , are still being developed .
Even if testing were universally available , people without antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of everyday life , creating a divided landscape of antibody haves and have-nots .
“ The reality is that access to society with [ this kind of ] certification will likely reflect existing systemic biases , corruption , and discrimination in the system , ” Alexandra Phelan , an assistant professor in infectious diseases and law at Georgetown University , told me .
And , if testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies becomes a prerequisite for being able to work , there may be a perverse incentive for people to put themselves in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not be like bringing your kids to chicken-pox parties , ” Phelan said .
“ Individuals who have economic pressures to get back to work may already be in socioeconomically vulnerable positions , and we know that these are the people who are disproportionately more likely to get more severely ill. ” Rob Davidson , an emergency-room physician in western Michigan and the executive director of the Committee to Protect Medicare , an advocacy group , worries that immunity passports based on tests with high rates of false positives will be especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a five-per-cent false-positive rate , and you are forced to take a test that is not very good , and you test positive , you will have a false sense of security , ” he told me .
“ The government and the employers probably know the shortcomings of the test , but a lot of the workers probably don ’ t. ” In those cases , immunity passports may increase the risk of infection to both their holders and to the community at large .
( Both COVI-Pass and Sidehide say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-regarded testing facilities . )
Privacy , too , may be at risk , even with immunity passports that do nothing more than display a user ’ s test results .
“ We are in a less-than-ideal situation with the coronavirus , ” Onfido ’ s Kassai told me .
“ This is one of the ways people can signal they are safe without divulging personal information.
” But immunity status is personal information .
If a person ’ s immunity status were linked to an insurance policy , or attached to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could cause rates to rise , or promotions to be denied .
Already , officials at the U.S. Defense Department have proposed banning anyone who has had COVID-19 from enlisting in the military .
And a recent story in the Times inventories a long list of people who have been shunned as a consequence of others knowing their disease status : “ The veterinarian who refused to treat a recovered woman ’ s dog .
The laundromat worker who jumped at seeing an elected official whose illness had been reported on the local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trim the hedges outside a recovered man ’ s home .
The neighbor who dropped off soup , and said not to bother returning the Tupperware it was in .
And the sick teenager whose solace during his long illness was the thought of fishing with friends , only to have them ghost him when he recovered .
”

In January, a Swedish entrepreneur named Joakim Hultin co-founded Sidehide, a new digital app intended to streamline hotel reservations. Weeks later, some of the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 were reported in Europe. Almost instantly, Hultin told me, “demand stopped.” Before the pandemic, Sidehide was working with a London-based company called Onfido, which uses artificial intelligence and facial recognition to verify identities. Hultin learned that Onfido had created a way for users to upload a serology test to a private server and use facial biometric data to unlock the data and display the results. He asked the company to build that capacity into his app. In June, Sidehide will launch again, in a few Miami hotels, having added what is being called an “immunity passport.” Patrons who have been tested for COVID-19 antibodies and are shown to have them will have that information embedded in a QR code, to be scanned by hotel staff upon arrival. The Miami launch is a test, a proof of concept, and, if it works, Hultin is hopeful that it will help revive the travel industry. (Officials from Delta Air Lines and Heathrow Airport have expressed interest in immunity passports.) The idea, Hultin said, is to let the hotel staff know “the guest is safe.”
In April, Onfido raised a hundred million dollars in venture capital. In a press release announcing the deal, Onfido’s attorneys noted that the pandemic presented the company with the opportunity “to work on a new set of use cases,” which range from “virtual voting and passport/visa applications through to secure ways of carrying out contact tracing to track the spread of a virus without compromising user privacy.” Recently, Onfido submitted a proposal to members of the U.K. Parliament’s science and technology committee, as they consider ways to lift stay-at-home orders, including the development of immunity passports. The M.P.s are following the lead of the Chilean government, which is issuing documents that allow anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 to go back to work and move around freely during quarantine. (Onfido has not worked on that program.) After pushback from members of the Chilean medical community—and from infectious-disease specialists around the world, who say that it’s too early to know if people who have had the virus are immune to reinfection or incapable of spreading the disease—the government started calling the documents “release certificates” rather than immunity passports. Either way, they confer the same benefits. Onfido’s C.E.O., Husayn Kassai, told me, “As a society, is it acceptable for people who have had the virus and recovered to signal that or not? It’s a good question, but not one for us to answer.”
Other companies are pitching similar products. COVI-Pass is an immunity passport that uses VCode—a proprietary cryptographic image, similar to a QR code—that can be scanned at a distance of a hundred metres. It will reveal if a person has tested positive for antibodies, flash green if a person has tested negative for the virus, and red if tests show that they have the virus or don’t have antibodies, or if their test result has expired. (A yellow light shows when it’s time to be retested.) The app can “geo-fence” a point of entry, prohibiting visitors with a red light from entering a building or stadium or school. “I believe that all governments will move toward a global health passport, which will be as common as carrying a driver’s license or a passport, because this is not going to be the last pandemic we have,” Adam Palmer, the C.O.O. of COVI-Pass, said. A recent press release from the company, which is also based in the U.K., states that the passes were in the process of being shipped “to both the private sector and governments in over fifteen countries,” including Italy, France, India, and the United States. COVI-Pass would not say, specifically, which companies and governments in these countries had purchased the product. But Louis-James Davis, the C.E.O. of VST Enterprises and the creator of VCode, did mention that the company’s V-Health Passport, which also documents users’ COVID-19 status, would be rolled out at sports venues in the U.K. this summer. The passport will have to be scanned in order to buy a ticket online, and then again at the stadium, before approaching the gate.
The deployment of immunity passports raises a number of logistical and ethical concerns. In the United States, testing could become a barrier to getting a pass: diagnostic testing has been limited, and serology tests, which measure COVID-19 antibodies, are still being developed. Even if testing were universally available, people without antibodies will be shut out from the activities of everyday life, creating a divided landscape of antibody haves and have-nots. “The reality is that access to society with [this kind of] certification will likely reflect existing systemic biases, corruption, and discrimination in the system,” Alexandra Phelan, an assistant professor in infectious diseases and law at Georgetown University, told me. And, if testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies becomes a prerequisite for being able to work, there may be a perverse incentive for people to put themselves in the path of the virus. “This would not be like bringing your kids to chicken-pox parties,” Phelan said. “Individuals who have economic pressures to get back to work may already be in socioeconomically vulnerable positions, and we know that these are the people who are disproportionately more likely to get more severely ill.”
Rob Davidson, an emergency-room physician in western Michigan and the executive director of the Committee to Protect Medicare, an advocacy group, worries that immunity passports based on tests with high rates of false positives will be especially pernicious. “If we have tests with a five-per-cent false-positive rate, and you are forced to take a test that is not very good, and you test positive, you will have a false sense of security,” he told me. “The government and the employers probably know the shortcomings of the test, but a lot of the workers probably don’t.” In those cases, immunity passports may increase the risk of infection to both their holders and to the community at large. (Both COVI-Pass and Sidehide say that they are partnering with local, well-regarded testing facilities.)
Privacy, too, may be at risk, even with immunity passports that do nothing more than display a user’s test results. “We are in a less-than-ideal situation with the coronavirus,” Onfido’s Kassai told me. “This is one of the ways people can signal they are safe without divulging personal information.” But immunity status is personal information. If a person’s immunity status were linked to an insurance policy, or attached to an employee’s human-resources file, it could cause rates to rise, or promotions to be denied. Already, officials at the U.S. Defense Department have proposed banning anyone who has had COVID-19 from enlisting in the military. And a recent story in the Times inventories a long list of people who have been shunned as a consequence of others knowing their disease status: “The veterinarian who refused to treat a recovered woman’s dog. The laundromat worker who jumped at seeing an elected official whose illness had been reported on the local news. The gardener who would not trim the hedges outside a recovered man’s home. The neighbor who dropped off soup, and said not to bother returning the Tupperware it was in. And the sick teenager whose solace during his long illness was the thought of fishing with friends, only to have them ghost him when he recovered.”
There remains another obstacle to using COVID-19 antibodies as a delimiting metric: science. The biology of this novel coronavirus is so new that no one knows whether COVID-19 antibodies actually confer immunity—and, if they do, for how long. In April, the World Health Organization issued a scientific brief that concluded that “there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘risk-free certificate.’ ” Even the most precise serological test, from the Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche, which is reported to be a hundred-per-cent accurate at detecting the coronavirus antibodies, can only determine the presence of COVID-19 antibodies—it can’t say what they mean. “We hope antibodies will be protective, but we don't know for sure yet,” Tom Frieden, who was the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the Obama Administration, told me. “It now appears likely that at least some infections will provide at least some degree of immunity. Which infections, how much immunity, and for how long are crucially important but still unanswered questions.”
Frieden added that, if these questions could be resolved—and if a vaccine were still absent—he could imagine a role for immunity passports in certain circumstances. “For example, you might want to make sure that only people who—if there is documented immunity—work in nursing homes to the greatest extent possible with non-immune residents, because that’s a population of enormous concern if immunity is confirmed,” he said. “I think it’s too soon to say that these will be useful, but it’s not too soon to begin thinking about how they might be used if antibodies are indeed protective.”


newyorker--2020-05-22--To Test a Vaccine for COVID-19, Should Volunteers Risk their Lives?

