newyorker--2020-03-13--Mike Pence and the Farce of Trusting Donald Trump on the Coronavirus

The weakness of Donald Trump ’ s response to the COVID-19 crisis—the weakness of Trump ’ s character—was captured in a response that Vice-President Mike Pence gave , on Thursday , to CNN ’ s Alisyn Camerota .
She noted that , within hours of Trump ’ s address to the nation the previous night , the Administration had to issue “ clarifications ” : that the travel ban he had announced , which he said would apply to “ Europe ” except for the United Kingdom , cover a “ tremendous amount of trade and cargo , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had undergone screening , would , in fact , not apply to cargo , cover only countries in the Schengen zone ( a subset of European countries with limited border checks between them ) , and would also have exemptions for permanent residents and citizens ’ immediate family members .
Those are big clarifications .
It was bad enough that Trump ’ s actions were entirely inadequate—he didn ’ t address problems with testing , for example .
But it was stunning that he seemingly could not accurately explain his bad ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he spoke , and the inadequacy of his words and his Presidency became manifest .
And so , Camerota asked Pence , “ Why the confusion ?
” “ I don ’ t think there was confusion , ” Pence replied , blankly , loyally , absurdly .
“ The President took another historic step , just like he did in January with China , to suspend all travel from Europe , Alisyn , for the next thirty days.
” Instead of explaining the President ’ s confused remarks , Pence echoed them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it should be remembered , is not only the Vice-President but the nation ’ s dedicated coronavirus point man—his function is to coördinate and clarify and at least give the illusion of leadership .
And yet it took another few sentences before he mentioned that there would be “ Americans coming home ” —so not a suspension of all travel—after being screened , followed by a reference to every returning “ American and legal resident , ” with a note that they would be asked to self-quarantine for fourteen days .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pence again referred to “ suspending all travel for thirty days from Europe.
” Who coming from where is allowed or required to do what ?
The main thing to remember is that the President did something “ historic.
” The incompetence and the sycophancy are connected .
Pence delivers what Trump demands , even when Trump demands the pretense that COVID-19 will simply go away if people stop worrying about it .
It won ’ t .
It is not just that Trump doesn ’ t always have the very best people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who seem to care only whether he is happy .
Even people with great expertise spend too much time , at almost every public briefing , ritually noting his leadership .
Such words are not confidence-inspiring .
There have been reports that Pence at various points suggested that Trump take some practical actions—for example , in managing the plight of a cruise ship—and that Trump said no .
Other officials have reportedly had similar experiences .
But , as long as they do not publicly confront their boss or pressure him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that only means so much .
And Pence , for one , is not doing so ; instead , he kept telling Camerota that what looked like haphazard moves were “ all part of the President ’ s strategy , ” extolling him as a leader who “ took action.
” But someone very prominent in the Administration or the Republican leadership has to get angry , in a way that is demonstrative , dramatic , and even , for whoever it is , out of character .
Instead , Pence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way that Republicans have come to regard as normal .
They must engage in the increasingly farcical exercise of praise for Trump .
Sometimes , as when they join him onstage at a rally , the main immediate damage may be to their self-respect .
At others , as in the impeachment hearings , when Republican after Republican claimed that the President was an innocent victim of the deep state , the damage was to their duty to the Constitution .
During a pandemic , the harm is not only to public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structure , as fissures in the health and social-welfare systems widen , exposing just how vulnerable many Americans are—the hundred thousand homeless children in New York City ’ s public schools , for example—and a larger order breaks apart .
( The damage may even be to their own health : Senators Lindsey Graham and Rick Scott are under self-quarantine , after mingling at a Mar-a-Lago event that included a Brazilian official who has now been confirmed as having COVID-19 ; Trump was also present but has so far neither been tested nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Mitch McConnell , who has praised what he decided to call Trump ’ s “ early , bold action ” on COVID-19 , reportedly had to be pressured to delay a Senate recess until a COVID-19 relief bill was passed .
And among Fox News commentators , as Dylan Byers notes , there is still outrage that some virus has the nerve to undermine Trump .
Pence , speaking to Camerota , tried to pin the blame on Europe , which he said was the site of most new cases .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ title ?
One of the most mangled sections of Pence ’ s interview had to do with testing .
He suggested that anyone who needed a test could get one just by going to a doctor , who would arrange one—or maybe that would happen soon , if not yet .
When Camerota showed him figures suggesting that the number of tests completed was still just in the thousands , he said he thought that the information was wrong .
But he refused to even estimate the right number .
The mismanagement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaching the United States , appears to have triggered a disaster .
It remains shockingly hard for people to get tested—test kits and the chemical reagents needed for them are a scarce resource—even when they have symptoms and known contact with COVID-19 patients .
According to the COVID Tracking Project , in which The Atlantic is a partner , the tally of tests completed was nearing sixteen thousand five hundred on Friday ; South Korea has conducted more than ten times as many .
“ It is a failing .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said , of the U.S. ’ s testing system , at a hearing of the House Oversight Committee .
Trump will never admit it .
The testing situation is such a shambles that even some Republicans have begun to acknowledge it .
Senator Lamar Alexander called it “ a serious deficiency , ” according to Politico , and Senator James Lankford said that the idea that people could simply go and get tested—which Trump has pushed—was just wrong .
Senator Mitt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at managing this sort of thing ) said that the situation is “ frustrating.
” The question is whether that consciousness of failure will lead to a breaking point in the Republicans ’ system of obedience to Trump .
This is not a matter of using the coronavirus crisis to bring him down ; it ’ s a question of the President ’ s party really pushing him to do what he can to stop the virus from bringing the country down .
And if he won ’ t , they can start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give support to governors and other local officials—and , most fundamentally , they can be honest with the public .
Perhaps Republicans could even nominate someone else at the convention this August ( if , given the fears of COVID-19 , it ’ s still held ) .
That seems far-fetched , but so , a month ago , did trading being halted on the New York Stock Exchange , campuses closing , Broadway shutting down , major-league seasons getting suspended , and parts of the city of New Rochelle being cordoned off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ahead .

