newyorker--2020-03-16--The Coronavirus Calls for Wartime Economic Thinking

Despite an unprecedented intervention over the weekend from the Federal Reserve , which cut short-term interest rates to close to zero and introduced emergency lending measures , the U.S. stock market fell sharply again on Monday .
By the close of trading , the Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen almost three thousand points—the worst single-day points loss in history—or thirteen per cent .
The market is now down by almost a third from its peak , in late February .
Clearly , investors are spooked by the widening coronavirus outbreak and the likely impact of the public-health measures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But what exactly is going on in the markets and the economy ?
In search of answers to this question , I spoke on Monday with Ian Shepherdson , the founder of Pantheon Macroeconomics , a firm that advises Wall Street firms , hedge funds , and institutional investors .
Shepherdson , who was formerly the chief U.S. economist at the international bank H.S.B.C.
, said that some investors were alarmed by the fact that the Fed felt obliged to act just a couple days before one of its regular policy meetings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the delay in getting both chambers of Congress to pass an emergency spending bill .
But Shepherdson also suggested that there were other factors at play , including some psychological ones .
“ To be brutally honest , ” he said , “ I think a lot of people on Wall Street didn ’ t take the virus seriously enough until it was their towns where cases were being discovered and their kids who were being sent home from school.
” Now the virus is impossible to ignore , and so are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to be catastrophic , ” Shepherdson said bluntly .
“ This is an economy built on discretionary consumption.
” He was referring to all the nonessential purchases that people make in their daily lives , things ranging from new clothes and appliances to personal services such as spa sessions , meals in restaurants , and Uber rides .
According to Shepherdson , all this nonessential stuff amounts to about forty per cent of the U.S. ’ s gross domestic product .
In other words , it is enormous , in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and the number of people it employs .
As of yet , we don ’ t have any over-all figures for how shutdowns and curfews and self-isolation are impacting spending , but there are some preliminary indications .
Over the weekend , movie-ticket sales fell forty-four per cent compared to the previous weekend .
Shepherdson has been monitoring the number of people eating out through the booking site OpenTable .
On Sunday night , the amount was down forty-eight per cent compared with the previous year .
He read out some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alabama : down thirty-eight per cent .
California : down fifty-five per cent .
New York : down forty-seven per cent .
New Jersey : down fifty-six per cent .
This is just unbelievable.
” That was when most restaurants were still operating .
Now that many states , including New York and New Jersey , have ordered them to close , apart from making deliveries , business is going to fall even more dramatically .
The same is going to be the case for countless other enterprises , small and large .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ them are going to furlough their workers or let them go permanently .
This will result in a sharp rise in unemployment and in negative G.D.P .
growth—in other words , a recession .
“ The U.S. economy is shrinking as we speak—I have no doubt at all about that , ” Shepherdson said .
On Monday , some Wall Street economists suggested that the G.D.P .
could fall at an annualized rate of five per cent in the second quarter of this year .
Shepherdson believes the downturn could be even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
contracting at a rate of about ten per cent .
A collapse in discretionary consumer spending isn ’ t the only danger , he noted .
As businesses react to the crisis , they will likely postpone a lot of capital spending , too .
“ We have no information about that yet , ” he said .
“ But it is definitely going to get hit badly , as well.
” To alleviate some of this damage , economists of many different political persuasions agree that the Trump Administration and Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on top of the coronavirus spending bill that the House of Representatives passed on Saturday .
How big should these measures be ?
“ I am in the one-trillion-to-two-trillion-dollar camp , preferably by dinner time , ” Shepherdson said .
“ I think they should be just throwing money at people and businesses that are in the front line .
Cash has to be given out to households .
Cash has to be given out to small businesses .
Cash has to be given out to gig workers .
I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drivers , but they are probably catastrophic.
” It ’ s not just small businesses that are being affected , of course .
Airlines , hotels chains , and other corporate entities are hemorrhaging money .
Shepherdson said that some airlines could go bust “ very quickly ” if they don ’ t receive some sort of aid .
“ People say don ’ t bail them out—they ’ ve made billions of dollars in profits and paid their senior executives enormous sums , ” he said .
“ I ’ m very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to need an airline industry in September .
So bail them out and sack the C.E.O.s .
You can ’ t think in normal terms .
This is more like a wartime crisis than a normal economic situation.
” Shepherdson isn ’ t the only economist making an allusion to the emergency measures that governments make in a war economy .
“ The world is de facto at war ( against the virus , rather than against each other—this is the good news .
.
. )
, ” Olivier Blanchard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Monetary Fund , tweeted on Monday .
He went on to point out that , during the Second World War , the federal deficit as a percentage of the G.D.P .
rose to twenty-six per cent , as the Roosevelt Administration spent heavily on armaments and other programs .
“ Let ’ s not be squeamish , ” Blanchard added .
Shepherdson agrees .
“ This is not a normal economic event in any way , shape , or form , ” he said .
“ You have to be willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” If necessary , he said , the Federal Reserve could buy the bonds that the U.S. Treasury issues to finance a massive economic support package—a tactic known as “ monetization , ” which also was employed after the Second World War .
“ Why do we worry about monetization ?
” Shepherdson said .
“ Because we are concerned about hyperinflation , but that isn ’ t an issue now , and we have a much bigger problem in our faces.
” If the economy slumps in the way he thinks it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequate financial support for people who are adversely affected could lead to social unrest .
“ The first job of the government is to prevent social breakdown , ” Shepherdson said .
“ If ever there was a case when quick government action could do that , then this is it.
” How people cope and create new customs amid a pandemic .