Larissa MacFarquhar talks with a would-be volunteer for a human-challenge trial , in which—hypothetically—subjects are infected with SARS-CoV-2 to test a potential vaccine .
MacFarquhar then interviews two scientists about how much risk is too much .
Jelani Cobb talks with a legal scholar about the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery , which the scholar describes as a fatal confusion of citizen ’ s arrest , stand-your-ground laws , and racial profiling .
Plus , a short story by Peter Cameron about a teen-age boy spending a long , boring Memorial Day trapped with two people he can not deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stepfather .
To Test a Vaccine for COVID-19 , Should Volunteers Risk their Lives ?
Larissa MacFarquhar talks with a would-be participant in a human-challenge trial , in which trial subjects are–hypothetically—infected with SARS-CoV2 to test a potential vaccine .
When Is a Killing Not a Crime ?
In the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery , a legal scholar sees a fatal confusion of citizen ’ s arrest , stand-your-ground law , and racial profiling .
When her students were sent home from school owing to the coronavirus outbreak , an English teacher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Plague.
” In Peter Cameron ’ s short story , an angst-ridden teen wages a campaign of silence against the stepfather he can ’ t abide .

Illustration by Golden Cosmos
Larissa MacFarquhar talks with a would-be volunteer for a human-challenge trial, in which—hypothetically—subjects are infected with SARS-CoV-2 to test a potential vaccine. MacFarquhar then interviews two scientists about how much risk is too much. Jelani Cobb talks with a legal scholar about the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery, which the scholar describes as a fatal confusion of citizen’s arrest, stand-your-ground laws, and racial profiling. Plus, a short story by Peter Cameron about a teen-age boy spending a long, boring Memorial Day trapped with two people he cannot deal with: his mother and his new stepfather.
To Test a Vaccine for COVID-19, Should Volunteers Risk their Lives?
Larissa MacFarquhar talks with a would-be participant in a human-challenge trial, in which trial subjects are–hypothetically—infected with SARS-CoV2 to test a potential vaccine.
When Is a Killing Not a Crime?
In the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery, a legal scholar sees a fatal confusion of citizen’s arrest, stand-your-ground law, and racial profiling.
Reading “The Plague” During a Plague
When her students were sent home from school owing to the coronavirus outbreak, an English teacher assigned them Albert Camus’s novel “The Plague.”
A Memorial Day by the Pool
In Peter Cameron’s short story, an angst-ridden teen wages a campaign of silence against the stepfather he can’t abide.


newyorker--2020-05-22--The “Glaring Holes” in Congress’s Plan to Stabilize the Economy

The CARES Act , which was signed into law in March , was designed to ameliorate the economic devastation caused by the coronavirus pandemic .
One of the key features of CARES is a half-trillion dollar fund , overseen by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve , to loan money to businesses , states , and local governments in hopes of stabilizing the economy .
On Monday , the COVID-19 Congressional Oversight Commission , a panel supervising the disbursement of the money , released a report claiming that almost none of it has yet been spent .
The release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few stumbles in the rollout of the CARES Act—the law ’ s Paycheck Protection Program ( P.P.P . )
, especially , has garnered criticism for aiding large businesses and providing conflicting information about how small businesses should apply for loans .
In Senate testimony on Tuesday , the Fed chairman , Jay Powell , and the Treasury Secretary , Steven Mnuchin , defended their work to senators who demanded answers on why more money has not yet been spent .
I recently spoke by phone with Bharat Ramamurti , a lawyer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oversight Commission , which still does not have a chairperson , because Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell have not agreed on whom to appoint to the role .
Ramamurti is also the managing director of the Corporate Power program at the Roosevelt Institute and a former economic adviser to Elizabeth Warren .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed why our economic system is best equipped to save bigger businesses , the real reasons that so little money has reached its intended recipients , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking to help struggling workers .
How would this five-hundred-billion-dollar fund function in an ideal world ?
Congress gave the Treasury Department this five-hundred-billion-dollar fund , and really all it said was , Use this to help stabilize the economy by providing support to businesses and state and local governments that are having liquidity concerns because of the coronavirus crisis .
So that gives the Treasury and the Fed quite a bit of discretion on how to deploy that money .
But I think that there are different schools of thought on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Does it mean making sure that we minimize job losses and get workers rehired if they ’ ve already been fired ?
Does it mean stabilizing the stock market ?
Does it mean stabilizing corporate bond rates so that companies can borrow money more cheaply without the Fed ’ s support ?
The first question that we asked in the oversight-commission report is : How are the Treasury and the Fed defining success in this area ?
And I think , to date , they haven ’ t defined what success means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What would it mean to you ?
I think that , in the middle of a crisis with heading toward twenty per cent unemployment , you can ’ t stabilize the economy without bringing down the unemployment rate and keeping people in their jobs or getting them rehired .
[ The unemployment rate rose to 14.7 per cent in April .
Unemployment numbers for May have not yet been released . ]
That keeps them connected to their health insurance , allows them to participate in the economy , it gives them money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ restart ” the economy more quickly once this crisis has dissipated , because then there isn ’ t an extended period of time where people are having to be rehired .
What concerns me is that the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that , as things stand , the unemployment rate at the end of 2021 is going to be north of ten per cent .
And I think the Fed , in the comments that Chair Powell has made over the last few days , is echoing that sentiment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ long and painful recovery for working people at the moment , even if capital is recovering very quickly .
The stock market is already back to where it was in early March .
And I think that capital is going to recover much more quickly than workers will .
And that ’ s my fundamental concern about the shape of their recovery so far .
One of the things you ’ ve said about capital recovering more quickly is that bigger companies are on firmer footing because they know that the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for smaller companies , or state and local governments , they actually need the money in the bill .
Am I summarizing that fairly ?
I would say it slightly differently .
The fact that the Fed is willing to backstop certain markets allows big companies that operate in those markets to secure private financing , where they otherwise wouldn ’ t have been able to secure private financing .
So , just in the hearing this morning , Secretary Mnuchin was asked , essentially , Some people are concerned that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Can you explain to them why they ’ re wrong ?
.
And he said , Well , as an example , look at the fact that Boeing was able to secure a twenty-five-billion-dollar bond after we announced this program .
So , obviously , that ’ s not an example of a small company benefitting , but it gets to my point , which is that the tools that the Fed has are much more effective at benefitting and supporting capital markets .
And relatively few companies in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does , other big Fortune 500 companies do .
They can issue bonds that are traded , and the Fed can help those companies .
But the pizza place that ’ s around the corner that announced yesterday that it ’ s going out of business for good ?
There ’ s not very much that the Fed can do for those companies directly .
And so we ’ ve created this system where the tools that we have available to help big companies , including the Fed , are very robust , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re generous , but the tools that we have available to help smaller companies , medium-sized companies , and individuals are rickety and uneven , and it takes them a while to get up and running .
And so you have this uneven recovery , which is going to be , I think , relatively fast and painless for the wealthy , but it ’ s going to be long and painful for everybody else .
O.K.
, so then why hasn ’ t more money gone out ?
Are you concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incompetence ?
Or is it just that our system isn ’ t set up to do this as expeditiously as it should ?
I think it ’ s the latter .
It ’ s that the Fed has experience creating lending facilities that look a certain way .
And what they ’ ve done so far is set up facilities that are either identical to the things that happened in 2008 or that closely resemble facilities that were created in 2008 .
The ones that aren ’ t up and running yet are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed ’ s history .
And so I think that the Fed is taking time to try and figure out how to do them in a way that ’ s consistent with the restrictions that the Fed is operating under .
And , as a result , that ’ s taking more time .
At the moment , I don ’ t blame the Fed for that .
I do think it ’ s reasonable to ask whether it was appropriate for Congress to rely on the Fed to provide this level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and local governments , rather than choosing other approaches .
The alternative to the Fed supporting lending to medium-sized companies is Congress directly providing lending to those companies , or providing grants to those companies the way that they provide money to small businesses .
The alternative to the Fed setting up a lending facility for state and local governments is Congress giving federal funds directly to state and local governments .