The weakness of Donald Trump’s response to the COVID-19 crisis—the weakness of Trump’s character—was captured in a response that Vice-President Mike Pence gave, on Thursday, to CNN’s Alisyn Camerota. She noted that, within hours of Trump’s address to the nation the previous night, the Administration had to issue “clarifications”: that the travel ban he had announced, which he said would apply to “Europe” except for the United Kingdom, cover a “tremendous amount of trade and cargo,” and have exemptions only for “Americans” who had undergone screening, would, in fact, not apply to cargo, cover only countries in the Schengen zone (a subset of European countries with limited border checks between them), and would also have exemptions for permanent residents and citizens’ immediate family members. Those are big clarifications. It was bad enough that Trump’s actions were entirely inadequate—he didn’t address problems with testing, for example. But it was stunning that he seemingly could not accurately explain his bad ideas. International financial markets began dropping as he spoke, and the inadequacy of his words and his Presidency became manifest. And so, Camerota asked Pence, “Why the confusion?”
“I don’t think there was confusion,” Pence replied, blankly, loyally, absurdly. “The President took another historic step, just like he did in January with China, to suspend all travel from Europe, Alisyn, for the next thirty days.” Instead of explaining the President’s confused remarks, Pence echoed them, adding to the muddle. Pence, it should be remembered, is not only the Vice-President but the nation’s dedicated coronavirus point man—his function is to coördinate and clarify and at least give the illusion of leadership. And yet it took another few sentences before he mentioned that there would be “Americans coming home”—so not a suspension of all travel—after being screened, followed by a reference to every returning “American and legal resident,” with a note that they would be asked to self-quarantine for fourteen days. But, a couple of minutes later, Pence again referred to “suspending all travel for thirty days from Europe.” Who coming from where is allowed or required to do what? The main thing to remember is that the President did something “historic.”
The incompetence and the sycophancy are connected. Pence delivers what Trump demands, even when Trump demands the pretense that COVID-19 will simply go away if people stop worrying about it. It won’t. It is not just that Trump doesn’t always have the very best people around him; he has too many people who seem to care only whether he is happy. Even people with great expertise spend too much time, at almost every public briefing, ritually noting his leadership. Such words are not confidence-inspiring. There have been reports that Pence at various points suggested that Trump take some practical actions—for example, in managing the plight of a cruise ship—and that Trump said no. Other officials have reportedly had similar experiences. But, as long as they do not publicly confront their boss or pressure him to take real action on a growing crisis, that only means so much. And Pence, for one, is not doing so; instead, he kept telling Camerota that what looked like haphazard moves were “all part of the President’s strategy,” extolling him as a leader who “took action.” But someone very prominent in the Administration or the Republican leadership has to get angry, in a way that is demonstrative, dramatic, and even, for whoever it is, out of character.
Instead, Pence is not alone. He is behaving in a way that Republicans have come to regard as normal. They must engage in the increasingly farcical exercise of praise for Trump. Sometimes, as when they join him onstage at a rally, the main immediate damage may be to their self-respect. At others, as in the impeachment hearings, when Republican after Republican claimed that the President was an innocent victim of the deep state, the damage was to their duty to the Constitution. During a pandemic, the harm is not only to public health but to the country’s structure, as fissures in the health and social-welfare systems widen, exposing just how vulnerable many Americans are—the hundred thousand homeless children in New York City’s public schools, for example—and a larger order breaks apart. (The damage may even be to their own health: Senators Lindsey Graham and Rick Scott are under self-quarantine, after mingling at a Mar-a-Lago event that included a Brazilian official who has now been confirmed as having COVID-19; Trump was also present but has so far neither been tested nor quarantined himself.) On Thursday, Senator Mitch McConnell, who has praised what he decided to call Trump’s “early, bold action” on COVID-19, reportedly had to be pressured to delay a Senate recess until a COVID-19 relief bill was passed. And among Fox News commentators, as Dylan Byers notes, there is still outrage that some virus has the nerve to undermine Trump. Pence, speaking to Camerota, tried to pin the blame on Europe, which he said was the site of most new cases. What will he say when America wins that title?
One of the most mangled sections of Pence’s interview had to do with testing. He suggested that anyone who needed a test could get one just by going to a doctor, who would arrange one—or maybe that would happen soon, if not yet. When Camerota showed him figures suggesting that the number of tests completed was still just in the thousands, he said he thought that the information was wrong. But he refused to even estimate the right number. The mismanagement of testing, particularly as coronavirus was just reaching the United States, appears to have triggered a disaster. It remains shockingly hard for people to get tested—test kits and the chemical reagents needed for them are a scarce resource—even when they have symptoms and known contact with COVID-19 patients. According to the COVID Tracking Project, in which The Atlantic is a partner, the tally of tests completed was nearing sixteen thousand five hundred on Friday; South Korea has conducted more than ten times as many. “It is a failing. Let’s admit it,” Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, of the U.S.’s testing system, at a hearing of the House Oversight Committee. Trump will never admit it.
The testing situation is such a shambles that even some Republicans have begun to acknowledge it. Senator Lamar Alexander called it “a serious deficiency,” according to Politico, and Senator James Lankford said that the idea that people could simply go and get tested—which Trump has pushed—was just wrong. Senator Mitt Romney (who might actually be good at managing this sort of thing) said that the situation is “frustrating.” The question is whether that consciousness of failure will lead to a breaking point in the Republicans’ system of obedience to Trump. This is not a matter of using the coronavirus crisis to bring him down; it’s a question of the President’s party really pushing him to do what he can to stop the virus from bringing the country down. And if he won’t, they can start voting with Democrats in Congress, and give support to governors and other local officials—and, most fundamentally, they can be honest with the public. Perhaps Republicans could even nominate someone else at the convention this August (if, given the fears of COVID-19, it’s still held). That seems far-fetched, but so, a month ago, did trading being halted on the New York Stock Exchange, campuses closing, Broadway shutting down, major-league seasons getting suspended, and parts of the city of New Rochelle being cordoned off. Unimaginable scenes at overwhelmed hospitals may be ahead.
Later Thursday, Trump spoke to reporters at an appearance with Leo Varadkar, the Prime Minister of Ireland. Trump was asked to clarify his travel-ban remarks—specifically, could he confirm whether Ireland is exempt? “I think it was made very clear last night who is and who isn’t,” he said, without actually answering the question. (Varadkar jumped in to say that Ireland, which is not a Schengen country—and, obviously, not part of the U.K.—would indeed be exempt.) Trump then added to the confusion by saying that Americans (and, presumably, permanent residents) returning from countries where the ban is in force “have to be tested. . . . we’re not putting them on planes if they are positive.” Who is going to do that testing? The way Trump explained it, one could almost imagine a situation so contorted that the fastest way to get a test would be to buy a ticket to Paris, and then to try to come back—which is undoubtedly not how the restrictions will work. But who knows with Trump? In the appearance with Varadkar, he was still talking about his rallies and petulantly demanding that America and the world imagine him as a man taking forceful action to save lives, saying, “I have the right of doing a lot of things that people don’t even know about.” On Friday afternoon, he declared a national emergency. One wonders if he knows what a President can and, during a pandemic, must do and, for that matter, what he must not do. The people in his Administration and his party might tell him, not privately but publicly—so that everybody can hear.
A Guide to the Coronavirus
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus.
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available.
We are all irrational panic shoppers.
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome.
How pandemics change history.


newyorker--2020-03-13--A Demographer’s View of the Coronavirus Pandemic

C. Jessica Metcalf , a professor of ecology , evolutionary biology , and public affairs at Princeton , is a demographer who studies the spread of infectious diseases .
Her work on health policy has special importance now , as scientists and public officials seek to halt the spread of COVID-19 , the novel coronavirus .
I recently spoke twice by phone with Metcalf about her work and how demographers assist in the response to rapidly spreading diseases .
During our conversations , which have been edited for length and clarity , we also discussed what demography can teach us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the history of disease outbreaks having a disproportionate effect on certain age groups , and what demographers have learned about aging societies .
What principally interests you , as a demographer , about the coronavirus ?
There are probably many risk factors associated with the coronavirus , and it feels like we learn something new and different every day about it .
But one of the clear signals that seems to come through is that there is an age trajectory of morbidity and mortality that ’ s very striking .
The older individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , as a demographer , this gives you one lever to try and predict what the consequences will be as the virus moves through different countries , since one of the striking differences between countries around the world is age profile .
Of course , there are a million other differences as well .
Health-system functioning will tend to go in the other direction , but it gives you one projection to make .
What I mean is that countries that are on average older , which tend to be the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health systems , so , even though the burden might be greater , they will have greater ability to meet it .
Does demography teach us anything about the way we can counteract the virus ?
How would demography help us in fighting its spread ?
So , demography is a very broad umbrella .
I call myself a demographer because that means you can do anything , right—because everything is born and dies .
And , arguably , a lot of the tools that one uses to capture and describe infectious-disease dynamics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tools .
For example , I don ’ t know if you ’ ve heard about the very famous—very famous in a very small circle—susceptible-infected-recovered model .
So , one of the classic ways that we can describe outbreaks is you take the world and you divide it into classes of individuals .
So , especially for a large and emergent pathogen event like this one , most individuals in the world will be susceptible .
And then , over the course of time , they will enter into the infected class if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infectious and they become infected .
And then , after some period of time , they ’ ll recover .
And just that simple definition , which one can write down as a mathematical model , describing flows of individuals between these different categories , gives you an awful lot of insight into how fast the disease might spread , and what you might expect .
You can also gauge from it things like the age profiles of infections .
I ’ m not sure people would entirely agree that that is analogous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what one does in demography is also putting people in boxes .
When you are building a mathematic model of anything , you are building a caricature of reality .
So , a classic set of models are demographic models where the flow is over age .
You are born in the age-one class , and then you flow into the age-two class , and then you flow into the age-three class .
For infectious-disease biology , you might be born susceptible , and then you might flow into the infected-age class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the recovered-age class .
Can you explain a little bit about what your work consists of , and what your interactions with medical professionals are like ?
I am a mathematical modeller mostly , so what I end up doing is working with data that other people have collected , and probing that data using the theories that we have and the models that we have , to try and better understand the processes that we see .
So , for example , the outbreak that occurred in Wuhan showed this early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have put together allow you to pin down key characteristics of the outbreak , such as the number of new infections per infectious individual , and also the serial interval , or the time that separates one infectious individual from another .
So basically trying to draw a line through the evidence that we have , given the mechanisms that we suspect are at play .
I also do a certain amount of field work .
I grew up , partly , in Madagascar , so I work closely with postdocs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things like , for example , how rabies transmits across Madagascar , or understanding how poultry pathogens are spreading in that population .
Are there specific things about this outbreak that have particularly caught your eye in the past couple of weeks ?
It seems like patterns of contact over age are one of the real determinants of the age at which people become infected .
This is because we tend to enter into contact with people of our own age , and that will concentrate transmission in particular groups .
People of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that might lead to infectious-disease transmission .
So you tend to talk to people your own age , and then , when you turn about twenty or thirty , you start talking to very young people , because people have children .
And , if you quantify the magnitude of contact , you also find that children seem to have much higher contact than any of the other groups between each other .
And so that means that you expect them to be an important hub of transmission .
That is also what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that ’ s not what we ’ re seeing here .
We don ’ t know everything because the data is still coming in .
We just don ’ t know whether kids are completely asymptomatic but still transmitting the infection .
I think there are still a lot of really interesting questions there , but that really affects how we think about things like school closures to control it .
What does it make you think about school closures in particular ?
In the 2009 flu pandemic , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closures .
It ’ s likely to reduce transmission , which could reduce the risk in the population in general .
And one of the absolute emphases in such moments is to try and “ flatten the curve , ” because one of the real concerns is that we ’ re going to overwhelm our health systems .
If we think that children are an important hub of transmission , then one way to reduce that would be to close schools .
But , if they ’ re not a hub of transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective strategy .
And so it ’ s an important question .
And I think the calculus on these things is incredibly difficult , because closing schools imposes such steep social and economic costs , which tend to be very gendered .
It ends up being mothers who stay at home to take care of the kids .
So there ’ s a whole slew of costs that go along with the closing-school option .