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Despite an unprecedented intervention over the weekend from the Federal Reserve, which cut short-term interest rates to close to zero and introduced emergency lending measures, the U.S. stock market fell sharply again on Monday. By the close of trading, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen almost three thousand points—the worst single-day points loss in history—or thirteen per cent. The market is now down by almost a third from its peak, in late February.
Clearly, investors are spooked by the widening coronavirus outbreak and the likely impact of the public-health measures that are being taken to deal with it. But what exactly is going on in the markets and the economy? In search of answers to this question, I spoke on Monday with Ian Shepherdson, the founder of Pantheon Macroeconomics, a firm that advises Wall Street firms, hedge funds, and institutional investors.
Shepherdson, who was formerly the chief U.S. economist at the international bank H.S.B.C., said that some investors were alarmed by the fact that the Fed felt obliged to act just a couple days before one of its regular policy meetings, and that they were also fretting about the delay in getting both chambers of Congress to pass an emergency spending bill. But Shepherdson also suggested that there were other factors at play, including some psychological ones. “To be brutally honest,” he said, “I think a lot of people on Wall Street didn’t take the virus seriously enough until it was their towns where cases were being discovered and their kids who were being sent home from school.”
Now the virus is impossible to ignore, and so are its economic consequences. “It’s going to be catastrophic,” Shepherdson said bluntly. “This is an economy built on discretionary consumption.” He was referring to all the nonessential purchases that people make in their daily lives, things ranging from new clothes and appliances to personal services such as spa sessions, meals in restaurants, and Uber rides. According to Shepherdson, all this nonessential stuff amounts to about forty per cent of the U.S.’s gross domestic product. In other words, it is enormous, in terms of both its dollar contribution to the economy and the number of people it employs.
As of yet, we don’t have any over-all figures for how shutdowns and curfews and self-isolation are impacting spending, but there are some preliminary indications. Over the weekend, movie-ticket sales fell forty-four per cent compared to the previous weekend. Shepherdson has been monitoring the number of people eating out through the booking site OpenTable. On Sunday night, the amount was down forty-eight per cent compared with the previous year. He read out some of the figures for individual states: “Alabama: down thirty-eight per cent. California: down fifty-five per cent. New York: down forty-seven per cent. New Jersey: down fifty-six per cent. This is just unbelievable.”
That was when most restaurants were still operating. Now that many states, including New York and New Jersey, have ordered them to close, apart from making deliveries, business is going to fall even more dramatically. The same is going to be the case for countless other enterprises, small and large. As they shut down, many of them are going to furlough their workers or let them go permanently.
This will result in a sharp rise in unemployment and in negative G.D.P. growth—in other words, a recession. “The U.S. economy is shrinking as we speak—I have no doubt at all about that,” Shepherdson said. On Monday, some Wall Street economists suggested that the G.D.P. could fall at an annualized rate of five per cent in the second quarter of this year. Shepherdson believes the downturn could be even more severe than that, with the G.D.P. contracting at a rate of about ten per cent. A collapse in discretionary consumer spending isn’t the only danger, he noted. As businesses react to the crisis, they will likely postpone a lot of capital spending, too. “We have no information about that yet,” he said. “But it is definitely going to get hit badly, as well.”
To alleviate some of this damage, economists of many different political persuasions agree that the Trump Administration and Congress need to introduce a substantial stimulus package on top of the coronavirus spending bill that the House of Representatives passed on Saturday. How big should these measures be? “I am in the one-trillion-to-two-trillion-dollar camp, preferably by dinner time,” Shepherdson said. “I think they should be just throwing money at people and businesses that are in the front line. Cash has to be given out to households. Cash has to be given out to small businesses. Cash has to be given out to gig workers. I don’t know what the figures are for Uber drivers, but they are probably catastrophic.”
It’s not just small businesses that are being affected, of course. Airlines, hotels chains, and other corporate entities are hemorrhaging money. Shepherdson said that some airlines could go bust “very quickly” if they don’t receive some sort of aid. “People say don’t bail them out—they’ve made billions of dollars in profits and paid their senior executives enormous sums,” he said. “I’m very sympathetic to that argument. But we are going to need an airline industry in September. So bail them out and sack the C.E.O.s. You can’t think in normal terms. This is more like a wartime crisis than a normal economic situation.”
Shepherdson isn’t the only economist making an allusion to the emergency measures that governments make in a war economy. “The world is de facto at war (against the virus, rather than against each other—this is the good news . . .),” Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, tweeted on Monday. He went on to point out that, during the Second World War, the federal deficit as a percentage of the G.D.P. rose to twenty-six per cent, as the Roosevelt Administration spent heavily on armaments and other programs. “Let’s not be squeamish,” Blanchard added.
Shepherdson agrees. “This is not a normal economic event in any way, shape, or form,” he said. “You have to be willing to think what previously would have been unthinkable.” If necessary, he said, the Federal Reserve could buy the bonds that the U.S. Treasury issues to finance a massive economic support package—a tactic known as “monetization,” which also was employed after the Second World War.
“Why do we worry about monetization?” Shepherdson said. “Because we are concerned about hyperinflation, but that isn’t an issue now, and we have a much bigger problem in our faces.” If the economy slumps in the way he thinks it is about to, a lack of adequate financial support for people who are adversely affected could lead to social unrest. “The first job of the government is to prevent social breakdown,” Shepherdson said. “If ever there was a case when quick government action could do that, then this is it.”
A Guide to the Coronavirus
How people cope and create new customs amid a pandemic.
What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak.
How much of the world is likely to be quarantined?
Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus.
The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available.
We are all irrational panic shoppers.
The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome.