The CARES Act, which was signed into law in March, was designed to ameliorate the economic devastation caused by the coronavirus pandemic. One of the key features of CARES is a half-trillion dollar fund, overseen by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, to loan money to businesses, states, and local governments in hopes of stabilizing the economy.
On Monday, the COVID-19 Congressional Oversight Commission, a panel supervising the disbursement of the money, released a report claiming that almost none of it has yet been spent. The release of this report is one of a few stumbles in the rollout of the CARES Act—the law’s Paycheck Protection Program (P.P.P.), especially, has garnered criticism for aiding large businesses and providing conflicting information about how small businesses should apply for loans. In Senate testimony on Tuesday, the Fed chairman, Jay Powell, and the Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, defended their work to senators who demanded answers on why more money has not yet been spent.
I recently spoke by phone with Bharat Ramamurti, a lawyer and political adviser serving on the COVID-19 Congressional Oversight Commission, which still does not have a chairperson, because Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell have not agreed on whom to appoint to the role. Ramamurti is also the managing director of the Corporate Power program at the Roosevelt Institute and a former economic adviser to Elizabeth Warren. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why our economic system is best equipped to save bigger businesses, the real reasons that so little money has reached its intended recipients, and the next steps that Congress should be taking to help struggling workers.
How would this five-hundred-billion-dollar fund function in an ideal world?
Congress gave the Treasury Department this five-hundred-billion-dollar fund, and really all it said was, Use this to help stabilize the economy by providing support to businesses and state and local governments that are having liquidity concerns because of the coronavirus crisis. So that gives the Treasury and the Fed quite a bit of discretion on how to deploy that money.
But I think that there are different schools of thought on this. What does stabilizing the economy mean? Does it mean making sure that we minimize job losses and get workers rehired if they’ve already been fired? Does it mean stabilizing the stock market? Does it mean stabilizing corporate bond rates so that companies can borrow money more cheaply without the Fed’s support? The first question that we asked in the oversight-commission report is: How are the Treasury and the Fed defining success in this area? And I think, to date, they haven’t defined what success means with this five-hundred-billion-dollar pot of money.
What would it mean to you?
I think that, in the middle of a crisis with heading toward twenty per cent unemployment, you can’t stabilize the economy without bringing down the unemployment rate and keeping people in their jobs or getting them rehired. [The unemployment rate rose to 14.7 per cent in April. Unemployment numbers for May have not yet been released.] That keeps them connected to their health insurance, allows them to participate in the economy, it gives them money to spend, and it allows us to “restart” the economy more quickly once this crisis has dissipated, because then there isn’t an extended period of time where people are having to be rehired.
What concerns me is that the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that, as things stand, the unemployment rate at the end of 2021 is going to be north of ten per cent. And I think the Fed, in the comments that Chair Powell has made over the last few days, is echoing that sentiment. So it’s setting up a long and painful recovery for working people at the moment, even if capital is recovering very quickly. The stock market is already back to where it was in early March. And I think that capital is going to recover much more quickly than workers will. And that’s my fundamental concern about the shape of their recovery so far.
One of the things you’ve said about capital recovering more quickly is that bigger companies are on firmer footing because they know that the federal government is willing to step in. But, for smaller companies, or state and local governments, they actually need the money in the bill. Am I summarizing that fairly?
I would say it slightly differently. The fact that the Fed is willing to backstop certain markets allows big companies that operate in those markets to secure private financing, where they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to secure private financing. So, just in the hearing this morning, Secretary Mnuchin was asked, essentially, Some people are concerned that this program is only working for big companies. Can you explain to them why they’re wrong?. And he said, Well, as an example, look at the fact that Boeing was able to secure a twenty-five-billion-dollar bond after we announced this program. So, obviously, that’s not an example of a small company benefitting, but it gets to my point, which is that the tools that the Fed has are much more effective at benefitting and supporting capital markets. And relatively few companies in the United States operate in the capital markets. Boeing does, other big Fortune 500 companies do. They can issue bonds that are traded, and the Fed can help those companies.
But the pizza place that’s around the corner that announced yesterday that it’s going out of business for good? There’s not very much that the Fed can do for those companies directly. And so we’ve created this system where the tools that we have available to help big companies, including the Fed, are very robust, and they’re swift and they’re generous, but the tools that we have available to help smaller companies, medium-sized companies, and individuals are rickety and uneven, and it takes them a while to get up and running. And so you have this uneven recovery, which is going to be, I think, relatively fast and painless for the wealthy, but it’s going to be long and painful for everybody else.
O.K., so then why hasn’t more money gone out? Are you concerned about malfeasance in some way, or incompetence? Or is it just that our system isn’t set up to do this as expeditiously as it should?
I think it’s the latter. It’s that the Fed has experience creating lending facilities that look a certain way. And what they’ve done so far is set up facilities that are either identical to the things that happened in 2008 or that closely resemble facilities that were created in 2008. The ones that aren’t up and running yet are ones that are basically unprecedented in the Fed’s history. And so I think that the Fed is taking time to try and figure out how to do them in a way that’s consistent with the restrictions that the Fed is operating under. And, as a result, that’s taking more time. At the moment, I don’t blame the Fed for that.


newyorker--2020-05-22--The Coronavirus Vaccine Is on Track to Be the Fastest Ever Developed

In early April , as COVID-19 cases and deaths in New York City were rising to horrifying numbers , Tal Zaks , the chief medical officer of Moderna , a Cambridge-based biotech company , was concerned about time .
In just three months , his company had created an experimental vaccine to inoculate against COVID-19 , and begun to inject the vaccine into humans , under the guidance of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , in a Phase I clinical trial involving forty-five healthy men and women .
This kind of speed in vaccine development was unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet , on a large scale , untested—biomedical technology behind the Moderna vaccine .
Still , if there was any chance of getting the vaccine federally licensed , and then manufactured into hundreds of millions of doses , in twelve to eighteen months—as Anthony Fauci , the director of the N.I.A.I.D.
, has said is the fastest possible timeline—Zaks knew that the company would have to be able to prove the vaccine ’ s potential , or an “ expectation of benefit , ” as he put it , by this summer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demonstrate three things : first , that the vaccine causes no significant adverse side effects in the healthy people dosed ; second , that the vaccine can prevent disease in other mammals , such as mice and monkeys ; and , third , that the vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies in trial participants ’ blood , which is tested by adding inoculated blood to a petri dish and seeing if the virus is prevented from infecting and killing cells in a tissue culture .
“ In virology , ” Zaks told me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good surrogate of your ability to eventually protect the human being from becoming sick.
” Once you have these Phase I results , “ it becomes a judgment call , ” he said .
“ When does that expectation of benefit actually become strong enough to warrant exposing more and more people to an unknown risk ?
” On May 15th , Zaks received his answer in his in-box—a hundred-and-forty-page report analyzing the initial results .
As he read , his smile got bigger .
“ It was really , really reassuring , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first shot and a booster shot—eight of the trial participants produced neutralizing antibodies at or exceeding the levels seen in the blood of people who have recovered from COVID-19 .
( Moderna is still awaiting data on the other thirty-seven participants from N.I.A.I.D .
and its academic partners , which are carrying out the dangerous experiments in Biosafety Level 3 labs . )
Across the entire group of forty-five trial participants , all of whom were between the ages of eighteen and fifty-five , the vaccine was safe and tolerated , with almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two lower-dosage groups , one person had some redness around the injection site , and , in the high-dosage group , three people experienced short-lived , mild flu-like symptoms .
In mice , the vaccine provided full protection against viral replication in the lungs , which researchers tested by giving mice the vaccine and then deliberately infecting them with the virus .
( Scientists place a small drop of virus-laced fluid over the mouse ’ s nostrils .
Similar trials on rhesus macaques are about to start . )
With these results , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their wildly ambitious plan to start Phase II trials almost immediately , in six hundred participants , with no limit on maximum age , and then , by July , to start Phase III efficacy trials , which will likely involve upward of ten thousand people .
After finishing his review of the report , Zaks jumped on a call with other Moderna executives and scientists , and also investigators at N.I.A.I.D .
“ The sense of excitement was palpable , ” he told me in a video call on Monday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ There was clapping.
” But he emphasized that there was still a long way to go .
Mice are not humans .
“ I have to say that the degree of excitement is the same as the degree , or sense , of responsibility , ” Zaks said .
“ Now we ’ ve got to get this next bit right .
It ’ s on us.
” Stéphane Bancel , the C.E.O .
of Moderna , said last week that , pending the results of the Phase III efficacy trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready for approval and licensing as soon as the fall .
In the Phase III trial , one group will get a placebo and another will get the vaccine .
Everyone is given the same precautions to avoid infection .
Then the investigators have to wait for people to stumble into the virus or get infected ; once there are significantly more cases among the placebo group , to prove that the vaccine is working , an independent review board will analyze the data and decide whether the trial is done .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get enough people infected to have significant data , ” Zaks said .
“ Designing the trial and picking the right place to run it is going to be key now.
” New York City , where there likely still will be some community circulation of the virus this summer , is one of the locations under consideration .
Zaks could not confirm yet how many cases of infection would be needed to prove that the vaccine is effective .
Often , in Phase III case-driven trials of this kind , investigators and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hundred cases of infection with clinical symptoms ( the kind that make a person go to the doctor ) in the placebo group .
Ideally , there would be zero cases of infection among the vaccinated group .
“ Fifty-to-zero would be great .
Thirty-to-zero would be good , ” Zaks said .
“ The higher the ratio , the sooner we ’ re likely to be able to show that , indeed , it is a statistically significant difference , and therefore we got it right.
” But most vaccines are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fifty-per-cent or seventy-per-cent efficacy would be helpful here , ” Barney Graham , the deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center at the N.I.A.I.D.
, who has been deeply involved with the Moderna vaccine ’ s development and clinical trials , said .
Usually , vaccine development takes a decade or longer , and the statistical chance of failure , historically , is more than ninety per cent .
But Moderna , which was founded a decade ago , has invested billions to create vaccines ( and also therapeutic drugs ) using messenger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the code—like the zeroes and ones that drive computing—that tells cells how to build new proteins ( i.e.
, how to grow life ) .
To make these vaccines , all that Moderna ’ s researchers need to know is the atomic-level genetic sequence—the messenger RNA—of the protein they want our bodies to create .
Everything else about the vaccine—the upstream supply chain ( the enzymes and nucleic acids , the lipids , the plastics ) and the downstream processes ( purification , tests for stability and integrity of the vaccine ) —is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of their other vaccines .
That ’ s why they can move so quickly .
With this coronavirus , the vaccine ’ s mRNA instructs our cells to make the now famous spike protein—the part of the virus that is particularly adept at binding to our cells—prompting our immune system to create antibodies that can disarm it .
The company has some of its own manufacturing capacity , which allowed it to make the early doses .
In April , the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) awarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accelerate development , and , on May 1st , Moderna announced that it would be collaborating with Lonza , a Swiss multinational chemical and biotech company , to manufacture up to a billion doses of the coronavirus vaccine in 2021 .