C. Jessica Metcalf, a professor of ecology, evolutionary biology, and public affairs at Princeton, is a demographer who studies the spread of infectious diseases. Her work on health policy has special importance now, as scientists and public officials seek to halt the spread of COVID-19, the novel coronavirus. I recently spoke twice by phone with Metcalf about her work and how demographers assist in the response to rapidly spreading diseases. During our conversations, which have been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed what demography can teach us about the effectiveness of school closings, the history of disease outbreaks having a disproportionate effect on certain age groups, and what demographers have learned about aging societies.
What principally interests you, as a demographer, about the coronavirus?
There are probably many risk factors associated with the coronavirus, and it feels like we learn something new and different every day about it. But one of the clear signals that seems to come through is that there is an age trajectory of morbidity and mortality that’s very striking. The older individuals seem to be at greater risk. And, as a demographer, this gives you one lever to try and predict what the consequences will be as the virus moves through different countries, since one of the striking differences between countries around the world is age profile. Of course, there are a million other differences as well. Health-system functioning will tend to go in the other direction, but it gives you one projection to make. What I mean is that countries that are on average older, which tend to be the more developed countries, also have better functioning health systems, so, even though the burden might be greater, they will have greater ability to meet it.
Does demography teach us anything about the way we can counteract the virus? How would demography help us in fighting its spread?
So, demography is a very broad umbrella. I call myself a demographer because that means you can do anything, right—because everything is born and dies. And, arguably, a lot of the tools that one uses to capture and describe infectious-disease dynamics are, at some scale, demographic tools. For example, I don’t know if you’ve heard about the very famous—very famous in a very small circle—susceptible-infected-recovered model.
I have not.
So, one of the classic ways that we can describe outbreaks is you take the world and you divide it into classes of individuals. So, especially for a large and emergent pathogen event like this one, most individuals in the world will be susceptible. And then, over the course of time, they will enter into the infected class if they bump into an individual who is infectious and they become infected. And then, after some period of time, they’ll recover. And just that simple definition, which one can write down as a mathematical model, describing flows of individuals between these different categories, gives you an awful lot of insight into how fast the disease might spread, and what you might expect. You can also gauge from it things like the age profiles of infections.
I’m not sure people would entirely agree that that is analogous to demographic models, but a lot of what one does in demography is also putting people in boxes. When you are building a mathematic model of anything, you are building a caricature of reality. So, a classic set of models are demographic models where the flow is over age. You are born in the age-one class, and then you flow into the age-two class, and then you flow into the age-three class. For infectious-disease biology, you might be born susceptible, and then you might flow into the infected-age class, and then you would hopefully flow into the recovered-age class.
Can you explain a little bit about what your work consists of, and what your interactions with medical professionals are like?
I am a mathematical modeller mostly, so what I end up doing is working with data that other people have collected, and probing that data using the theories that we have and the models that we have, to try and better understand the processes that we see. So, for example, the outbreak that occurred in Wuhan showed this early exponential growth, and the models that we have put together allow you to pin down key characteristics of the outbreak, such as the number of new infections per infectious individual, and also the serial interval, or the time that separates one infectious individual from another. So basically trying to draw a line through the evidence that we have, given the mechanisms that we suspect are at play.
I also do a certain amount of field work. I grew up, partly, in Madagascar, so I work closely with postdocs and graduate students who do a lot of things like, for example, how rabies transmits across Madagascar, or understanding how poultry pathogens are spreading in that population.
Are there specific things about this outbreak that have particularly caught your eye in the past couple of weeks?
It seems like patterns of contact over age are one of the real determinants of the age at which people become infected. This is because we tend to enter into contact with people of our own age, and that will concentrate transmission in particular groups. People of certain ages tend to enter into contacts that might lead to infectious-disease transmission. So you tend to talk to people your own age, and then, when you turn about twenty or thirty, you start talking to very young people, because people have children. And, if you quantify the magnitude of contact, you also find that children seem to have much higher contact than any of the other groups between each other. And so that means that you expect them to be an important hub of transmission.
That is also what you tend to see for many things. But that’s not what we’re seeing here. We don’t know everything because the data is still coming in. We just don’t know whether kids are completely asymptomatic but still transmitting the infection. I think there are still a lot of really interesting questions there, but that really affects how we think about things like school closures to control it.
What does it make you think about school closures in particular?
In the 2009 flu pandemic, one of the steps that was taken was school closures. It’s likely to reduce transmission, which could reduce the risk in the population in general. And one of the absolute emphases in such moments is to try and “flatten the curve,” because one of the real concerns is that we’re going to overwhelm our health systems. If we think that children are an important hub of transmission, then one way to reduce that would be to close schools. But, if they’re not a hub of transmission, then that’s not an effective strategy. And so it’s an important question. And I think the calculus on these things is incredibly difficult, because closing schools imposes such steep social and economic costs, which tend to be very gendered. It ends up being mothers who stay at home to take care of the kids. So there’s a whole slew of costs that go along with the closing-school option.
What about the argument that, just because any sort of large gatherings could be bad, you should try any form of social distancing?
I think we should all be thinking about social distancing now. I think we should be trying to reduce transmission as much as we possibly can. I have no idea how old you are, but you and I are probably not in a particularly high-risk group. But it’s not about our personal risk—it’s about trying to reduce the risk in the population at large. I think, absolutely, washing your hands much more than you do usually, doing that for twenty seconds, being very careful about it, and then thinking about how much public transport you take, the degree to which you can keep yourself a little socially distant from people, is probably a really good thing. The more time we can buy, I think, the better. The example of northern Italy makes that very stark. An awful lot of the scientific conferences I was thinking about attending have just been cancelled, and I think that’s the right move. Whether you go from that to closing schools, particularly given this question mark over whether kids are transmitting, is an interesting question. I don’t have the answer to it.


newyorker--2020-03-13--Life Under Coronavirus Quarantine

Life Under Coronavirus Quarantine

Since its outbreak , the coronavirus has thrown the world into disarray .
Peter Hessler describes what it ’ s like to be quarantined in China , as one of eight hundred million people who have been placed under some kind of restriction .
Lawrence Wright discusses his new novel , which may be the year ’ s most prescient piece of fiction : a thriller about the spread of a novel virus that now sounds eerily familiar .
“ I read the paper and I feel like I ’ m reading another chapter of my own book , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sister of a feared , internationally known criminal describes what it was like to turn him in .
The staff writer is one of eight hundred million people in China living under some kind of restriction .
China ’ s response has been effective , but Hessler finds it worrisome all the same .
Lawrence Wright is primarily a journalist , but he recently wrote a novel about the spread of a novel virus .
Infections come and go , he says , but a pandemic reshapes society .
The sister of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it was like to turn him in .

Illustration by Golden Cosmos
Since its outbreak, the coronavirus has thrown the world into disarray. Peter Hessler describes what it’s like to be quarantined in China, as one of eight hundred million people who have been placed under some kind of restriction. Lawrence Wright discusses his new novel, which may be the year’s most prescient piece of fiction: a thriller about the spread of a novel virus that now sounds eerily familiar. “I read the paper and I feel like I’m reading another chapter of my own book,” he tells David Remnick. Plus: the sister of a feared, internationally known criminal describes what it was like to turn him in.
Peter Hessler on Life Under Quarantine
The staff writer is one of eight hundred million people in China living under some kind of restriction. China’s response has been effective, but Hessler finds it worrisome all the same.
The Ripple Effects of a Pandemic
Lawrence Wright is primarily a journalist, but he recently wrote a novel about the spread of a novel virus. Infections come and go, he says, but a pandemic reshapes society.
Astrid Holleeder’s Crime Family
The sister of a feared, internationally known criminal describes what it was like to turn him in.