How pandemics change history.


newyorker--2020-03-17--Lessons for the Movie Industry from the 1918 Influenza Pandemic

The dam on streaming new movies has broken : the L.A. Times reports that , this Friday , one studio , Universal , will make its current releases ( including “ The Invisible Man ” and “ Emma.
” ) available on video-on-demand and streaming on a variety of services .
More notably , it ’ s going to do the same with upcoming movies , making them streamable on the same dates as their would-be global releases , starting with “ Trolls World Tour , ” on April 10th .
It remains to be seen whether other studios will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significance of the move is double .
First , it risks drawing the wrath of multiplex chains , which have long demanded a ninety-day window of exclusivity on new releases ; if other studios hold out , does Universal risk a boycott of future titles by the chains ?
Second , Universal ’ s parent company , Comcast , owns two of the many services on which their movies are being issued—which is to say that Universal is partly following Netflix and Disney in directly releasing to consumers the movies that they produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sites and venues where their films are released is called vertical integration .
It was effectively banned by a Supreme Court decision in 1948 , when the studios ’ ownership of theatres was deemed to be pushing independent producers ( such as Disney , which owned no theatres ) out of the movie market .
With streaming , the practice has nonetheless made its incremental return by way of a variety of loopholes and regulatory decisions ( though concerns were raised as early as 2011 , with the Comcast acquisition of Universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump Administration ’ s endorsement—it ’ s growing .
Yet one difference between the current environment and that of the postwar years is that streaming sites are far less costly to build than theatres .
( The difficulty is in monetizing them . )
Remarkably , that earlier environment , of a movie business that was concentrated in the hands of a few studios , arose in the wake of a public-health crisis similar to the one the world faces now : the influenza pandemic of 1918 .
I ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Industry , ” by Benjamin P. Hampton , published in 1931 , which contains a brief but dramatic recap of what happened to the film industry at that time .
The First World War was still raging when the flu hit , and , in many parts of the United States , theatres were forced to close .
( Then , as now , regulations were issued locally . )
“ No New ‘ Movies ’ Till Influenza Ends , ” a headline in the October 10 , 1918 , issue of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the quotation marks around the word “ movies , ” which was still a slang term at the time . )
Production companies decided to withhold new releases , because theatres across the country—though not yet in New York City—were being closed .
“ One thing the verdict would do , ” the Times article adds , “ would be to force New York to content itself with ‘ old ’ pictures instead of the weekly arrival of new reels.
” Of course , there was no home-video distribution option at the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampton writes , the closing of theatres had a vast ripple effect on film production : “ Studios closed entirely , or operated on part time , and pessimists croaked that this was the beginning of the end.
” Productions didn ’ t shut down ( as they are doing today ) because of fear of contagion on the set but rather because , with the closing of theatres , demand for new movies suddenly stopped .
Then , a few weeks later , Hampton writes , when the Armistice was signed ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war , the public instantaneously lost interest in the vast number of war movies that production companies big and small had been producing—at exactly the moment , Hampton says , that they also wondered whether , as a result of the theatre closings and the flu , the very appeal of moviegoing had become obsolete .
Here ’ s where Hampton ’ s conclusions are especially relevant : “ The producers who hesitated lost ground in the struggle that was shaping its lines for the final test of industrial survival , and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead on a showman ’ s hunch saved their skins.
” Many smaller companies went out of business , and the resulting shakeout led to a consolidation that made the big ones bigger , creating the studios that became the masters of production , distribution , and exhibition together ; the flu , combined with the end of the war , gave rise to the mega-Hollywood that ’ s being duplicated again today .
( Hampton tells a fascinating wider story , stretching into the nineteen-twenties , involving huge investments in Hollywood , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war ’ s end , shifting audience tastes , a decline in the popularity of stars—and a rise in the power and prominence of directors . )
It ’ s impossible to know whether the opportunity to garner new home-viewing audiences during the current crisis will be as short-lived as the chance to rescue production companies was in late 1918 .
But I suspect it ’ ll be longer-lasting—that the hunger for entertainment will drive viewers to new releases online whenever they show up , and that studios will begin calculating their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care that they devote to their theatrical-release calendar .
The big question , of course , is whether , after the pandemic subsides—be it in a matter of weeks or months—studios will instantly go back to a theatrical-first model .
It ’ s not implausible to imagine theatrical releases being transformed into special events , strictly limited runs of a week or a month that will coexist with , or briefly precede , streaming releases ( as Netflix has done with such films as “ Roma , ” “ The Irishman , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Certainly , in doing so , the studios would be leaving a lot of money , from ticket sales , on the table—but , whereas theatrical exhibition gives the multiplexes substantial cuts of the box office , streaming gives the studio that owns its own site nearly the whole pot .
( Of course , that ’ s a business model based on pay-per-view rather than subscription , which is a different matter altogether . )
The stockpiling of movies pulled from release is only one of the crises studios currently face .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dearth of new ones , as more and more productions have been shutting down .
In the Times , the producer Elizabeth Cantillon , whose shoot of “ The Nightingale ” was halted last Friday , said , “ Movie theaters , television networks , Netflix—they all need content all the time .
If we can ’ t produce it because we can ’ t be next to each other , what happens ?
It ’ s just going to be a lot of YouTube videos of people in their bedrooms.
” Depending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bedrooms and what they ’ re doing , their creations could well be an improvement over many movies currently put out in Hollywood .
I ’ m reminded of one of the great recent movies , “ This Is Not a Film , ” from 2011 , which the Iranian director Jafar Panahi made under house arrest and during a ban on making films , with an iPhone and a video camera that a colleague brought over to his apartment , set down , and left running .