In early April, as COVID-19 cases and deaths in New York City were rising to horrifying numbers, Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer of Moderna, a Cambridge-based biotech company, was concerned about time. In just three months, his company had created an experimental vaccine to inoculate against COVID-19, and begun to inject the vaccine into humans, under the guidance of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a Phase I clinical trial involving forty-five healthy men and women. This kind of speed in vaccine development was unprecedented, and largely derived from the revolutionary—and yet, on a large scale, untested—biomedical technology behind the Moderna vaccine. Still, if there was any chance of getting the vaccine federally licensed, and then manufactured into hundreds of millions of doses, in twelve to eighteen months—as Anthony Fauci, the director of the N.I.A.I.D., has said is the fastest possible timeline—Zaks knew that the company would have to be able to prove the vaccine’s potential, or an “expectation of benefit,” as he put it, by this summer.
To accomplish this, Moderna would have to demonstrate three things: first, that the vaccine causes no significant adverse side effects in the healthy people dosed; second, that the vaccine can prevent disease in other mammals, such as mice and monkeys; and, third, that the vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies in trial participants’ blood, which is tested by adding inoculated blood to a petri dish and seeing if the virus is prevented from infecting and killing cells in a tissue culture. “In virology,” Zaks told me, “generating neutralizing antibodies is a pretty good surrogate of your ability to eventually protect the human being from becoming sick.” Once you have these Phase I results, “it becomes a judgment call,” he said. “When does that expectation of benefit actually become strong enough to warrant exposing more and more people to an unknown risk?”
On May 15th, Zaks received his answer in his in-box—a hundred-and-forty-page report analyzing the initial results. As he read, his smile got bigger. “It was really, really reassuring,” he said. After two doses—a first shot and a booster shot—eight of the trial participants produced neutralizing antibodies at or exceeding the levels seen in the blood of people who have recovered from COVID-19. (Moderna is still awaiting data on the other thirty-seven participants from N.I.A.I.D. and its academic partners, which are carrying out the dangerous experiments in Biosafety Level 3 labs.) Across the entire group of forty-five trial participants, all of whom were between the ages of eighteen and fifty-five, the vaccine was safe and tolerated, with almost no adverse side effects. Among the two lower-dosage groups, one person had some redness around the injection site, and, in the high-dosage group, three people experienced short-lived, mild flu-like symptoms. In mice, the vaccine provided full protection against viral replication in the lungs, which researchers tested by giving mice the vaccine and then deliberately infecting them with the virus. (Scientists place a small drop of virus-laced fluid over the mouse’s nostrils. Similar trials on rhesus macaques are about to start.)
With these results, Moderna and the N.I.A.I.D. could continue with their wildly ambitious plan to start Phase II trials almost immediately, in six hundred participants, with no limit on maximum age, and then, by July, to start Phase III efficacy trials, which will likely involve upward of ten thousand people. After finishing his review of the report, Zaks jumped on a call with other Moderna executives and scientists, and also investigators at N.I.A.I.D. “The sense of excitement was palpable,” he told me in a video call on Monday, still smiling, wearing a blood-red tie. “There was clapping.” But he emphasized that there was still a long way to go. Mice are not humans. “I have to say that the degree of excitement is the same as the degree, or sense, of responsibility,” Zaks said. “Now we’ve got to get this next bit right. It’s on us.”
Stéphane Bancel, the C.E.O. of Moderna, said last week that, pending the results of the Phase III efficacy trial this summer, the vaccine could be ready for approval and licensing as soon as the fall. In the Phase III trial, one group will get a placebo and another will get the vaccine. Everyone is given the same precautions to avoid infection. Then the investigators have to wait for people to stumble into the virus or get infected; once there are significantly more cases among the placebo group, to prove that the vaccine is working, an independent review board will analyze the data and decide whether the trial is done. “The biggest risk is how quickly we get enough people infected to have significant data,” Zaks said. “Designing the trial and picking the right place to run it is going to be key now.”
New York City, where there likely still will be some community circulation of the virus this summer, is one of the locations under consideration. Zaks could not confirm yet how many cases of infection would be needed to prove that the vaccine is effective. Often, in Phase III case-driven trials of this kind, investigators and regulators want to have between sixty and a hundred cases of infection with clinical symptoms (the kind that make a person go to the doctor) in the placebo group. Ideally, there would be zero cases of infection among the vaccinated group. “Fifty-to-zero would be great. Thirty-to-zero would be good,” Zaks said. “The higher the ratio, the sooner we’re likely to be able to show that, indeed, it is a statistically significant difference, and therefore we got it right.” But most vaccines are not a hundred-per-cent effective. “Even fifty-per-cent or seventy-per-cent efficacy would be helpful here,” Barney Graham, the deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center at the N.I.A.I.D., who has been deeply involved with the Moderna vaccine’s development and clinical trials, said.
Usually, vaccine development takes a decade or longer, and the statistical chance of failure, historically, is more than ninety per cent. But Moderna, which was founded a decade ago, has invested billions to create vaccines (and also therapeutic drugs) using messenger RNA, which is, essentially, the code—like the zeroes and ones that drive computing—that tells cells how to build new proteins (i.e., how to grow life). To make these vaccines, all that Moderna’s researchers need to know is the atomic-level genetic sequence—the messenger RNA—of the protein they want our bodies to create. Everything else about the vaccine—the upstream supply chain (the enzymes and nucleic acids, the lipids, the plastics) and the downstream processes (purification, tests for stability and integrity of the vaccine)—is the same as it would be for any of their other vaccines. That’s why they can move so quickly. With this coronavirus, the vaccine’s mRNA instructs our cells to make the now famous spike protein—the part of the virus that is particularly adept at binding to our cells—prompting our immune system to create antibodies that can disarm it. The company has some of its own manufacturing capacity, which allowed it to make the early doses. In April, the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) awarded the company nearly five hundred million dollars to accelerate development, and, on May 1st, Moderna announced that it would be collaborating with Lonza, a Swiss multinational chemical and biotech company, to manufacture up to a billion doses of the coronavirus vaccine in 2021.
Still, this vaccine will be Moderna’s first to go into Phase III trials, a historic first for mRNA vaccines and therapeutics. Fauci, during Senate testimony on May 12th, said, “There is no guarantee the vaccine is going to be effective.” He also pointed out that there have been at least two vaccines in the past that have had adverse effects; the vaccines induced the wrong sort of antibodies, and people exposed to the virus got even sicker. That is unlikely in this case, Zaks said, thanks to years of research by Barney Graham and others at the Vaccine Research Center. But it is still a theoretical possibility. At this stage, almost anything could happen. For Moderna, there will be pressure from all sides—the crisis of the pandemic itself, the Trump Administration, a depressed economy—to quickly show that the vaccine works. Despite the first round of promising evidence, Zaks knows that the company must wait for proof. “There’s going to be a tension between our ability to generate data for safety and effectiveness and our wish to use the vaccine as we’re ramping up manufacturing,” he said. “We’re going to have a pile of vaccines ahead of having actual data that proves its safety profile and benefit.” For a desperate world, the wait will be painful.


newyorker--2020-05-22--Anthony Davis’s Revolutionary Opera: “X”