newyorker--2020-03-13--Mad About Elizabeth Warren

Mad About Elizabeth Warren

If Elijah Warren had been running in the Democratic Presidential primary , he might now be looking forward to a first-round nomination at the convention .
But , then , if Hal Clinton had run against Donald Trump in 2016 , he would likely now be President .
Political scientists and pundits can minimize sexism as a cause of Elizabeth Warren ’ s downfall all they like , but they will never persuade me or the Warren supporters I know that it wasn ’ t being a woman that did her in .
What had my friend Claire weeping in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after reading that Warren had suspended her campaign , was grief , sure , but also rage and frustration .
Hillary Clinton was the spectre haunting Warren ’ s campaign from the beginning .
The 2016 Presidential election proved to many people that even the most qualified woman couldn ’ t beat the least qualified man .
Some became more sanguine as 2020 neared : Clinton won the popular vote by almost three million votes , after all , and , in just about any other democratic country in the world , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that needed to happen this time around was for an equally accomplished but more “ likable ” Democratic woman , with less “ baggage ” and fewer “ flaws , ” to put herself forward and run a competent—well , O.K.
, impeccable—campaign .
Surely that candidate would melt the resistant hearts of Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania .
Hadn ’ t many people who couldn ’ t bring themselves to vote for Clinton said that they ’ d love to vote for another woman—for example , Elizabeth Warren ?
What happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren the Presidential candidate was less perfect than she looked when she wasn ’ t actually running .
Funny how that works .
Warren the senator is a true-blue , very effective , progressive legislator .
Warren the Presidential candidate was that girl with perfect grades in the front row of the classroom , always sitting up straight and raising her hand .
“ She was too smart , too rigorous , and always right , ” as my friend Katherine put it .
“ ‘ I have a plan for that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expense , ” another friend , Leslie , added .
“ She was so knowledgeable and so prepared that her life as a brilliant student stood out.
” Even in our famously anti-intellectual country , it is possible for a wonk to win the White House .
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were intellectual superstars , and got elected anyway—indeed , Obama ’ s brain power was one of his major selling points .
But , apparently , for a woman , being “ brilliant , ” “ knowledgeable , ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of élitism and snootiness .
On the other hand , if Warren had been obtuse , ignorant , and unready , that wouldn ’ t have worked , either .
Being obviously unqualified to lead the free world only works for men .
Warren ’ s personal manner , hitherto unremarkable , became a demerit .
There was her voice—penetrating , urgent , and high-pitched .
“ Don ’ t take this the wrong way , ” a middle-aged man said to me last year—proving that , when someone tells you not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitely should— “ but she ’ s just too shrill.
” Her way of presenting herself , waving her arms and pointing her finger , was a problem , too .
( Hmm , I can think of another politician who likes to wave his arms and point his finger . )
And that rude way she spoke over the other candidates during debates , except for when she was hanging back and letting them take up all the time .
Perhaps the very things that were the markers of Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example—made her seem untrustworthy and insincere .
“ Harvard ” is not an unalloyed positive , after all .
It can connote snobbery , or privilege masked as merit .
Did she really even deserve to be there ?
Maybe she only got that job because of “ faking ” Native-American ancestry .
Maybe she didn ’ t really get fired from teaching elementary school because she was pregnant .
Maybe Bernie Sanders didn ’ t really tell her that a woman couldn ’ t be elected President , and she deserved all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters posted on Twitter .
Women and snakes go way back , after all .
Come to think of it , if Sanders did say that , his prediction is looking pretty good .
When the primary season began , the Democratic candidates included not only Warren but also Tulsi Gabbard , Kamala Harris , Kirsten Gillibrand , Marianne Williamson , and Amy Klobuchar .
Now , except for Gabbard , who is polling at around two per cent , they are gone , along with all the men who are not white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up here ?
Blame “ electability ” —i.e.
, a deference to the supposed sexism of others .
So many people who preferred Warren , or , for that matter , Klobuchar , asked , “ But can she beat Trump ?
” What they meant was : Can any woman beat Trump ?
And the answer they gave themselves was , often , no .
America is too sexist—safer to go with a man .
A great deal of energy has been spent arguing that Hillary Clinton was not done in by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign in Wisconsin , or the Comey letter , or her e-mails .
But , curiously , Biden ’ 20 beat Clinton ’ 16 handily among white men in Michigan and white men in Missouri .
Sanders won both states in 2016 , and lost both states in 2020 .
You ’ d almost think that Biden didn ’ t have exactly the same record as Clinton on trade , which is supposedly the key issue for the white working class .
Maybe more than three years of Trump has concentrated Democrats ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as MSNBC ’ s Chris Hayes pointed out , as the March 10th “ Mini Tuesday ” primary results came in , Clinton ’ s problem wasn ’ t NAFTA , after all .
“ I took a look at who came to phone-banking events , ” Claire , who spent many weekends campaigning for Warren in Massachusetts , said .
“ It would be a huge roomful of women and two men .
I knew then that we couldn ’ t win.
” Someday , surely , we will elect a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all those little girls whom Warren made pinky promises with are collecting Social Security .
Acknowledging sexism has got to be the first step , though , or the next Warren , too , will end up belittled for her brains and bombarded with snakes .
How to do so without awakening even more sexism among voters ?
I don ’ t think anyone has the answer to that .
Meanwhile , a candidate who might have been a great President is gone .
“ Her loss is very personal , especially for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It gins up all those feelings we have that , in the end , we are viewed as inadequate.
” No wonder so many of us are mad as hell .

If Elijah Warren had been running in the Democratic Presidential primary, he might now be looking forward to a first-round nomination at the convention. But, then, if Hal Clinton had run against Donald Trump in 2016, he would likely now be President. Political scientists and pundits can minimize sexism as a cause of Elizabeth Warren’s downfall all they like, but they will never persuade me or the Warren supporters I know that it wasn’t being a woman that did her in. What had my friend Claire weeping in front of her computer last week, after reading that Warren had suspended her campaign, was grief, sure, but also rage and frustration.
Hillary Clinton was the spectre haunting Warren’s campaign from the beginning. The 2016 Presidential election proved to many people that even the most qualified woman couldn’t beat the least qualified man. Some became more sanguine as 2020 neared: Clinton won the popular vote by almost three million votes, after all, and, in just about any other democratic country in the world, she’d be President today. All that needed to happen this time around was for an equally accomplished but more “likable” Democratic woman, with less “baggage” and fewer “flaws,” to put herself forward and run a competent—well, O.K., impeccable—campaign. Surely that candidate would melt the resistant hearts of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Hadn’t many people who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton said that they’d love to vote for another woman—for example, Elizabeth Warren?
What happened to those people? It seems that Warren the Presidential candidate was less perfect than she looked when she wasn’t actually running. Funny how that works. Warren the senator is a true-blue, very effective, progressive legislator. Warren the Presidential candidate was that girl with perfect grades in the front row of the classroom, always sitting up straight and raising her hand. “She was too smart, too rigorous, and always right,” as my friend Katherine put it. “ ‘I have a plan for that’ became a kind of joke at her expense,” another friend, Leslie, added. “She was so knowledgeable and so prepared that her life as a brilliant student stood out.”
Even in our famously anti-intellectual country, it is possible for a wonk to win the White House. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were intellectual superstars, and got elected anyway—indeed, Obama’s brain power was one of his major selling points. But, apparently, for a woman, being “brilliant,” “knowledgeable,” and “prepared” are suspicious qualities, suggestive of élitism and snootiness. On the other hand, if Warren had been obtuse, ignorant, and unready, that wouldn’t have worked, either. Being obviously unqualified to lead the free world only works for men.
Warren’s personal manner, hitherto unremarkable, became a demerit. There was her voice—penetrating, urgent, and high-pitched. “Don’t take this the wrong way,” a middle-aged man said to me last year—proving that, when someone tells you not to take something the wrong way, you definitely should—“but she’s just too shrill.” Her way of presenting herself, waving her arms and pointing her finger, was a problem, too. (Hmm, I can think of another politician who likes to wave his arms and point his finger.) And that rude way she spoke over the other candidates during debates, except for when she was hanging back and letting them take up all the time.
Perhaps the very things that were the markers of Warren’s competence—being a Harvard Law professor, for example—made her seem untrustworthy and insincere. “Harvard” is not an unalloyed positive, after all. It can connote snobbery, or privilege masked as merit. Did she really even deserve to be there? Maybe she only got that job because of “faking” Native-American ancestry. Maybe she didn’t really get fired from teaching elementary school because she was pregnant. Maybe Bernie Sanders didn’t really tell her that a woman couldn’t be elected President, and she deserved all those snake emojis that some of his supporters posted on Twitter. Women and snakes go way back, after all.
Come to think of it, if Sanders did say that, his prediction is looking pretty good. When the primary season began, the Democratic candidates included not only Warren but also Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Marianne Williamson, and Amy Klobuchar. Now, except for Gabbard, who is polling at around two per cent, they are gone, along with all the men who are not white and old. How did we end up here? Blame “electability”—i.e., a deference to the supposed sexism of others. So many people who preferred Warren, or, for that matter, Klobuchar, asked, “But can she beat Trump?” What they meant was: Can any woman beat Trump? And the answer they gave themselves was, often, no. America is too sexist—safer to go with a man.
A great deal of energy has been spent arguing that Hillary Clinton was not done in by sexism: it was her failure to campaign in Wisconsin, or the Comey letter, or her e-mails. But, curiously, Biden ’20 beat Clinton ’16 handily among white men in Michigan and white men in Missouri. Sanders won both states in 2016, and lost both states in 2020. You’d almost think that Biden didn’t have exactly the same record as Clinton on trade, which is supposedly the key issue for the white working class. Maybe more than three years of Trump has concentrated Democrats’ minds on winning. Or maybe, as MSNBC’s Chris Hayes pointed out, as the March 10th “Mini Tuesday” primary results came in, Clinton’s problem wasn’t NAFTA, after all.
“I took a look at who came to phone-banking events,” Claire, who spent many weekends campaigning for Warren in Massachusetts, said. “It would be a huge roomful of women and two men. I knew then that we couldn’t win.” Someday, surely, we will elect a woman to the White House, hopefully before all those little girls whom Warren made pinky promises with are collecting Social Security. Acknowledging sexism has got to be the first step, though, or the next Warren, too, will end up belittled for her brains and bombarded with snakes. How to do so without awakening even more sexism among voters? I don’t think anyone has the answer to that. Meanwhile, a candidate who might have been a great President is gone. “Her loss is very personal, especially for older women,” Claire told me. “It gins up all those feelings we have that, in the end, we are viewed as inadequate.” No wonder so many of us are mad as hell.