In the film , Panahi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sticks his head out the door—but , for much of it , he is inside , speaking to the camera alone .
( It ’ s streaming on Kanopy and Mubi . )
I ’ ll bet there are some stars , or some actors not yet stars , who ’ d create something equally amazing at home , and that there are writers who can write it and directors who can control a camera remotely .
( Perhaps the logistics of the direction , by the phone or text messaging or video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the film . )
I ’ m also reminded of Roberto Rossellini ’ s intimate yet virtually operatic spectacle “ The Human Voice ” ( 1948 ) , which is based on a play by Jean Cocteau and stars Anna Magnani alone , in her bedroom , speaking on the telephone .
( It , too , is available to stream , in the two-part film “ L ’ Amore , ” on the Criterion Channel , Amazon Prime , and elsewhere . )
Just as in 1918 , it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” —before the crackdown against the novel coronavirus , which seems like its own kind of wartime—will seem as dated , and prove as unpopular , as war movies did after the Armistice .
Now , as then , the big decisions to be made , and the ones that will determine the future of the movies , are the artistic ones , the bold and imaginative ones .

The dam on streaming new movies has broken: the L.A. Times reports that, this Friday, one studio, Universal, will make its current releases (including “The Invisible Man” and “Emma.”) available on video-on-demand and streaming on a variety of services. More notably, it’s going to do the same with upcoming movies, making them streamable on the same dates as their would-be global releases, starting with “Trolls World Tour,” on April 10th. It remains to be seen whether other studios will follow suit. Either way, the significance of the move is double. First, it risks drawing the wrath of multiplex chains, which have long demanded a ninety-day window of exclusivity on new releases; if other studios hold out, does Universal risk a boycott of future titles by the chains? Second, Universal’s parent company, Comcast, owns two of the many services on which their movies are being issued—which is to say that Universal is partly following Netflix and Disney in directly releasing to consumers the movies that they produce.
The practice of production companies owning the sites and venues where their films are released is called vertical integration. It was effectively banned by a Supreme Court decision in 1948, when the studios’ ownership of theatres was deemed to be pushing independent producers (such as Disney, which owned no theatres) out of the movie market. With streaming, the practice has nonetheless made its incremental return by way of a variety of loopholes and regulatory decisions (though concerns were raised as early as 2011, with the Comcast acquisition of Universal), and, with lax enforcement—and the Trump Administration’s endorsement—it’s growing. Yet one difference between the current environment and that of the postwar years is that streaming sites are far less costly to build than theatres. (The difficulty is in monetizing them.)
Remarkably, that earlier environment, of a movie business that was concentrated in the hands of a few studios, arose in the wake of a public-health crisis similar to the one the world faces now: the influenza pandemic of 1918. I’ve been reading “History of the American Film Industry,” by Benjamin P. Hampton, published in 1931, which contains a brief but dramatic recap of what happened to the film industry at that time. The First World War was still raging when the flu hit, and, in many parts of the United States, theatres were forced to close. (Then, as now, regulations were issued locally.) “No New ‘Movies’ Till Influenza Ends,” a headline in the October 10, 1918, issue of the New York Times announced. (Note the quotation marks around the word “movies,” which was still a slang term at the time.) Production companies decided to withhold new releases, because theatres across the country—though not yet in New York City—were being closed. “One thing the verdict would do,” the Times article adds, “would be to force New York to content itself with ‘old’ pictures instead of the weekly arrival of new reels.”
Of course, there was no home-video distribution option at the time, and, as a result, Hampton writes, the closing of theatres had a vast ripple effect on film production: “Studios closed entirely, or operated on part time, and pessimists croaked that this was the beginning of the end.” Productions didn’t shut down (as they are doing today) because of fear of contagion on the set but rather because, with the closing of theatres, demand for new movies suddenly stopped. Then, a few weeks later, Hampton writes, when the Armistice was signed (on November 11th) to end the war, the public instantaneously lost interest in the vast number of war movies that production companies big and small had been producing—at exactly the moment, Hampton says, that they also wondered whether, as a result of the theatre closings and the flu, the very appeal of moviegoing had become obsolete.
Here’s where Hampton’s conclusions are especially relevant: “The producers who hesitated lost ground in the struggle that was shaping its lines for the final test of industrial survival, and those who disregarded common business prudence and rushed ahead on a showman’s hunch saved their skins.” Many smaller companies went out of business, and the resulting shakeout led to a consolidation that made the big ones bigger, creating the studios that became the masters of production, distribution, and exhibition together; the flu, combined with the end of the war, gave rise to the mega-Hollywood that’s being duplicated again today. (Hampton tells a fascinating wider story, stretching into the nineteen-twenties, involving huge investments in Hollywood, an influx of capital from Europe after the war’s end, shifting audience tastes, a decline in the popularity of stars—and a rise in the power and prominence of directors.)
It’s impossible to know whether the opportunity to garner new home-viewing audiences during the current crisis will be as short-lived as the chance to rescue production companies was in late 1918. But I suspect it’ll be longer-lasting—that the hunger for entertainment will drive viewers to new releases online whenever they show up, and that studios will begin calculating their online streaming drop dates with the same care that they devote to their theatrical-release calendar. The big question, of course, is whether, after the pandemic subsides—be it in a matter of weeks or months—studios will instantly go back to a theatrical-first model. It’s not implausible to imagine theatrical releases being transformed into special events, strictly limited runs of a week or a month that will coexist with, or briefly precede, streaming releases (as Netflix has done with such films as “Roma,” “The Irishman,” and “Marriage Story”). Certainly, in doing so, the studios would be leaving a lot of money, from ticket sales, on the table—but, whereas theatrical exhibition gives the multiplexes substantial cuts of the box office, streaming gives the studio that owns its own site nearly the whole pot. (Of course, that’s a business model based on pay-per-view rather than subscription, which is a different matter altogether.)