In her incisive book “ Black Opera : History , Power , Engagement , ” the musicologist Naomi André frames black opera—opera that foregrounds black experiences , voices , and bodies—as a kind of shadow culture , with a rich lineage that runs parallel to , but has been obscured by , mainstream opera tradition .
Those two traditions drew closer together earlier this month , when the composer Anthony Davis received the Pulitzer Prize for music for his opera “ The Central Park Five , ” which recounts the wrongful conviction and later exoneration of five black and Latino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ composer ’ s effort as “ a courageous operatic work ” that “ transforms a notorious example of contemporary injustice into something empathetic and hopeful , ” the Pulitzer committee gave what is effectively the strongest acknowledgement to date of Davis ’ s ongoing creative engagement with race and political struggle in American history .
Opera has a problematic history with race , stemming in part from a lack of black authorial voices and failure to represent black subjectivity .
But this is beginning to change , sometimes in imaginative ways .
Composers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history into musical dramas but—just as important—companies are putting them on stage .
Within the past decade alone , the stories of Charlie Parker , Harriet Tubman , the baseball player Josh Gibson , and the boxer Emile Griffith have found a home at opera houses .
Such biographical treatments of black experiences in opera find a significant precedent in Davis ’ s first opera , his landmark “ X : The Life and Times of Malcolm X , ” which premièred at New York City Opera , in 1986 .
“ My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ is to be the American composer who helps to define opera for the next century , to give opera its unique American voice.
” To a certain extent , he ’ s already succeeded .
Before “ X , ” full-fledged black operas were scarce : William Grant Still ’ s “ Troubled Island , ” in 1949 , and Scott Joplin ’ s “ Treemonisha , ” in 1975 , had comparably high-profile premières .
But in the mid-eighties , an opera about a controversial black nationalist was not an obvious—or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did it take for an opera about Malcolm X to appear at City Opera , and what might that tell us about the racial topography of American opera , then and now ?
“ Jazz composers , ” the critic Francis Davis ( no relation to the composer ) wrote in The Atlantic in response to the première of “ X , ” “ do not enjoy the benefit of well-established institutional support systems , as do their classical and theatrical counterparts .
.
.
.
Major new operas are rare enough , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black composers associated with jazz are practically nonexistent , because so few black jazz composers have been given the necessary carte blanche.
” The Pulitzer ’ s own history of jazz exclusion speaks to the way in which race and genre intertwine in American musical politics , with “ jazz ” sometimes deployed as a ghettoizing designation .
A generation earlier , Duke Ellington had chafed at this aesthetic redlining ; Anthony Davis went so far as to contractually forbid producing companies from using the term “ jazz ” in connection with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opera ’ s sometimes subtle , sometimes overt musical allusions to blues , big band , bebop , and free jazz , and the inclusion of a small improvising ensemble within the orchestra .
In fact , the inspiration for the opera came from the frequent references to jazz throughout Malcolm X ’ s autobiography .
Davis ’ s younger brother Christopher suggested collaborating on a musical that traced the twin evolutions of jazz and Malcolm X .
The composer countered with opera .
“ I really wanted to confront people with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than high art or commercial art .
.
.
that was my hidden agenda , ” Davis commented in 1986 , months before the première .
“ It ’ s my firm belief that true American music can only come about at the meeting place of traditions which essentially shape American culture—the black American tradition , which is very strong , and the European tradition , which still has influence in America.
” There was still yet another reason for making the opera , one that resonated with Malcolm X ’ s own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create jobs for black opera singers otherwise limited to a career of “ Porgy and Bess.
” Black singers , Davis said at the time , “ are dying to do opera , demanding operatic roles .
.
.
I thought I was providing a great opportunity for twenty-eight singers.
” Working with his brother and their cousin Thulani Davis ( a poet and then Village Voice contributor ) as librettist , Davis envisioned a Wagner-esque , three-act opera that would center on Malcolm ’ s two conversions , first to the Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The opera , per an early conceptual statement , would “ depict Malcolm ’ s odyssey as a story of redemption .
.
.
from a child filled with justifiable rage to a man with a transcendent view of the future.
” Musically , Davis used dissonance to establish a pervasive undercurrent of violence , along with intricately complex rhythmic layering and ostinatos to propel the drama forward .
Timing and networking were key to surmounting the structural barriers to black opera in the nineteen-eighties .
Building on his reputation within New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a virtuoso pianist and innovative composer of partly notated , partly improvised music , Davis garnered support from venues like the Kitchen , which officially commissioned “ X ” in March , 1984 .
In these smaller arts organizations , a dedication to aesthetic experimentation often was matched by an equally strong commitment to political progressivism .
And Davis ’ s foray into opera coincided with a renewed interest in and funding for new opera in the United States , which included OPERA America ’ s “ Opera for the Eighties and Beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Music Theatre Festival ( A.M.T.F . )
, in Philadelphia .
A.M.T.F.
, the brainchild of the singer-turned-impresario Marjorie Samoff and the critic-composer Eric Salzman , nurtured “ X ” over the better part of three years .
Although the festival ’ s stated raison-d ’ être was to push the boundaries of music theatre , it also championed underrepresented artists .
“ Our mission , ” Samoff told me last year , “ was to première new work from all different cultural and musical orientations , and we had a huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did more work by artists of color than almost any other theatre.
” To that end , A.M.T.F.
’ s first season , in the summer of 1984—which included an in-progress staging of “ X ” —featured some predominantly black casts and creative teams .
As part of the iterative , incremental approach it encouraged , the festival set up a four-week workshop at the Brooklyn Academy of Music the following spring .
This workshop led to an unexpected outcome .
Christopher Keene , then City Opera ’ s artistic supervisor , attended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beverly Sills to program it .
She agreed , and eventually reached an arrangement with Samoff whereby A.M.T.F.
’ s 1985 production would be called the “ first full production ” and City Opera would claim the world première .
But the opera ’ s subject made fund-raising difficult , despite its depiction of Malcolm X ’ s trajectory from hate toward love .
“ People then and maybe people today didn ’ t like the idea of doing an opera about Malcolm X , ” Samoff said .
“ It was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem in New York .
When she committed to performing “ X , ” the Lila Wallace-Reader ’ s Digest Fund withdrew the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars it had offered for the development of a new American opera .
( Undeterred , Sills and Davis found alternative funding . )

The composer Anthony Davis’s first opera deserves a second look. Photograph by Marty Reichenthal / AP
In her incisive book “Black Opera: History, Power, Engagement,” the musicologist Naomi André frames black opera—opera that foregrounds black experiences, voices, and bodies—as a kind of shadow culture, with a rich lineage that runs parallel to, but has been obscured by, mainstream opera tradition. Those two traditions drew closer together earlier this month, when the composer Anthony Davis received the Pulitzer Prize for music for his opera “The Central Park Five,” which recounts the wrongful conviction and later exoneration of five black and Latino New York City teen-agers. Citing the composer’s effort as “a courageous operatic work” that “transforms a notorious example of contemporary injustice into something empathetic and hopeful,” the Pulitzer committee gave what is effectively the strongest acknowledgement to date of Davis’s ongoing creative engagement with race and political struggle in American history.
Opera has a problematic history with race, stemming in part from a lack of black authorial voices and failure to represent black subjectivity. But this is beginning to change, sometimes in imaginative ways. Composers are not only transforming black experiences and history into musical dramas but—just as important—companies are putting them on stage. Within the past decade alone, the stories of Charlie Parker, Harriet Tubman, the baseball player Josh Gibson, and the boxer Emile Griffith have found a home at opera houses.
Such biographical treatments of black experiences in opera find a significant precedent in Davis’s first opera, his landmark “X: The Life and Times of Malcolm X,” which premièred at New York City Opera, in 1986. “My goal,” Davis once remarked, “is to be the American composer who helps to define opera for the next century, to give opera its unique American voice.” To a certain extent, he’s already succeeded. Before “X,” full-fledged black operas were scarce: William Grant Still’s “Troubled Island,” in 1949, and Scott Joplin’s “Treemonisha,” in 1975, had comparably high-profile premières. But in the mid-eighties, an opera about a controversial black nationalist was not an obvious—or entirely comfortable—fit for Lincoln Center. What did it take for an opera about Malcolm X to appear at City Opera, and what might that tell us about the racial topography of American opera, then and now?
“Jazz composers,” the critic Francis Davis (no relation to the composer) wrote in The Atlantic in response to the première of “X,” “do not enjoy the benefit of well-established institutional support systems, as do their classical and theatrical counterparts. . . . Major new operas are rare enough, but large-scale works of any kind by black composers associated with jazz are practically nonexistent, because so few black jazz composers have been given the necessary carte blanche.” The Pulitzer’s own history of jazz exclusion speaks to the way in which race and genre intertwine in American musical politics, with “jazz” sometimes deployed as a ghettoizing designation. A generation earlier, Duke Ellington had chafed at this aesthetic redlining; Anthony Davis went so far as to contractually forbid producing companies from using the term “jazz” in connection with “X.” He did this despite the opera’s sometimes subtle, sometimes overt musical allusions to blues, big band, bebop, and free jazz, and the inclusion of a small improvising ensemble within the orchestra.
In fact, the inspiration for the opera came from the frequent references to jazz throughout Malcolm X’s autobiography. Davis’s younger brother Christopher suggested collaborating on a musical that traced the twin evolutions of jazz and Malcolm X. The composer countered with opera. “I really wanted to confront people with the preconceived notion of black music being less than high art or commercial art . . . that was my hidden agenda,” Davis commented in 1986, months before the première. “It’s my firm belief that true American music can only come about at the meeting place of traditions which essentially shape American culture—the black American tradition, which is very strong, and the European tradition, which still has influence in America.”
There was still yet another reason for making the opera, one that resonated with Malcolm X’s own advocacy of black economic self-determination: to create jobs for black opera singers otherwise limited to a career of “Porgy and Bess.” Black singers, Davis said at the time, “are dying to do opera, demanding operatic roles . . . I thought I was providing a great opportunity for twenty-eight singers.”
Working with his brother and their cousin Thulani Davis (a poet and then Village Voice contributor) as librettist, Davis envisioned a Wagner-esque, three-act opera that would center on Malcolm’s two conversions, first to the Nation of Islam and later to orthodox Islam. The opera, per an early conceptual statement, would “depict Malcolm’s odyssey as a story of redemption . . . from a child filled with justifiable rage to a man with a transcendent view of the future.” Musically, Davis used dissonance to establish a pervasive undercurrent of violence, along with intricately complex rhythmic layering and ostinatos to propel the drama forward.
Timing and networking were key to surmounting the structural barriers to black opera in the nineteen-eighties. Building on his reputation within New York City’s avant-garde circles as a virtuoso pianist and innovative composer of partly notated, partly improvised music, Davis garnered support from venues like the Kitchen, which officially commissioned “X” in March, 1984. In these smaller arts organizations, a dedication to aesthetic experimentation often was matched by an equally strong commitment to political progressivism. And Davis’s foray into opera coincided with a renewed interest in and funding for new opera in the United States, which included OPERA America’s “Opera for the Eighties and Beyond” initiative and the creation of the American Music Theatre Festival (A.M.T.F.), in Philadelphia.
A.M.T.F., the brainchild of the singer-turned-impresario Marjorie Samoff and the critic-composer Eric Salzman, nurtured “X” over the better part of three years. Although the festival’s stated raison-d’être was to push the boundaries of music theatre, it also championed underrepresented artists. “Our mission,” Samoff told me last year, “was to première new work from all different cultural and musical orientations, and we had a huge commitment to artists of color. We did more work by artists of color than almost any other theatre.” To that end, A.M.T.F.’s first season, in the summer of 1984—which included an in-progress staging of “X”—featured some predominantly black casts and creative teams. As part of the iterative, incremental approach it encouraged, the festival set up a four-week workshop at the Brooklyn Academy of Music the following spring.
This workshop led to an unexpected outcome. Christopher Keene, then City Opera’s artistic supervisor, attended a rehearsal and pushed the general director Beverly Sills to program it. She agreed, and eventually reached an arrangement with Samoff whereby A.M.T.F.’s 1985 production would be called the “first full production” and City Opera would claim the world première. But the opera’s subject made fund-raising difficult, despite its depiction of Malcolm X’s trajectory from hate toward love. “People then and maybe people today didn’t like the idea of doing an opera about Malcolm X,” Samoff said. “It was a controversial subject.” Sills encountered the same problem in New York. When she committed to performing “X,” the Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund withdrew the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars it had offered for the development of a new American opera. (Undeterred, Sills and Davis found alternative funding.)
The performances at Lincoln Center’s New York State Theatre in 1986 were a box-office and critical success. Critics proclaimed it “a riveting work, uncompromising politically,” and “splendidly theatrical,” praising “X” as “genuinely new, musically and theatrically effective,” and “unlike any other opera.” The production had the added effects of racially integrating the orchestra and diversifying City Opera’s audience, albeit temporarily. By some estimates, at least half of the opening-night audience was black, with attendees busing in from Harlem and many would-be viewers unable to get tickets. The director Spike Lee, whose blockbuster 1992 bio-pic would help initiate the “Malcolmania” of the nineteen-nineties, was among those in attendance. “But,” Davis reflected in a 1993 interview, “I think it was a lost opportunity in terms of the opera world because they could have sold out ten more performances. . . . I think part of it [was] that they were uncomfortable with the new audience.”