newyorker--2020-03-13--Dr. Anthony Fauci Changes Trump’s Twitter Password

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Calling his action “ in the interest of public health , ” Dr. Anthony @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Twitter password on Friday .
“ This is something I ’ ve wanted @ @ @ @ @ ” Fauci told reporters .
“ I was just waiting for the right opportunity.
” @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus task force , the esteemed virologist noticed that , while Trump launched into @ @ @ @ @ Vice-President Joe Biden , he left his phone unattended on the conference-room table .
Springing @ @ @ @ @ took custody of Trump ’ s phone and changed his Twitter password in a matter @ @ @ @ @ ’ d never hacked into a Twitter account before , ” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ a rabbit ’ s. ” Fauci said that there was “ little to no chance @ @ @ @ @ to guess his new password .
“ I used a polysyllabic word , ” Fauci @ @

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Calling his action “in the interest of public health,” Dr. Anthony Fauci changed Donald J. Trump’s Twitter password on Friday.
“This is something I’ve wanted to do for weeks,” Fauci told reporters. “I was just waiting for the right opportunity.”
During the daily meeting of the coronavirus task force, the esteemed virologist noticed that, while Trump launched into an extended rant about former Vice-President Joe Biden, he left his phone unattended on the conference-room table.
Springing into action, Fauci surreptitiously took custody of Trump’s phone and changed his Twitter password in a matter of seconds.
“I’d never hacked into a Twitter account before,” he said. “My heart was beating like a rabbit’s.”
Fauci said that there was “little to no chance” of Trump being able to guess his new password. “I used a polysyllabic word,” Fauci said.


newyorker--2020-03-13--How the Coronavirus Pandemic Fuels Trump’s Autocratic Instincts

Donald Trump has a limited repertoire .
When it comes to governing , he does five things : perform grand gestures , obfuscate and lie , engage in self-praise , stoke fear , and issue threats .
The first four of these were on display in the President ’ s Wednesday-night address on the coronavirus crisis .
The grand gesture was his announcement that he is banning travellers coming in from Europe .
The obfuscation and lying came when he boasted of “ responding with great speed and professionalism ” and promised more widespread testing , effective antiviral therapies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-payments for treatments .
These pledges blended seamlessly with self-praise , which included calling the American effort “ the most aggressive and comprehensive , ” claiming to have handled the coronavirus better than European countries have , and assuring his audience that the United States is well prepared .
None of this is true .
Finally , the fear-mongering came when Trump called COVID-19 a “ foreign virus , ” pointing the finger at Europe .
Remarkably , Trump didn ’ t take the opportunity to threaten the Democrats or the media , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he has before and will surely do so again .
Trump apparently read from a teleprompter on Wednesday night .
After weeks of dismissing the threat of a pandemic and of continuing to obsess about his own personal grievances , he finally sounded grave .
This was , in other words , one of those times when Trump sounded Presidential to some people , because he didn ’ t sound entirely deranged .
The former Republican governor of Ohio John Kasich , for example , defended Trump on CNN , saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part because the President read from a script .
But precisely because Trump was not at his worst—just his ordinary lying and self-aggrandizing self—in the extraordinary situation of a pandemic , what we are witnessing is peak Trump .
Writing in The Atlantic , the conservative commentator David Frum enumerated the things Trump failed to do in his speech .
He offered no guidance for local authorities on issues such as public events and school closures .
He gave no accounting of what has gone wrong with the federal response so far .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plans for helping people who will certainly face extreme financial hardship as a result of the crisis .
In other words , the only attribute of political leadership observable on Wednesday was Trump ’ s ability to read from a teleprompter .
Meanwhile , our lack of an actual functioning President has slowed down local responses .
Trump ’ s habit of obfuscating has translated into classifying essential information , which also handicaps the country ’ s ability to deal with the virus .
And , of course , his grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the markets tumbling , exacerbating what will surely be the catastrophic economic consequences of the coronavirus .
The immediate consequences of peak Trumpism in the public sphere are equally predictable and eminently observable : insufficient information , false information , and muddled information about the pandemic .
Fox News has largely echoed Trump ’ s Twitter messaging , downplaying the seriousness of the COVID-19 threat .
A different sort of misinformation has spread in the form of letters and social-media posts written by pseudoscientists , including one full of useless advice attributed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( I have also seen this letter in Russian , attributed to a Russian infectious-diseases doctor . )
Then there is the false information spread by Trump himself and seconded by Vice-President Mike Pence , who went on CNN to continue muddying the waters where Trump left off .
Finally , there is the muddled information that emerges from pointedly restrained coverage , such as that practiced by the Times , which creates false equivalencies between Trump ’ s lies and scientific facts .
Take this headline : “ Trump Suspends Most Travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That is a close-enough paraphrasing of what Trump said .
But does Trump really believe that that is what he is doing ?
Does the Times believe that he believes it ?
If not , then why transcribe his statements as fact ?
( “ No one thinks this policy has anything to do with public health , ” Gregg Gonsalves , the epidemiologist , Yale professor , and MacArthur Fellow , wrote on Facebook , in all caps . )
The Trumpian response to COVID-19 has been compared to the Soviet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Chernobyl power plant , in 1986 .
For once , this comparison is not far-fetched .
The people most at risk are not getting necessary , potentially life-saving information ; the government bears the responsibility for failing to inform people and for actively suppressing information ; there is rumor and fear on the one hand and dangerous oblivion on the other .
To be sure , Americans in 2020 have vastly more access to information than did Soviet citizens in 1986 .
But the Trump Administration shares two key features with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human life ; and a monomaniacal focus on pleasing their leader , who wishes only to look good and powerful .
These are the features of totalitarian leadership .
We have long known that Trump has totalitarian instincts , that he would want to establish total control over a mobilized society if only such an option were available to him .
Fortunately for us , however weak American institutions have turned out to be , we have been a long way from the possibility of totalitarianism .
But the coronavirus has brought us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Origins of Totalitarianism , ” Hannah Arendt identified a key precondition : “ Only where great masses are superfluous or can be spared without disastrous results of depopulation is totalitarian rule , as distinguished from a totalitarian movement , at all possible , ” she wrote .
She was speaking about state terror , which is possible only when a regime is willing to sacrifice millions of its own people .
But a pandemic also exerts terror .
Terror is effective when every person in the population has a credible fear of suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not being unleashed by the state under the cover of ideology , and this is a significant distinction .
Whatever the worst-case scenario is here , it ’ s not twentieth-century totalitarianism .
But a population gripped by terror creates extraordinary opportunities for this President , who has been groping his way to autocratic rule .
The biggest gift the pandemic may give Trump is the opportunity to envelop an ever greater number of people in his reality .
For the last three years , we have lived in a bifurcated America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever Trump says , even when he lies about the weather , and the other part lives in the tension between observable facts and Trump ’ s lies .
Staying sane in this split-screen reality is hard enough without the existential anxiety induced by a pandemic .
Anxiety is ever the autocrat ’ s friend .
Living in a fog where one either doesn ’ t know whom to believe or finds fact-based reality terrifying , more and more people may heed the clarion call of the conman-in-chief .
Other friends of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and a scarcity environment .
The inability to plan , to have the certainty of being able to feed one ’ s family today and tomorrow , produces more anxiety and fear of change .
Arendt wrote about the ways in which totalitarian regimes instrumentalize instability while at the same time dangling the promise of stability .
No matter what happens , Trump will continue to claim that our economy is the strongest and that we are the best-prepared and best-protected country .
His Democratic opponent will surely make more realistic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this may benefit Trump .
In any case , the conventional wisdom that a bad economy will undermine Trump ’ s chances for reëlection may not hold .
So what do we do ?
We need to do much more than wash our hands and avoid large crowds .
We must realize that this pandemic , like any other , is a political problem and a political opportunity .
This is a time for talking about how we live together in this country , which is a hard thing for Americans to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privileges individual survival .
Journalists and politicians alike default to a news-you-can-use format , telling people what they should do , personally , to keep safe and be responsible citizens : stay home if you are sick , for example .
The real question , though , is : How do we handle this as a society , as communities ?
What are the opportunities for mutual aid and care , even amid calls for social distancing ?
What is the response that creates , on the other side of this epidemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survived a plague but a polity whose members helped one another live ?
The political leaders who can inspire and inform such a conversation—and such a response—are also the ones who can lead us out of Trumpism .
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available .
We are all irrational panic shoppers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus take Rome .