The stockpiling of movies pulled from release is only one of the crises studios currently face. Another is the longer-term threat of a dearth of new ones, as more and more productions have been shutting down. In the Times, the producer Elizabeth Cantillon, whose shoot of “The Nightingale” was halted last Friday, said, “Movie theaters, television networks, Netflix—they all need content all the time. If we can’t produce it because we can’t be next to each other, what happens? It’s just going to be a lot of YouTube videos of people in their bedrooms.” Depending on who those people are in their bedrooms and what they’re doing, their creations could well be an improvement over many movies currently put out in Hollywood. I’m reminded of one of the great recent movies, “This Is Not a Film,” from 2011, which the Iranian director Jafar Panahi made under house arrest and during a ban on making films, with an iPhone and a video camera that a colleague brought over to his apartment, set down, and left running. In the film, Panahi sees neighbors, takes the elevator, sticks his head out the door—but, for much of it, he is inside, speaking to the camera alone. (It’s streaming on Kanopy and Mubi.)
I’ll bet there are some stars, or some actors not yet stars, who’d create something equally amazing at home, and that there are writers who can write it and directors who can control a camera remotely. (Perhaps the logistics of the direction, by the phone or text messaging or video chats, would itself be part of the film.) I’m also reminded of Roberto Rossellini’s intimate yet virtually operatic spectacle “The Human Voice” (1948), which is based on a play by Jean Cocteau and stars Anna Magnani alone, in her bedroom, speaking on the telephone. (It, too, is available to stream, in the two-part film “L’Amore,” on the Criterion Channel, Amazon Prime, and elsewhere.) Just as in 1918, it’s not inconceivable today that movies made “before”—before the crackdown against the novel coronavirus, which seems like its own kind of wartime—will seem as dated, and prove as unpopular, as war movies did after the Armistice. Now, as then, the big decisions to be made, and the ones that will determine the future of the movies, are the artistic ones, the bold and imaginative ones.


newyorker--2020-03-17--How to Practice Social Distancing

How to Practice Social Distancing

As Americans and people around the world are being asked to help halt the spread of the coronavirus , we have frequently been told to practice social distancing .
The idea is to “ flatten the curve , ” or slow the spread of the virus , decreasing the number of people who get sick at one time and the risk of overwhelming our medical system .
In practice , social distancing mostly means avoiding close contact with people who do not live with you , and also public spaces , where surfaces may be contaminated .
But , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such advice , it can be hard to totally change our habits , and the specific advice about how to behave can be confusing and overwhelming .
In order to get some tips on how we should all be going about our daily lives , I spoke by phone with Asaf Bitton , a primary-care physician , public-health researcher , and the director of the Ariadne Labs , at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital and the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health .
He has produced a handy sheet outlining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my questions for him were about how to follow them .
In our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed what to do when you go outside , how often to shower , the importance of walks , how to respond if someone you are sheltering with gets sick , the pros and cons of ordering food , and the unsung heroes at American medical facilities .
What has been the biggest thing that you think people do not understand , or have misunderstood , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an incredible need for speed .
We need to do it now and yesterday and not next week .
It was deflating and disconcerting to , on the one hand , finally see state , local , and some federal response over the last five days , coupled with images of bars being filled to capacity on Saturday night across cities , and huge lines with a crunch of people at airports that took in international travellers .
That was a disconcerting incongruity .
What about in terms of how people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in your own life , is there something they seem to not understand about it ?
Yeah .
The piece that I wrote that got some traction—and I have to give credit to my wife , Liz—really came out of a huge number of people calling and asking , “ If our school is closed , we can still do play dates , right ?
” Or “ Let ’ s have a six-family picnic in the park , ” or “ How about a sleepover with only four kids ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing .
Social distancing isn ’ t some external concept that applies only to work and school .
Social distancing is really extreme .
It is a concept that disconnects us physically from each other .
It profoundly reorients our daily life habits .
And it is very hard .
We have all these built-in human needs and desires because we are social creatures who connect with each other , and I think one of the profound challenges , and one of the ways we will know whether we are meeting this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustain this very unnatural—from a human perspective—physical separateness .
But I want to really emphasize that social distancing is really about that physical separation .
It is not—and , in fact , it won ’ t work if it means—an actual disconnection socially from each other , which would have tremendous , tremendous effects pretty much on everybody , but especially kids and the elderly and other vulnerable populations .
You write , “ Exercise , take walks/runs outside , and stay connected through phone , video , and other social media .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your best to maintain at least six feet between you and non-family members .
If you have kids , try not to use public facilities like playground structures , as coronavirus can live on plastic and metal for up to three days , and these structures are n't getting regularly cleaned.
” Can you discuss this more ?
There is a lot of fear about the coronavirus living on surfaces .
Does going outside at all increase the risk ?
Going outside in and of itself doesn ’ t increase the risk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ beings , and specifically to their secretions—their sneezes and droplets .
So the recommendation is to please go outside if you can .
Please take walks , please bike , with a helmet .
Interact with your family members outside .
But really the key is don ’ t interact with people outside of your home unit—whoever you are already in close contact with .
The C.D.C .
is recommending maintaining a distance of six feet , because that is as far as they can tell droplets can travel .