newyorker--2020-05-22--China’s Communist Party Declares Victory Over the Coronavirus—and Its Critics—at the Biggest Politic

China’s Communist Party Declares Victory Over the Coronavirus—and Its Critics—at the Biggest Political Event of the Year

If there was a moment during the coronavirus crisis when the Chinese Communist Party looked as if it was losing its grip , it came on the night of February 6th , as the ophthalmologist turned whistle-blower Li Wenliang lay dying in a Wuhan hospital .
In a small act of bravery that is now legend , Li had warned fellow-doctors in an internal chat group , in late December , of the impending contagion , which earned him a reprimand and a threat of arrest for spreading rumors .
Li ’ s death was first reported at 9:30 p.m. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports amended to say that he was still undergoing treatment ; his death was not confirmed until just before three o ’ clock the next morning , when most of the country was asleep .
Nevertheless , virtually the entire online population followed Li ’ s death .
The hashtag # LiWenliangDies received six hundred and seventy million views .
People blamed the government ’ s coverup for what was by then a full-blown epidemic .
They demanded free speech .
They quoted from the Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ’ s writings on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Communist Party to be held accountable .
Of course , this was all happening in cyberspace , because much of the nation was under lockdown .
A long-time expat told me she thought that people would have taken to the streets if they had been allowed outside , and others I talked to agreed .
Funerals can be politically charged occasions in China ; it was a memorial for the former Party leader Hu Yaobang , who was beloved among liberals , that sparked the Tiananmen Square protests , in 1989 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , within three months , the Chinese government has managed to harness and redirect public opinion to project a unified , triumphalist message about conquering the epidemic .
On Thursday , the Communist Party kicked off its largest political convention of the year , the back-to-back sessions of the National People ’ s Congress and the Chinese People ’ s Political Consultative Congress .
Delayed from March , the “ two sessions , ” as the annual event is called , is turning into a self-congratulatory pageant to declare victory over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dissenters .
An emboldened leadership rolled out a far-reaching national-security plan that would erode the semi-autonomous status of Hong Kong .
An increasingly confident Xi Jinping set the tone earlier in the week , at Monday ’ s virtual meeting of the World Health Assembly , the governing body of the World Health Organization .
In his most important speech on the pandemic , Xi batted away the perception that the virus had emerged from his country , describing it as a contagion that caught “ the world by surprise.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and enormous sacrifice , we have turned the tide on the virus and protected the life and health of our people , ” Xi said .
“ All along , we have acted with openness , transparency , and responsibility.
’ ’ “ Xi Jinping won the propaganda war ’ ’ is how Yanzhong Huang , a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations , summed up the situation in a recent piece for Foreign Affairs .
Huang , who has lived in the United States for twenty-six years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese public opinion , through friends and family in China .
In late January , initial confidence in the government ’ s assurances that the virus could not be transmitted gave way to worry , and , by early February , people who were usually disinclined to criticize the government were doing so openly .
“ The health-care system was overwhelmed , ” Huang told me .
“ People couldn ’ t get tested or admitted to the hospital .
They were dying at home or in the streets in some cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of dissatisfaction , and the death of Dr. Li Wenliang galvanized that anger and frustration .
It was unbelievable .
We thought it was a watershed moment.
’ ’ Yet now , when Huang communicates with people in China , he senses their pity .
They offer to send masks .
A relative urged him to move back to China .
“ They are , like , ‘ Wow , our government is doing a really good job .
They were very competent in bringing down the cases .
It is much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
“ It is amazing how dramatically the national opinion can change.
’ ’ I ’ ve heard this from other overseas Chinese .
Lijia Zhang , a writer who lives in London , told me , “ In the beginning , it was a mess .
People were thinking this could be Xi Jinping ’ s downfall .
Now they are saying China is in a much better position to deal with a crisis , with its authoritarian system .
The West is too chaotic.
’ ’ The respective failures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the United Kingdom clearly bolstered China ’ s confidence .
But the turnaround couldn ’ t have happened without an almost textbook propaganda operation , involving coercion , misinformation , and manipulation .
A report prepared for the Communist Party that leaked shortly after Li Wenliang died gives some insight into the panic at the highest echelons of the Chinese government .
“ A flood-level event , ’ ’ is how the report , by Womin High-Tech , a consulting firm , described the doctor ’ s death .
As translated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site that tracks the Chinese Internet , the report warned : The only relief , the report notes , was that street demonstrations were unlikely , because “ many places in the country are currently in a first-level response to a major public health emergency ; that , along with the high contagion rate of the epidemic , is dissuading people from daring to go out .
After all , life supersedes everything else.
” The report recommended that the government “ affirm Li Wenliang ’ s contribution to the epidemic prevention ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and , indeed , Li was later bestowed the title of “ martyr , ’ ’ a Communist Party designation for those who have given their life for the country .
Immediately after Li ’ s death , the censors went into action , scrubbing anything posted under what had become one of the most popular hashtags , # WeWantFreeSpeech .
Xiao Qiang , the editor and founder of the China Digital Times , who has tracked reports about the virus from the outset , said that the space for commentary has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new round of arrests , sweeping up journalists and citizen journalists who had reported on the epidemic and also a Communist Party heavyweight , Ren Zhiqiang , who had written and privately distributed an essay attacking Xi as a “ clown ” responsible for the mismanagement of the crisis .