Donald Trump has a limited repertoire. When it comes to governing, he does five things: perform grand gestures, obfuscate and lie, engage in self-praise, stoke fear, and issue threats. The first four of these were on display in the President’s Wednesday-night address on the coronavirus crisis. The grand gesture was his announcement that he is banning travellers coming in from Europe. The obfuscation and lying came when he boasted of “responding with great speed and professionalism” and promised more widespread testing, effective antiviral therapies, and that insurance companies would waive all co-payments for treatments. These pledges blended seamlessly with self-praise, which included calling the American effort “the most aggressive and comprehensive,” claiming to have handled the coronavirus better than European countries have, and assuring his audience that the United States is well prepared. None of this is true. Finally, the fear-mongering came when Trump called COVID-19 a “foreign virus,” pointing the finger at Europe. Remarkably, Trump didn’t take the opportunity to threaten the Democrats or the media, or blame them for the pandemic, but he has before and will surely do so again.
Trump apparently read from a teleprompter on Wednesday night. After weeks of dismissing the threat of a pandemic and of continuing to obsess about his own personal grievances, he finally sounded grave. This was, in other words, one of those times when Trump sounded Presidential to some people, because he didn’t sound entirely deranged. The former Republican governor of Ohio John Kasich, for example, defended Trump on CNN, saying that “he did fine,” in part because the President read from a script. But precisely because Trump was not at his worst—just his ordinary lying and self-aggrandizing self—in the extraordinary situation of a pandemic, what we are witnessing is peak Trump.
Writing in The Atlantic, the conservative commentator David Frum enumerated the things Trump failed to do in his speech. He offered no guidance for local authorities on issues such as public events and school closures. He gave no accounting of what has gone wrong with the federal response so far. He gave no specifics on the government’s plans for helping people who will certainly face extreme financial hardship as a result of the crisis. In other words, the only attribute of political leadership observable on Wednesday was Trump’s ability to read from a teleprompter. Meanwhile, our lack of an actual functioning President has slowed down local responses. Trump’s habit of obfuscating has translated into classifying essential information, which also handicaps the country’s ability to deal with the virus. And, of course, his grand gesture of closing European air travel sent the markets tumbling, exacerbating what will surely be the catastrophic economic consequences of the coronavirus.
The immediate consequences of peak Trumpism in the public sphere are equally predictable and eminently observable: insufficient information, false information, and muddled information about the pandemic. Fox News has largely echoed Trump’s Twitter messaging, downplaying the seriousness of the COVID-19 threat. A different sort of misinformation has spread in the form of letters and social-media posts written by pseudoscientists, including one full of useless advice attributed, falsely, to someone at Stanford. (I have also seen this letter in Russian, attributed to a Russian infectious-diseases doctor.) Then there is the false information spread by Trump himself and seconded by Vice-President Mike Pence, who went on CNN to continue muddying the waters where Trump left off. Finally, there is the muddled information that emerges from pointedly restrained coverage, such as that practiced by the Times, which creates false equivalencies between Trump’s lies and scientific facts. Take this headline: “Trump Suspends Most Travel from Europe to Try to Limit Virus.” That is a close-enough paraphrasing of what Trump said. But does Trump really believe that that is what he is doing? Does the Times believe that he believes it? If not, then why transcribe his statements as fact? (“No one thinks this policy has anything to do with public health,” Gregg Gonsalves, the epidemiologist, Yale professor, and MacArthur Fellow, wrote on Facebook, in all caps.)
The Trumpian response to COVID-19 has been compared to the Soviet government’s response to the accident at the Chernobyl power plant, in 1986. For once, this comparison is not far-fetched. The people most at risk are not getting necessary, potentially life-saving information; the government bears the responsibility for failing to inform people and for actively suppressing information; there is rumor and fear on the one hand and dangerous oblivion on the other. To be sure, Americans in 2020 have vastly more access to information than did Soviet citizens in 1986. But the Trump Administration shares two key features with the Soviet government: utter disregard for human life, and a monomaniacal focus on pleasing its leader, who wishes only to look good and powerful. These are the features of totalitarian leadership. We have long known that Trump has totalitarian instincts, that he would want to establish total control over a mobilized society if only such an option were available to him. Fortunately for us, however weak American institutions have turned out to be, we have been a long way from the possibility of totalitarianism. But the coronavirus has brought us a step closer.
In “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Hannah Arendt identified a key precondition: “Only where great masses are superfluous or can be spared without disastrous results of depopulation is totalitarian rule, as distinguished from a totalitarian movement, at all possible,” she wrote. She was speaking about state terror, which is possible only when a regime is willing to sacrifice millions of its own people. But a pandemic also exerts terror. Terror is effective when every person in the population has a credible fear of suffering and dying. Of course, COVID-19 is not being unleashed by the state under the cover of ideology, and this is a significant distinction. Whatever the worst-case scenario is here, it’s not twentieth-century totalitarianism. But a population gripped by terror creates extraordinary opportunities for this President, who has been groping his way to autocratic rule.
The biggest gift the pandemic may give Trump is the opportunity to envelop an ever greater number of people in his reality. For the past three years, we have lived in a bifurcated America, where part of the population believes whatever Trump says, even when he lies about the weather, and the other part lives in the tension between observable facts and Trump’s lies. Staying sane in this split-screen reality is hard enough without the existential anxiety induced by a pandemic. Anxiety is ever the autocrat’s friend. Living in a fog where one either doesn’t know whom to believe or finds fact-based reality terrifying, more and more people may heed the clarion call of the con man-in-chief.
Other friends of the autocrat, counterintuitively, are a tanking economy and a scarcity environment. The inability to plan, to have the certainty of being able to feed one’s family today and tomorrow, produces more anxiety and fear of change. Arendt wrote about the ways in which totalitarian regimes instrumentalize instability while at the same time dangling the promise of stability. No matter what happens, Trump will continue to claim that our economy is the strongest and that we are the best-prepared and best-protected country. His Democratic opponent will surely make more realistic, hence less optimistic, claims, and this may benefit Trump. In any case, the conventional wisdom that a bad economy will undermine Trump’s chances for reëlection may not hold.
So what do we do? We need to do much more than wash our hands and avoid large crowds. We must realize that this pandemic, like any other, is a political problem and a political opportunity. This is a time for talking about how we live together in this country, which is a hard thing for Americans to do. Our culture prizes individual action and privileges individual survival. Journalists and politicians alike default to a news-you-can-use format, telling people what they should do, personally, to keep safe and be responsible citizens: stay home if you are sick, for example. The real question, though, is: How do we handle this as a society, as communities? What are the opportunities for mutual aid and care, even amid calls for social distancing? What is the response that creates, on the other side of this epidemic, not a collection of atomized individuals who survived a plague but a polity whose members helped one another live? The political leaders who can inspire and inform such a conversation—and such a response—are also the ones who can lead us out of Trumpism.
A Guide to the Coronavirus
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus.
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available.
We are all irrational panic shoppers.
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome.
How pandemics change history.


newyorker--2020-03-13--The TV-Studio Audience Goes Missing in the Coronavirus Crisis

Amid a pandemic , the institution of the studio audience is taking an open-ended hiatus .
This week , fans began to disappear from the seats at tapings and live broadcasts of talk shows and game shows .
It ’ s a necessary thing , with an eeriness that is actual and conceptual and metaphorical : a dispersal of a sort of community , a symptom of a new approach to public space .
The absence of a live audience is a presence in itself .
Things shook out such that a number of the first shows to adopt this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , the hosts of “ The View ” assembled before a non-audience .
( There were surely more people at home than usual to watch as it aired . )
Whoopi Goldberg , taking the stage , exuberantly addressed many an empty seat .
“ Welcome to ‘ The View , ’ ” she said , twice .
Her job was to mitigate the aura of austerity ; she and her colleagues , who acknowledged the echo of the near-empty studio , recognized the need to perform a circus act with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a structural and emotional necessity of foregrounding the matter , in a way that combines frankness and cheer .
There is also a stupid poignancy in the juxtaposition of the fundamental gravity of the public-health problem and the raison d ’ être of “ Live with Kelly and Ryan.
” Here , on Wednesday , were two veteran communications professionals , Kelly Ripa and Ryan Seacrest , composing a new normality .
A skeleton crew of staffers had their bodies in their seats .
Ripa—expertly self-deprecatory , humble in the face of escalating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of punishment , and instead courted the home viewer ’ s attention .
“ Let ’ s face it , you can ’ t go anywhere else , ” Ripa said .
Meanwhile , Samantha Bee , on her first “ Full Frontal ” under these conditions , showed us a handful of staffers occupying her audience , keeping some space between them not only because of their respect for social distancing but “ also because they hate each other , ” Bee joked , venting something like impotent rage .
Hey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that comedy always plays better with a crowd , but this was more than comedy ; it was an impromptu form of crisis counselling .
When Stephen Colbert taped “ The Late Show ” on Thursday , in a near-empty Ed Sullivan Theatre , he operated in a similar mood .
“ As you may have noticed , none of you are here right now , ” he said to vacant seats .
The looseness and intimacy of the production—a taped rehearsal , with the house band dressed down—offered a note of comfort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Colbert , redirecting his rue , looked at the upside and celebrated that there was no one around to contradict his comic vision .
“ In my mind , all of my jokes are perfect , ” he said .
“ The only person that ever disagrees with me is the audience .
Can ’ t disagree with me now , can you ?
” If you were watching ESPN in the noon hour on Thursday , you saw the A.C.C .
men ’ s basketball tournament dissolve in real time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go , in Greensboro , North Carolina , before what the sportscasters referred to as a “ limited crowd ” of personnel and parents and cheerleaders .
Just before tip-off , the conference pulled the plug on the whole thing .
Things were happening very fast ; abruptly , they were not happening at all .
The commissioner delivered a competent explanation and presented a trophy to Florida State , as the conference ’ s regular-season champion .
In the quiet of the small crowd , the sound of every photographer ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed to swell beyond proportion , making a lonely noise .
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available .
We are all irrational panic shoppers .
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome .

Amid a pandemic, the institution of the studio audience is taking an open-ended hiatus. This week, fans began to disappear from the seats at tapings and live broadcasts of talk shows and game shows. It’s a necessary thing, with an eeriness that is actual and conceptual and metaphorical: a dispersal of a sort of community, a symptom of a new approach to public space. The absence of a live audience is a presence in itself.
Things shook out such that a number of the first shows to adopt this social-distancing decorum were daytime broadcasts. On Wednesday, the hosts of “The View” assembled before a non-audience. (There were surely more people at home than usual to watch as it aired.) Whoopi Goldberg, taking the stage, exuberantly addressed many an empty seat. “Welcome to ‘The View,’ ” she said, twice. Her job was to mitigate the aura of austerity; she and her colleagues, who acknowledged the echo of the near-empty studio, recognized the need to perform a circus act with the elephant in the room. There is a structural and emotional necessity of foregrounding the matter, in a way that combines frankness and cheer.
There is also a stupid poignancy in the juxtaposition of the fundamental gravity of the public-health problem and the raison d’être of “Live with Kelly and Ryan.” Here, on Wednesday, were two veteran communications professionals, Kelly Ripa and Ryan Seacrest, composing a new normality. A skeleton crew of staffers had their bodies in their seats. Ripa—expertly self-deprecatory, humble in the face of escalating absurdities—joshed that their attendance was a form of punishment, and instead courted the home viewer’s attention. “Let’s face it, you can’t go anywhere else,” Ripa said. Meanwhile, Samantha Bee, on her first “Full Frontal” under these conditions, showed us a handful of staffers occupying her audience, keeping some space between them not only because of their respect for social distancing but “also because they hate each other,” Bee joked, venting something like impotent rage. Hey, I chuckled. It is a truism that comedy always plays better with a crowd, but this was more than comedy; it was an impromptu form of crisis counselling.
When Stephen Colbert taped “The Late Show” on Thursday, in a near-empty Ed Sullivan Theatre, he operated in a similar mood. “As you may have noticed, none of you are here right now,” he said to vacant seats. The looseness and intimacy of the production—a taped rehearsal, with the house band dressed down—offered a note of comfort and caught a honest tone of discombobulation. Colbert, redirecting his rue, looked at the upside and celebrated that there was no one around to contradict his comic vision. “In my mind, all of my jokes are perfect,” he said. “The only person that ever disagrees with me is the audience. Can’t disagree with me now, can you?”
If you were watching ESPN in the noon hour on Thursday, you saw the A.C.C. men’s basketball tournament dissolve in real time. Florida State University and Clemson were ready to go, in Greensboro, North Carolina, before what the sportscasters referred to as a “limited crowd” of personnel and parents and cheerleaders. Just before tip-off, the conference pulled the plug on the whole thing. Things were happening very fast; abruptly, they were not happening at all. The commissioner delivered a competent explanation and presented a trophy to Florida State, as the conference’s regular-season champion. In the quiet of the small crowd, the sound of every photographer’s shutter and the buzz of phones seemed to swell beyond proportion, making a lonely noise.
A Guide to the Coronavirus
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus.
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available.
We are all irrational panic shoppers.
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome.
How pandemics change history.


newyorker--2020-03-13--A Week in Seattle, the Epicenter of America’s Coronavirus Crisis

We stopped touching each other on a Wednesday .
Or was it Tuesday ?
Information came at us so fast—confirmed cases , public-health warnings , deaths—you could swear the days of the week had transposed , their order jumbled like everything else .
Certainly by Wednesday the handshakes stopped .
Hugs weren ’ t far behind .
Even among longtime friends and family .
This would soon happen elsewhere in the country , to a degree , but here in the Seattle area , where by week ’ s end COVID-19 would kill nearly twenty of us , evading physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt like an act of heroism .
You told yourself you were saving lives , and you were probably right .
Days earlier , on Saturday , February 29th , we woke to news of the first U.S. death from the virus , a man in his fifties , at a hospital in Kirkland , eight miles northeast of Seattle .
At nearby Life Care Center of Kirkland , two patients tested positive .
The number of confirmed cases tripled within twenty-four hours .
By Monday , five were dead , four of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seventies and eighties .
Out came declarations of emergency , from the Seattle mayor , Jenny Durkan , the King County executive Dow Constantine , and Governor Jay Inslee .
We didn ’ t know it yet , but we were living in a kind of laboratory of the country ’ s future .
We were the first .
The first to see bus drivers don face masks ; the first to take seriously , citywide , singing “ Happy Birthday ” twice in a row as we washed our hands .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolation .
Circumventing handshakes helped avoid spreading disease—the elbow bump won out as the preferred alternative—but it also fostered a sense that none of us should be anywhere near one another .
On the bus you chose to stand rather than share a seat with a stranger .
You thought about crossing the street when approaching too many other pedestrians on a sidewalk .
Officials would eventually advise—then demand—that we avoid large public gatherings .
We were still out in the world , but barely of it .
Alone together .
In that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just how many objects your fingers touch throughout the day .
Door handles , crosswalk-signal switches , elevator buttons .
Every surface was suspect .
The elbow bump diversified , became an all-purpose tool .
You elbow-tapped to select your floor , and used the same elbow to hold the sliding doors for someone rushing to get to work on time .
( Then stood as far away from her as possible on the ride up . )
We also contended with Seattle ’ s new role on the world stage .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news for our innovations , here in the home of Amazon , Microsoft , Starbucks , and the original Boeing .
If we ’ re lucky , the Seahawks play a decent enough season for everyone else to hear about it .
Now we were known as ground zero of a deadly epidemic poised to sweep the continent .
On Tuesday night , NBC News , sharing its story on the crisis , tweeted , “ Seattle a ‘ ghost town ’ as residents face uncertainty of growing coronavirus outbreak.
” We laughed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a gross exaggeration .
Those of us downtown could see the city wasn ’ t empty .
But we recognized some truth in it , too .
The weekday bustle was there , but anesthetized .
All the while more news issued out of Kirkland .
In daily briefings , officials from Public Health—Seattle & King County shared the vaguest of details .
“ A female in her 80s , a resident of LifeCare , was hospitalized at EvergreenHealth .
She is in critical condition.
” “ A male in his 70s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at EvergreenHealth .
.
.
.
The man had underlying health conditions , and died 3/1/20.
” The death toll kept rising , but without names and specifics the epidemic could feel unrelated to any real danger , as if it only consisted of inconvenient rules , an invisible event that merely compelled people to bruise elbows and horde toilet paper and Purell .
Then the families started talking .
Carmen Gray sat behind the wheel of her Buick in the Life Care parking lot , just before noon , on Tuesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firs towered over the sidewalk between the nursing home and the residential street that flanks it .
Among the trees , Gray could see silver-bearded men toting TV cameras .
Nearby , on-air talent paced in hats , gloves , and coats buttoned tight against the winter breeze .
Photographers behaved like motion detectors , lifting their lenses at the slightest hint of movement near the nursing-home entrance .
Earlier in the morning , ambulances had transported three patients to nearby Evergreen hospital , but there was no action now .
Next to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sat her younger sister Bridget Parkhill .
They had a decision to make .
Their mother , the seventy-six-year-old Susan Hailey , had lived at the home since November , convalescing from knee surgery .
An ankle fracture from a fall prolonged her stay .
For the past four days , Hailey , like her fellow-residents , had been in quarantine .
Or as close to quarantine as the staff , without expertise in containing an epidemic , could muster ; patients were supposed to be confined to their rooms , but , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hallways .
Because none of the residents could leave , unless via ambulance to the hospital , the sisters had only been able to interact with their mother in one way : stand on the sidewalk outside Hailey ’ s room , wave at her through the window , point at their cell phones , and motion for her to pick up the phone when it rang .
In this way they soothed their mother , who felt isolated , scared .
To pass the time , Hailey watched “ The Price Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeopardy !
” at night , old movies in between .
In a photo Parkhill took with her phone , Hailey appears on the other side of the glass in a wheelchair , an oversized gray hoodie sweatshirt draped over her shoulders .
Behind her , holding the handles of the chair , stands a woman , presumably a caretaker , in floral-patterned scrubs , with a white mask covering her mouth .
Their mother didn ’ t exhibit all the symptoms of COVID-19—she had a cough and shortness of breath , among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That didn ’ t mean she hadn ’ t contracted the virus , or that she wouldn ’ t .
The lack of answers from both the nursing home and Public Health was frustrating .
No one seemed to know what the next steps were .
The sisters feared for their mother ’ s life .
Gray , a wine-shop clerk who lives in nearby Bothell , had never in her fifty-seven years spoken on record to a member of the media .
She wasn ’ t sure she was prepared for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think I ’ ve ever been on camera before , ” she later told me by phone , “ let alone half a dozen of them all at one time.
” But there she sat in the car , watching the scrum of cameramen and reporters among the tree trunks , just waiting for something to happen .
And she knew she had a story to tell .
As her sister dialled the number of a local TV studio to gain traction that way , Gray opened the driver ’ s-side door , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firs swaying in the wind , and stepped into the coronavirus spotlight .
Two days later , on Thursday , around 2 P.M. , family members of a handful of other patients held a joint press conference in the same spot .
Kevin Connolly , whose eighty-one-year-old father-in-law , Jerry , was inside , complained that many of them had learned about the outbreak on the news , not from Life Care staff .
“ At the rate that this disease is killing people in this establishment , ” Connelly said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the week .
”