And don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of playground surfaces and sitting on park benches , it sounds extreme , but we do know that it lives on surfaces for a long time—some studies have found nine days , some studies have found three days—and we don ’ t clean those surfaces regularly .
You will want to not touch those surfaces .
But the key thing is that you are going to want to go outside , and I am concerned that people are misconstruing social distancing as a recommendation to not get fresh air .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people .
It is really a matter of maintaining as much personal space as possible .
You write , “ Take-out meals and food are riskier than making food at home given the links between the people who prepare food , transport the food , and you .
It is hard to know how much that risk is , but it is certainly higher than making it at home .
But you can and should continue to support your local small businesses ( especially restaurants and other retailers ) during this difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can use later.
” How do you weigh this ?
If you get takeout , there is a whole supply chain where people could be interacting .
Should people not do it at all ?
Here is where I stand on this : I think that , if a person is really trying to minimize their risk—like , let ’ s say they are older , or have a respiratory or cardiovascular condition , and they ’ re trying to minimize all possible risks , then not taking out from restaurants and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food might be a good idea .
What I am saying is it is not standard practice , but there have been no public-health guidelines for restaurants that remain open to basically have all of their chefs and cooks and people who handle the food wear masks .
And so , given the fact that that is not a guidance , there is at least a theoretical , if not probable or likely , somewhat increased risk of transmission from food delivery .
I am also a realist and a pragmatist , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urban areas , it is not practical for everybody to cook every meal on their own .
And so this is where we have to make our best guess and judgment about that titration of risk and benefit .
It ’ s not about doing everything a hundred per cent all the time .
It ’ s about doing as much as you possibly can and contributing your own personal discomfort or inconvenience to protect yourself and to protect others .

As Americans and people around the world are being asked to help halt the spread of the coronavirus, we have frequently been told to practice social distancing. The idea is to “flatten the curve,” or slow the spread of the virus, decreasing the number of people who get sick at one time and the risk of overwhelming our medical system. In practice, social distancing mostly means avoiding close contact with people who do not live with you, and also public spaces, where surfaces may be contaminated. But, no matter how often we have been given such advice, it can be hard to totally change our habits, and the specific advice about how to behave can be confusing and overwhelming.
In order to get some tips on how we should all be going about our daily lives, I spoke by phone with Asaf Bitton, a primary-care physician, public-health researcher, and the director of the Ariadne Labs, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. He has produced a handy sheet outlining the best social-distancing practices, and most of my questions for him were about how to follow them. In our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what to do when you go outside, how often to shower, the importance of walks, how to respond if someone you are sheltering with gets sick, the pros and cons of ordering food, and the unsung heroes at American medical facilities.
What has been the biggest thing that you think people do not understand, or have misunderstood, about social distancing?
The fact that there is an incredible need for speed. We need to do it now and yesterday and not next week. It was deflating and disconcerting to, on the one hand, finally see state, local, and some federal response over the last five days, coupled with images of bars being filled to capacity on Saturday night across cities, and huge lines with a crunch of people at airports that took in international travellers. That was a disconcerting incongruity.
What about in terms of how people are socially distancing? When you talk to people in your own life, is there something they seem to not understand about it?
Yeah. The piece that I wrote that got some traction—and I have to give credit to my wife, Liz—really came out of a huge number of people calling and asking, “If our school is closed, we can still do play dates, right?” Or “Let’s have a six-family picnic in the park,” or “How about a sleepover with only four kids?” That is pretty much the opposite of social distancing. Social distancing isn’t some external concept that applies only to work and school. Social distancing is really extreme. It is a concept that disconnects us physically from each other. It profoundly reorients our daily life habits. And it is very hard. We have all these built-in human needs and desires because we are social creatures who connect with each other, and I think one of the profound challenges, and one of the ways we will know whether we are meeting this crisis head-on, is whether we can sustain this very unnatural—from a human perspective—physical separateness.
But I want to really emphasize that social distancing is really about that physical separation. It is not—and, in fact, it won’t work if it means—an actual disconnection socially from each other, which would have tremendous, tremendous effects pretty much on everybody, but especially kids and the elderly and other vulnerable populations.
You write, “Exercise, take walks/runs outside, and stay connected through phone, video, and other social media. But when you go outside, do your best to maintain at least six feet between you and non-family members. If you have kids, try not to use public facilities like playground structures, as coronavirus can live on plastic and metal for up to three days, and these structures aren't getting regularly cleaned.” Can you discuss this more? There is a lot of fear about the coronavirus living on surfaces. Does going outside at all increase the risk?
Going outside in and of itself doesn’t increase the risk. It is really proximity to other human beings, and specifically to their secretions—their sneezes and droplets. So the recommendation is to please go outside if you can. Please take walks, please bike, with a helmet. Interact with your family members outside. But really the key is don’t interact with people outside of your home unit—whoever you are already in close contact with. The C.D.C. is recommending maintaining a distance of six feet, because that is as far as they can tell droplets can travel. And don’t touch other people.
And in terms of playground surfaces and sitting on park benches, it sounds extreme, but we do know that it lives on surfaces for a long time—some studies have found nine days, some studies have found three days—and we don’t clean those surfaces regularly. You will want to not touch those surfaces.
But the key thing is that you are going to want to go outside, and I am concerned that people are misconstruing social distancing as a recommendation to not get fresh air. And I don’t think that is healthy for people. It is really a matter of maintaining as much personal space as possible.
You write, “Take-out meals and food are riskier than making food at home given the links between the people who prepare food, transport the food, and you. It is hard to know how much that risk is, but it is certainly higher than making it at home. But you can and should continue to support your local small businesses (especially restaurants and other retailers) during this difficult time by buying gift certificates online that you can use later.” How do you weigh this? If you get takeout, there is a whole supply chain where people could be interacting. Should people not do it at all?