If there was a moment during the coronavirus crisis when the Chinese Communist Party looked as if it was losing its grip, it came on the night of February 6th, as the ophthalmologist turned whistle-blower Li Wenliang lay dying in a Wuhan hospital. In a small act of bravery that is now legend, Li had warned fellow-doctors in an internal chat group, in late December, of the impending contagion, which earned him a reprimand and a threat of arrest for spreading rumors. Li’s death was first reported at 9:30 p.m., but government censors quickly ordered the reports amended to say that he was still undergoing treatment; his death was not confirmed until just before three o’clock the next morning, when most of the country was asleep.
Nevertheless, virtually the entire online population followed Li’s death. The hashtag #LiWenliangDies received six hundred and seventy million views. People blamed the government’s coverup for what was by then a full-blown epidemic. They demanded free speech. They quoted from the Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s writings on totalitarianism and lying. They called for the Communist Party to be held accountable.
Of course, this was all happening in cyberspace, because much of the nation was under lockdown. A long-time expat told me she thought that people would have taken to the streets if they had been allowed outside, and others I talked to agreed. Funerals can be politically charged occasions in China; it was a memorial for the former Party leader Hu Yaobang, who was beloved among liberals, that sparked the Tiananmen Square protests, in 1989. This makes it all the more improbable that, within three months, the Chinese government has managed to harness and redirect public opinion to project a unified, triumphalist message about conquering the epidemic.
On Thursday, the Communist Party kicked off its largest political convention of the year, the back-to-back sessions of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Congress. Delayed from March, the “two sessions,” as the annual event is called, is turning into a self-congratulatory pageant to declare victory over the coronavirus—and over China’s many critics and dissenters. An emboldened leadership rolled out a far-reaching national-security plan that would erode the semi-autonomous status of Hong Kong.
An increasingly confident Xi Jinping set the tone earlier in the week, at Monday’s virtual meeting of the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization. In his most important speech on the pandemic, Xi batted away the perception that the virus had emerged from his country, describing it as a contagion that caught “the world by surprise.” “In China, after making painstaking efforts and enormous sacrifice, we have turned the tide on the virus and protected the life and health of our people,” Xi said. “All along, we have acted with openness, transparency, and responsibility.’’
“Xi Jinping won the propaganda war’’ is how Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, summed up the situation in a recent piece for Foreign Affairs. Huang, who has lived in the United States for twenty-six years, has closely followed the oscillations in Chinese public opinion, through friends and family in China. In late January, initial confidence in the government’s assurances that the virus could not be transmitted gave way to worry, and, by early February, people who were usually disinclined to criticize the government were doing so openly. “The health-care system was overwhelmed,” Huang told me. “People couldn’t get tested or admitted to the hospital. They were dying at home or in the streets in some cases. That was a horrible time with a lot of dissatisfaction, and the death of Dr. Li Wenliang galvanized that anger and frustration. It was unbelievable. We thought it was a watershed moment.’’
Yet now, when Huang communicates with people in China, he senses their pity. They offer to send masks. A relative urged him to move back to China. “They are, like, ‘Wow, our government is doing a really good job. They were very competent in bringing down the cases. It is much safer in China,’ ’’ he said. “It is amazing how dramatically the national opinion can change.’’ I’ve heard this from other overseas Chinese. Lijia Zhang, a writer who lives in London, told me, “In the beginning, it was a mess. People were thinking this could be Xi Jinping’s downfall. Now they are saying China is in a much better position to deal with a crisis, with its authoritarian system. The West is too chaotic.’’ The respective failures of the United States, Italy, and the United Kingdom clearly bolstered China’s confidence. But the turnaround couldn’t have happened without an almost textbook propaganda operation, involving coercion, misinformation, and manipulation.
A report prepared for the Communist Party that leaked shortly after Li Wenliang died gives some insight into the panic at the highest echelons of the Chinese government. “A flood-level event,’’ is how the report, by Womin High-Tech, a consulting firm, described the doctor’s death. As translated by the China Digital Times, a Web site that tracks the Chinese Internet, the report warned:
Web users are taking advantage of this incident to voice their grave dissatisfaction toward certain systems or government officials, whose dereliction of duty led to the outbreak of the epidemic, resulting in great losses for the country and the people. . . . All types of people both inside and outside of China who are dissatisfied with China’s system see this as an opportunity to hype the situation, etc.
The only relief, the report notes, was that street demonstrations were unlikely, because “many places in the country are currently in a first-level response to a major public health emergency; that, along with the high contagion rate of the epidemic, is dissuading people from daring to go out. After all, life supersedes everything else.” The report recommended that the government “affirm Li Wenliang’s contribution to the epidemic prevention” to meet the public’s expectations, and, indeed, Li was later bestowed the title of “martyr,’’ a Communist Party designation for those who have given their life for the country.
Immediately after Li’s death, the censors went into action, scrubbing anything posted under what had become one of the most popular hashtags, #WeWantFreeSpeech. Xiao Qiang, the editor and founder of the China Digital Times, who has tracked reports about the virus from the outset, said that the space for commentary has been steadily shrinking. The police launched a new round of arrests, sweeping up journalists and citizen journalists who had reported on the epidemic and also a Communist Party heavyweight, Ren Zhiqiang, who had written and privately distributed an essay attacking Xi as a “clown” responsible for the mismanagement of the crisis.
Families of the dead were admonished for speaking to the press; a chat group set up for mourners was forced to close down. The names of the dead were not published, out of a fear that the families of those not listed might come forward, belying the official claim that fewer than four thousand people died in Wuhan. Chinese researchers were advised that academic papers about the origins of the virus needed to be vetted before publication. In March, Beijing announced that it would expel U.S. citizens working for the Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, a move that was seen as retaliation for limits, placed by the Trump Administration, on the number of employees of Chinese news agencies allowed in the United States—but one that, not coincidentally, reduced the flow of uncensored information.


newyorker--2020-05-22--Restaurants Reclaim the Frozen Dinner

Restaurants Reclaim the Frozen Dinner

At a moment when the future feels precarious , there is one thing that reliably brings me a sense of stability .
Whenever the mood strikes , and with minimal effort , I can enjoy any of the following : steaming , slippery-skinned xiao long bao , also known as soup dumplings , from Nan Xiang Xiao Long Bao , a Flushing restaurant that makes some of the best in the city ; warm , craggy butter-crunch cookies from the Good Batch , a Brooklyn bakery known for its ice-cream sandwiches ; flaky , coiled burek ( a pastry popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel ) stuffed with cheese or ground beef , hand-rolled by Balkan Bites , a two-woman outfit that normally sells them at coffee shops and the Queens Night Market .
All are indefinitely stored in my freezer .
As we hang in the balance , awaiting a new normalcy , the freezer hangs with us , blissfully immune to the passage of time .
What long sprang to mind when I thought of frozen food was a sad , sloppy Hungry-Man TV dinner or , worse , a shrivelled Lean Cuisine .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that freezes well .
In France , a chain of frozen-food grocery stores called Picard has been incredibly popular for years .
Trader Joe ’ s has been upgrading the freezer aisle in the U.S. ( its frozen pains au chocolat are excellent ) , and the frozen-pizza market has been boosted by the Bushwick restaurant Roberta ’ s line of vacuum-sealed Neapolitan pies .
In the past year , I have received gifts of frozen pasta sauce , ferried from a beloved red-sauce joint called Minard ’ s Spaghetti Inn , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frozen smoked-brisket burnt ends mail-ordered from Joe ’ s Kansas City Bar-B-Que .
Some New York restaurants , including Nan Xiang , which sells dumplings in bags of thirty or fifty ( $ 20- $ 26 ) , have long peddled frozen items .
Others , like Balkan Bites , which ships burek nationally ( $ 18 for four ) , are new to the concept and have mastered it with aplomb—but then an open secret of restaurant kitchens is that the freezer is a crucial tool , despite its reputation as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a shortcut , but so is takeout , and most takeout is not actually built to travel .
Restaurant-quality frozen food is as fast , if not faster , nearly as effortless , and often more delicious .
The par-cooked frozen pitas ( $ 5 for five ) I ordered from Miriam , an Israeli restaurant in Park Slope , puffed beautifully after I followed directions to run them under water and char them over the low flame of a burner .
I got a wonderful dinner out of frozen pão de @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colonia Verde , a pan-Latin restaurant in Clinton Hill , which I baked and used for sliders ; they came , as part of a kit ( $ 34 ) , with seasoned ground lamb and a chipotle cream sauce .
A frozen Chile Garlic Beef Shank Pot Pie from Petee ’ s Pie Company ( $ 14 ) required nothing but a daub of egg wash and thirty minutes in the oven .
A frozen-food startup called Daily Harvest , which advertises on the subway , seems to me misguided , dystopically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and soups in paper cups to be eaten on the go ( although I do like the smoothies ) .
But , last year , Joshua Brau , who has worked at Chipotle and Blue Apron , and Micah Fredman , who spent time in the kitchens of Gramercy Tavern and Eleven Madison Park , started Ipsa Provisions—tagline “ fine food frozen ” —out of a shared commercial kitchen .
Available , as of now , for Brooklyn and Manhattan delivery only , their soups , stews , and casseroles , which each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sort your friend who is an exceptional home cook might drop off when you ’ re under the weather .
I tried them first when I was on maternity leave , and , even after I had resumed restaurant reviewing , I found myself ordering more : spicy beef-and-kimchi stew ( $ 23 ) that comes with frozen Korean rice cakes , to be stirred in ; Moroccan-style chicken ( $ 23 ) dotted with prunes , apricots , and Castelvetrano olives , to be served over Israeli couscous .
A business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to restaurants now looks like a blueprint for them .
♦