We stopped touching one another on a Wednesday. Or was it Tuesday? Information came at us so fast—confirmed cases, public-health warnings, deaths—you could swear the days of the week had been transposed, their order jumbled like everything else. Certainly by Wednesday the handshakes stopped. Hugs weren’t far behind. Even among longtime friends and family. This would soon happen elsewhere in the country, to a degree, but here in the Seattle area, where by week’s end COVID-19 would kill nearly twenty of us, evading physical contact carried extra urgency. Every avoidance felt like an act of heroism. You told yourself you were saving lives, and you were probably right.
Days earlier, on Saturday, February 29th, we woke to news of the first U.S. death from the virus, a man in his fifties, at a hospital in Kirkland, eight miles northeast of Seattle. At nearby Life Care Center of Kirkland, two patients tested positive. The number of confirmed cases tripled within twenty-four hours. By Monday, five were dead, four of them patients at Life Care in their seventies and eighties. Out came declarations of emergency, from the Seattle mayor, Jenny Durkan; the King County executive, Dow Constantine; and Governor Jay Inslee.
We didn’t know it yet, but we were living in a kind of laboratory of the country’s future. We were the first. The first to see bus drivers don face masks; the first to take seriously, citywide, singing “Happy Birthday” twice in a row as we washed our hands. The first to experience a unique kind of isolation. Circumventing handshakes helped avoid spreading disease—the elbow bump won out as the preferred alternative—but it also fostered a sense that none of us should be anywhere near one another. On the bus you chose to stand rather than share a seat with a stranger. You thought about crossing the street when approaching too many other pedestrians on a sidewalk. Officials would eventually advise—then demand—that we avoid large public gatherings. We were still out in the world, but barely of it. Alone together.
In that isolation, you had time to notice just how many objects your fingers touch throughout the day. Door handles, crosswalk-signal switches, elevator buttons. Every surface was suspect. The elbow bump diversified, became an all-purpose tool. You elbow-tapped to select your floor, and used the same elbow to hold the sliding doors for someone rushing to get to work on time. (Then stood as far away from her as possible on the ride up.)
We also contended with Seattle’s new role on the world stage. We’re used to being in the news for our innovations, here in the home of Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, and the original Boeing. If we’re lucky, the Seahawks play a decent enough season for everyone else to hear about it. Now we were known as ground zero of a deadly epidemic poised to sweep the continent.
On Tuesday night, NBC News, sharing its story on the crisis, tweeted, “Seattle a ‘ghost town’ as residents face uncertainty of growing coronavirus outbreak.” We laughed it off and clapped back. It was a gross exaggeration. Those of us downtown could see the city wasn’t empty. But we recognized some truth in it, too. The weekday bustle was there, but anesthetized.
All the while more news issued out of Kirkland. In daily briefings, officials from Public Health—Seattle & King County shared the vaguest of details. “A female in her 80s, a resident of LifeCare, was hospitalized at EvergreenHealth. She is in critical condition.” “A male in his 70s, a resident of LifeCare, hospitalized at EvergreenHealth. . . . The man had underlying health conditions, and died 3/1/20.” The death toll kept rising, but without names and specifics the epidemic could feel unrelated to any real danger, as if it only consisted of inconvenient rules, an invisible event that merely compelled people to bruise elbows and hoard toilet paper and Purell. Then the families started talking.
Carmen Gray sat behind the wheel of her Buick in the Life Care parking lot, just before noon, on Tuesday, March 3rd. A line of Douglas firs towered over the sidewalk between the nursing home and the residential street that borders it. Among the trees, Gray could see silver-bearded men toting TV cameras. Nearby, on-air talent paced in hats, gloves, and coats buttoned tight against the winter breeze. Photographers behaved like motion detectors, lifting their lenses at the slightest hint of movement near the nursing-home entrance. Earlier in the morning, ambulances had transported three patients to nearby Evergreen hospital, but there was no action now.
Next to Gray, in the passenger seat, sat her younger sister Bridget Parkhill. They had a decision to make. Their mother, the seventy-six-year-old Susan Hailey, had lived at the home since November, convalescing from knee surgery. An ankle fracture from a fall prolonged her stay. For the past four days, Hailey, like her fellow-residents, had been in quarantine. Or as close to quarantine as the staff, without expertise in containing an epidemic, could muster; patients were supposed to be confined to their rooms, but, Gray noticed, several were in the hallways.
Carmen Gray and Bridget Parkhill speak by phone to their mother, Susan Hailey, a resident at the Life Center of Kirkland, Washington, from outside her room, on Tuesday. Photograph by David Ryder / Reuters
Because none of the residents could leave, unless via ambulance to the hospital, the sisters had been able to interact with their mother in only one way: standing on the sidewalk outside Hailey’s room, waving at her through the window, pointing at their cell phones, and motioning for her to pick up the phone when it rang. In this way they soothed their mother, who felt isolated, scared. To pass the time, Hailey watched “The Price Is Right” in the morning, “Jeopardy!” at night, old movies in between. In a photo Parkhill took with her phone, Hailey appears on the other side of the glass in a wheelchair, an oversized gray hoodie draped over her shoulders. Behind her, holding the handles of the chair, stands a woman, presumably a caretaker, in floral-patterned scrubs, with a white mask covering her mouth.
Their mother didn’t exhibit all the symptoms of COVID-19—she had a cough and shortness of breath, among other signs, but no fever. That didn’t mean she hadn’t contracted the virus, or that she wouldn’t. The lack of answers from both the nursing home and Public Health was frustrating. No one seemed to know what the next steps were. The sisters feared for their mother’s life.
Gray, a wine-shop clerk who lives in nearby Bothell, had never in her fifty-seven years spoken on record to a member of the media. She wasn’t sure she was prepared for the attention. “I don’t think I’ve ever been on camera before,” she later told me by phone, “let alone half a dozen of them all at one time.” But there she sat in the car, watching the scrum of cameramen and reporters among the tree trunks, just waiting for something to happen. And she knew she had a story to tell. As her sister dialled the number of a local TV studio, Gray opened the driver’s-side door, walked across the parking lot toward those firs swaying in the wind, and stepped into the coronavirus spotlight.
Two days later, on Thursday, at around 2 P.M., family members of a handful of other patients held a joint press conference in the same spot. Kevin Connolly, whose eighty-one-year-old father-in-law, Jerry, was inside, complained that many of them had learned about the outbreak on the news, not from Life Care staff. “At the rate that this disease is killing people in this establishment,” Connelly said, “my father-in-law will be dead by the end of the week.”
Pat Herrick’s eighty-nine-year-old mother, Elaine, was already gone, a nursing-home representative had informed Herrick by phone early that morning. Hours later, a Life Care Center of Kirkland employee inside the building called to say, inaccurately, that Elaine was just fine. Herrick said that she didn’t blame the Kirkland employee for the emotional roller coaster, but she was visibly agitated.
So was Curtis Luterman. The day before, he called the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 hotline and said that his eighty-nine-year-old mother, Mary, was at Life Care Center of Kirkland. The representative who answered the phone asked perplexing questions: In what state was the nursing home? Had any coronavirus cases been detected there? At the time, Life Care and its outbreak were the biggest, most ubiquitous news story in America. “Miss,” Luterman rhetorically asked the cameras pointed at him, “are you living under a rock?”
Hearing directly from the families had an impact, as did rigorous 24/7 reporting, especially by the staffs at the Seattle Times and the public-radio station KUOW. The deaths numbered eleven, ten of them linked to Life Care. On Friday, the day after the family press conference, when asked about the plight of those at the nursing home, Constantine, the King County executive, ordinarily a creature of Obama-like cool, grew visibly irate. “We’ve had some challenges with Life Care, and I’m starting to lose my patience.”
A week earlier, on Friday, February 28th, Constantine had landed in Washington, D.C., for the National Association of Counties conference, where on Sunday he was scheduled to join counterparts from Texas, Michigan, and New York for a panel on early-childhood development. That night, as he walked back to his hotel after dinner with a colleague, his cell phone lit up. A call from a staff member. There was trouble back home. The first cluster of COVID-19 cases had surfaced in Kirkland.
A native Seattleite and fourth-generation Washingtonian, former college-radio d.j., and personal friend to many of the region’s grunge-era icons, Constantine—or “Dow,” as he’s almost universally referred to around town—has been the county’s executive since 2009, responsible for the physical and economic well-being of 2.2 million people spread out over 2,130 square miles.
After the call in D.C., Constantine rushed to his hotel room and booked the next available flight home. From the air he monitored the situation, and soon after landing learned of the first mortality. From Sea-Tac airport he went straight to the Chinook Building, the county’s headquarters, in downtown Seattle, where his office would soon host C.D.C. and state health officials, now working closely with his own public-health department. “We’ve been at a dead sprint ever since,” Constantine told me. “One of the things we needed to do immediately was provide space for isolation of confirmed cases and for recovery.”
This was especially important for the region’s sizable population of people living with homelessness. (The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recently ranked Seattle/King County’s housing crisis the third worst in the nation.) “Every infection we’re able to prevent, every day that we can forestall the rapid escalation of this is a day closer to saving lives,” Constantine told me. He authorized the purchase of a motel, an eighty-five-bed Econo Lodge in the suburb of Kent. He ordered that modular units previously acquired for such an emergency—mobile-home-like structures often employed as offices at construction sites—be placed around the county for potential housing. Along the way, Constantine became the face of the containment effort—the calming, almost monotone voice when it was time to place our panic in check, or throaty indignation when the situation deserved criticism.