Here is where I stand on this. I think that, if a person is really trying to minimize their risk—like, let’s say they are older, or have a respiratory or cardiovascular condition, and they’re trying to minimize all possible risks—then not taking out from restaurants and minimizing that chain of people touching your food might be a good idea. What I am saying is it is not standard practice, but there have been no public-health guidelines for restaurants that remain open to basically have all of their chefs and cooks and people who handle the food wear masks. And so, given the fact that that is not a guidance, there is at least a theoretical, if not probable or likely, somewhat increased risk of transmission from food delivery. I am also a realist and a pragmatist, and I get that, especially in dense urban areas, it is not practical for everybody to cook every meal on their own. And so this is where we have to make our best guess and judgment about that titration of risk and benefit. It’s not about doing everything a hundred per cent all the time. It’s about doing as much as you possibly can and contributing your own personal discomfort or inconvenience to protect yourself and to protect others.
One thing I have been saying, and maybe this is wrong, since I am not a doctor, is that this is not binary. It isn’t that you have been exposed to the virus or not, and if not, who cares. This is about risk mitigation, and, if you do ninety-eight per cent of the smart things, that is better than two per cent. Not everyone will be at a hundred per cent. We are human. But we have to get as close as we can.


newyorker--2020-03-17--Dr. Fauci Says He Has No Idea Who Locked Jared Kushner in Bathroom

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Dr .
Anthony Fauci said on Tuesday that he had “ no idea ” @ @ @ @ @ a White House bathroom .
Fielding a question at the daily briefing by the Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ virologist said that it was most likely “ a regrettable accident ” that resulted in @ @ @ @ @ son-in-law being trapped in the bathroom for nine hours .
“ Doors get locked by @ @ @ @ @ ” Fauci said .
When a reporter pointed out that the bathroom door had been @ @ @ @ @ a padlock , Fauci replied , “ Whoa .
That ’ s a different kettle @ @ @ @ @ not heard that .
Padlock ?
That ’ s crazy.
” Fauci urged the press @ @ @ @ @ big a deal ” of Kushner ’ s imprisonment in the bathroom , and noted @ @ @ @ @ heard Kushner ’ s screams and came to his rescue .
Taking another question from @ @ @ @ @ had no idea who locked Representative Devin Nunes in the bathroom .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Dr. Anthony Fauci said on Tuesday that he had “no idea” who locked Jared Kushner in a White House bathroom.
Fielding a question at the daily briefing by the Coronavirus Task Force, the esteemed virologist said that it was most likely “a regrettable accident” that resulted in Donald J. Trump’s son-in-law being trapped in the bathroom for nine hours.
“Doors get locked by mistake all the time,” Fauci said.
When a reporter pointed out that the bathroom door had been locked from the outside with a padlock, Fauci replied, “Whoa. That’s a different kettle of fish. I had not heard that. Padlock? That’s crazy.”
Fauci urged the press not to “make too big a deal” of Kushner’s imprisonment in the bathroom, and noted that Vice-President Mike Pence eventually heard Kushner’s screams and came to his rescue.
Taking another question from reporters, Fauci said he had no idea who locked Representative Devin Nunes in the bathroom.
Read More Satire from the Borowitz Report


newyorker--2020-03-17--The Coronavirus and the Gutting of America’s Public-Health System

Few people have trouble understanding the purpose of public education or public housing : they are tangible programs that , at least in theory , are designed to improve our lives .
Public-health accomplishments , however , are measured in an entirely different way : success is defined by what is prevented , not by what is produced .
This creates an odd psychological dynamic .
When public-health programs are successful , they are invisible , and what is invisible is almost always taken for granted .
Nobody cheers when they remain untouched by a disease that they hardly knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortsighted politicians to deny long-term realities .
And that is what they almost always do .
Members of Congress hardly made a peep in 2018 , when the Trump Administration disbanded the White House ’ s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense .
The directorate was established after the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014 with a simple mission .
Beth Cameron , its former head , recently wrote in the Washington Post : “ to do everything possible within the vast powers and resources of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak and prevent it from becoming an epidemic or pandemic.
’ ’ I have never met an epidemiologist or virologist who expressed even the slightest doubt that such an outbreak would occur .
Nor would anyone have to look hard for evidence that it would .
In just the past twenty years , we have seen a rolling cascade of dangerous viral epidemics , including SARS , MERS , avian influenza , Ebola , and the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009 , which , alone , infected as many as 1.4 billion people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as current low-end mortality estimates of COVID-19—about one per cent—as many as fourteen million would have died .
But we lucked out in 2009 , because viruses do not decide how deadly they will turn out to be , and H1N1 was relatively mild .
Public-health defense systems are created to protect us in the future , not in the past .
Yet , in a single stroke , the Trump Administration fired the people whose job it was to plan for—and attempt to blunt—inevitable epidemics , such as the one that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its knees .
The results of such acts of denialism are painful .
And , although Donald Trump deserves condemnation for constantly understating and ignoring this threat , he is hardly the first American leader to gut or ignore the very system that protects the people .
In 2000 , the Institute of Medicine issued a report titled “ Public Health Systems and Emerging Infections : Assessing the Capabilities of the Public and Private Sectors.
” One of the report ’ s findings was that the basic infrastructure of the American public-health system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels , is eroding .
With that deterioration comes a diminished capacity to predict , detect , and respond to an emerging infectious disease .