At a moment when the future feels precarious, there is one thing that reliably brings me a sense of stability. Whenever the mood strikes, and with minimal effort, I can enjoy any of the following: steaming, slippery-skinned xiao long bao, also known as soup dumplings, from Nan Xiang Xiao Long Bao, a Flushing restaurant that makes some of the best in the city; warm, craggy butter-crunch cookies from the Good Batch, a Brooklyn bakery known for its ice-cream sandwiches; flaky, coiled burek (a pastry popular in the Balkans, Turkey, and Israel) stuffed with cheese or ground beef, hand-rolled by Balkan Bites, a two-woman outfit that normally sells them at coffee shops and the Queens Night Market.
Ipsa’s offerings, which include a frozen beef-and-kimchi stew with a separate package of frozen Korean rice cakes to be stirred in, each feed two to three people. Photograph by Jessica Pettway for The New Yorker
All are indefinitely stored in my freezer. As we hang in the balance, awaiting a new normalcy, the freezer hangs with us, blissfully immune to the passage of time. What long sprang to mind when I thought of frozen food was a sad, sloppy Hungry-Man TV dinner or, worse, a shrivelled Lean Cuisine. But ice cream is not the only food that freezes well. In France, a chain of frozen-food grocery stores called Picard has been incredibly popular for years. Trader Joe’s has been upgrading the freezer aisle in the U.S. (its frozen pains au chocolat are excellent), and the frozen-pizza market has been boosted by the Bushwick restaurant Roberta’s line of vacuum-sealed Neapolitan pies. In the past year, I have received gifts of frozen pasta sauce, ferried from a beloved red-sauce joint called Minard’s Spaghetti Inn, in Clarksburg, West Virginia, and of frozen smoked-brisket burnt ends mail-ordered from Joe’s Kansas City Bar-B-Que.
In France, an all-frozen-food grocery-store chain called Picard has been extremely popular for many years. Photograph by Jessica Pettway for The New Yorker
Some New York restaurants, including Nan Xiang, which sells dumplings in bags of thirty or fifty ($20-$26), have long peddled frozen items. Others, like Balkan Bites, which ships burek nationally ($18 for four), are new to the concept and have mastered it with aplomb—but then an open secret of restaurant kitchens is that the freezer is a crucial tool, despite its reputation as an enabler of corners cut. Frozen food is a shortcut, but so is takeout, and most takeout is not actually built to travel. Restaurant-quality frozen food is as fast, if not faster, nearly as effortless, and often more delicious.
Ipsa’s frozen chocolate-pepita cookie dough arrives preformed into balls, which can go into the oven directly from the freezer. Photograph by Jessica Pettway for The New Yorker
The par-cooked frozen pitas ($5 for five) I ordered from Miriam, an Israeli restaurant in Park Slope, puffed beautifully after I followed directions to run them under water and char them over the low flame of a burner. I got a wonderful dinner out of frozen pão de queijo, Brazilian-style cheese buns, from Colonia Verde, a pan-Latin restaurant in Clinton Hill, which I baked and used for sliders; they came, as part of a kit ($34), with seasoned ground lamb and a chipotle cream sauce. A frozen Chile Garlic Beef Shank Pot Pie from Petee’s Pie Company ($14) required nothing but a daub of egg wash and thirty minutes in the oven.
Ipsa’s frozen ragù Bolognese comes with a package of dried pasta; B.Y.O. Parmesan. Photograph by Jessica Pettway for The New Yorker
A frozen-food startup called Daily Harvest, which advertises on the subway, seems to me misguided, dystopically packaging New Agey “harvest bowls” and soups in paper cups to be eaten on the go (although I do like the smoothies). But, last year, Joshua Brau, who has worked at Chipotle and Blue Apron, and Micah Fredman, who spent time in the kitchens of Gramercy Tavern and Eleven Madison Park, started Ipsa Provisions—tagline “fine food frozen”—out of a shared commercial kitchen. Available, as of now, for Brooklyn and Manhattan delivery only, their soups, stews, and casseroles, which each serve two to three people, are the sort your friend who is an exceptional home cook might drop off when you’re under the weather. I tried them first when I was on maternity leave, and, even after I had resumed restaurant reviewing, I found myself ordering more: spicy beef-and-kimchi stew ($23) that comes with frozen Korean rice cakes, to be stirred in; Moroccan-style chicken ($23) dotted with prunes, apricots, and Castelvetrano olives, to be served over Israeli couscous. A business plan that once seemed like an alternative to restaurants now looks like a blueprint for them. ♦
A Guide to the Coronavirus


newyorker--2020-05-23--What Did You Do Today?

What Did You Do Today?

I woke up early and checked my phone .
No texts but three e-mails , from Old Navy , CVS , and the Biden campaign .
Apparently , Joe was concerned not to have seen my survey responses to his last e-mail—did I forget ?
CVS apprised me of its home-delivery options .
In these difficult and unprecedented times , Old Navy wanted me to know that all fleece is now fifty per cent off .
I finally put those old boxes I ’ ve been meaning to put out on the curb out on the curb , then wondered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after all—who knows when I might next be able to obtain boxes , free of fear or worry ?
So I dragged those old boxes from the curb and put them back where they were before .
I checked my Instagram account .
Many pictures of spectacular bread .
Fabulous soups .
Amazing cupcakes .
I ’ ve always wanted to be one of those people who has an Instagram account but doesn ’ t actually post anything , but I remember telling you that once and you saying , “ Those are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ texted you back .
You texted me back .
I was watching the daily task-force briefing ; you were watching the daily task-force briefing .
We texted about the daily task-force briefing for a while .
I was drinking a margarita .
I began to write a text in which I made fun of Dr. Birx ’ s scarves , then realized that I didn ’ t really want to start a whole text exchange in which we would make fun of Dr. Birx ’ s scarves , so I hit backspace until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scarves was gone .
I made a point of not checking my e-mail for an entire morning , then went outside and halfheartedly raked leaves into a kitchen-trash bag , since we ’ re out of the tall paper ones that say things like “ Yard of the Month !
” or “ Never Stop Improving !
” on the side .
It was O.K .
for a while , but the whole time I kept imagining someone admiring me for raking leaves and not checking my e-mail , which of course didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dumb thing to imagine in the first place .
So I went inside and checked my e-mail .
Barack wanted to know if I had got a chance to fill out Joe ’ s survey yet ?
Yes , it was so nice to see you last night on Zoom !
Right , we should do that more often .
That ’ s crazy , what your hair is doing !
Sorry if I ran out of things to say after ten minutes .
But you already know what I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of hard to come up with new material .
Still , good to see you .
I ate Sun Chips for lunch .
Plus hummus .
Plus leftover Easter candy .
Or , wait , was that dinner ?
Hmm .
It was 2:50 P.M.—you decide !
I watched CNN and drank whiskey .
Dana Bash was broadcasting from home .
She was sitting in front of a bookcase .
I thought I saw Elena Ferrante ’ s Neapolitan novels on her bookcase .
I stood up from the couch to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you doing ?
” my wife asked , and I told her that I thought I saw the Ferrante novels on Dana Bash ’ s bookcase .
“ That ’ s weird , ” my wife said , but I couldn ’ t tell if she meant Dana Bash having the Ferrante novels or me spying on the TV .
I slept in until 9:34 A.M .
I texted you .
I folded towels with great and unappreciated precision .
I thought my hair looked kind of cool without a shower , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itchy and gross the rest of the day .
I answered Joe ’ s survey .
I made soup .
Red lentil .
I posted a photo on Instagram , if you want to see .

I woke up early and checked my phone. No texts but three e-mails, from Old Navy, CVS, and the Biden campaign. Apparently, Joe was concerned not to have seen my survey responses to his last e-mail—did I forget? CVS apprised me of its home-delivery options. In these difficult and unprecedented times, Old Navy wanted me to know that all fleece is now fifty per cent off.
I finally put those old boxes I’ve been meaning to put out on the curb out on the curb, then wondered if I might need those old boxes after all—who knows when I might next be able to obtain boxes, free of fear or worry? So I dragged those old boxes from the curb and put them back where they were before.
I checked my Instagram account. Many pictures of spectacular bread. Fabulous soups. Amazing cupcakes. I’ve always wanted to be one of those people who has an Instagram account but doesn’t actually post anything, but I remember telling you that once and you saying, “Those are the worst kind of people.”
I texted you back. You texted me back. I was watching the daily task-force briefing; you were watching the daily task-force briefing. We texted about the daily task-force briefing for a while. I was drinking a margarita. I began to write a text in which I made fun of Dr. Birx’s scarves, then realized that I didn’t really want to start a whole text exchange in which we would make fun of Dr. Birx’s scarves, so I hit backspace until the text about Dr. Birx’s scarves was gone.
I made a point of not checking my e-mail for an entire morning, then went outside and halfheartedly raked leaves into a kitchen-trash bag, since we’re out of the tall paper ones that say things like “Yard of the Month!” or “Never Stop Improving!” on the side. It was O.K. for a while, but the whole time I kept imagining someone admiring me for raking leaves and not checking my e-mail, which of course didn’t happen, and which was a dumb thing to imagine in the first place. So I went inside and checked my e-mail. Barack wanted to know if I had got a chance to fill out Joe’s survey yet?
Yes, it was so nice to see you last night on Zoom! Right, we should do that more often. That’s crazy, what your hair is doing! Sorry if I ran out of things to say after ten minutes. But you already know what I’m up to, so it’s sort of hard to come up with new material. Still, good to see you.
I ate Sun Chips for lunch. Plus hummus. Plus leftover Easter candy. Or, wait, was that dinner? Hmm. It was 2:50 P.M.—you decide!
I watched CNN and drank whiskey. Dana Bash was broadcasting from home. She was sitting in front of a bookcase. I thought I saw Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan novels on her bookcase. I stood up from the couch to get a closer look. “What are you doing?” my wife asked, and I told her that I thought I saw the Ferrante novels on Dana Bash’s bookcase. “That’s weird,” my wife said, but I couldn’t tell if she meant Dana Bash having the Ferrante novels or me spying on the TV.
I slept in until 9:34 A.M. I texted you. I folded towels with great and unappreciated precision. I thought my hair looked kind of cool without a shower, so I skipped a shower, then felt itchy and gross the rest of the day. I answered Joe’s survey. I made soup. Red lentil. I posted a photo on Instagram, if you want to see.