There have been scores of similar reports issued in the past twenty years—nearly each of which , like this one , was essentially ignored .
This report was edited by the late Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg , whose insights into the role of viruses and bacteria in the life of this planet should be read by every elected official with the power to appropriate even a single dollar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignore the threat of diseases that have killed people for thousands of years .
By the nineteen-seventies , it looked as if the United States was on the verge of eliminating tuberculosis as a significant cause of illness .
So the political leadership simply stopped funding research programs .
Experts warned that this neglect would guarantee a new epidemic , but nobody listened .
As the number of TB infections grew , specialists became increasingly alarmed .
Yet , every year between 1981 and 1987 , the Reagan Administration opposed the very existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for its repeal in every new budget .
By 1992 , the United States had created its first preventable epidemic—with new TB strains that proved resistant to conventional antibiotics .
I wrote about this needless resurgence at the time , noting that the last time New York City had four thousand cases of TB , in 1967 , more than a thousand beds in municipal hospitals were specifically assigned for tuberculosis patients .
By 1992 , when there were four thousand cases that were even more virulent , the number of available beds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it take to interrupt this endless cycle of purposeful ignorance ?
It is not hard to predict what will happen after this pandemic fades—as eventually it will .
If more people die and become sick than we expect , groups such as the World Health Organization will be denounced for their inability to protect lives .
If the death toll is far lower than what is envisioned in the worst-case scenarios , people will denounce the same groups , along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , as needlessly alarmist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy .
There have been deep , systemic , and horrifying failures—most notably our inability to mobilize a testing regime that would provide the data that health-policy leaders need to make every other decision .
You can not understand the cause of a disease , its natural history , or the best ways to prevent infection without the ability to test the population .
We have long had that ability—there are hundreds of American universities and medical centers that could create a useful diagnostic for COVID-19—but we have never bothered to properly prepare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , the President attempted to suggest that the federal response had been adequate .
That is far from true .
Trump has also suggested that the Obama Administration acted badly during the 2009 H1N1 epidemic and stated , as proof , that seventeen thousand people died .
He was right about the death toll ; what he seems not to understand is that that number is far lower than the death rate in any average influenza season .
Epidemics are spread at least as much by ignorance as by a virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time , we are not ignorant .
The virus was characterized quickly and sequenced in less than a month .
By the end of February , scientists had re-created the coronavirus in a lab setting , and the data have now been shared throughout the world with anyone wishing to work on a vaccine , or design a diagnostic or a drug .
We have accumulated a huge amount of knowledge about this virus , with unprecedented speed .
But it would be hard to have squandered our advantages more completely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread testing—which already exists in China , South Korea , Italy , and other countries—will be introduced , this week .
That may help us slow the spread of this disease and lessen its impact .
The bigger question is whether we will learn from the fact that this pandemic will kill many more people than it had to .
I ’ d like to think we would , but , if the past is any guide , this pandemic will end with a bunch of new commissions and ominous reports .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be forgotten .
• How people cope and create new customs amid a pandemic .
• What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
• How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
• Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
• The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available .
• We are all irrational panic shoppers .
• The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome .

Few people have trouble understanding the purpose of public education or public housing: they are tangible programs that, at least in theory, are designed to improve our lives. Public-health accomplishments, however, are measured in an entirely different way: success is defined by what is prevented, not by what is produced. This creates an odd psychological dynamic.
When public-health programs are successful, they are invisible, and what is invisible is almost always taken for granted. Nobody cheers when they remain untouched by a disease that they hardly knew existed. That makes it easy for shortsighted politicians to deny long-term realities. And that is what they almost always do.
Members of Congress hardly made a peep in 2018, when the Trump Administration disbanded the White House’s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense. The directorate was established after the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014 with a simple mission. Beth Cameron, its former head, recently wrote in the Washington Post: “to do everything possible within the vast powers and resources of the U.S. government to prepare for the next disease outbreak and prevent it from becoming an epidemic or pandemic.’’
I have never met an epidemiologist or virologist who expressed even the slightest doubt that such an outbreak would occur. Nor would anyone have to look hard for evidence that it would. In just the past twenty years, we have seen a rolling cascade of dangerous viral epidemics, including SARS, MERS, avian influenza, Ebola, and the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, which, alone, infected as many as 1.4 billion people. If it had been as lethal as current low-end mortality estimates of COVID-19—about one per cent—as many as fourteen million would have died.
But we lucked out in 2009, because viruses do not decide how deadly they will turn out to be, and H1N1 was relatively mild. Public-health defense systems are created to protect us in the future, not in the past. Yet, in a single stroke, the Trump Administration fired the people whose job it was to plan for—and attempt to blunt—inevitable epidemics, such as the one that is currently bringing much of the world to its knees.
The results of such acts of denialism are painful. And, although Donald Trump deserves condemnation for constantly understating and ignoring this threat, he is hardly the first American leader to gut or ignore the very system that protects the people.
In 2000, the Institute of Medicine issued a report titled “Public Health Systems and Emerging Infections: Assessing the Capabilities of the Public and Private Sectors.” One of the report’s findings was that the basic infrastructure of the American public-health system, particularly at the state and local levels, is eroding. With that deterioration comes a diminished capacity to predict, detect, and respond to an emerging infectious disease. There have been scores of similar reports issued in the past twenty years—nearly each of which, like this one, was essentially ignored. This report was edited by the late Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, whose insights into the role of viruses and bacteria in the life of this planet should be read by every elected official with the power to appropriate even a single dollar toward our health care.
We also ignore the threat of diseases that have killed people for thousands of years. By the nineteen-seventies, it looked as if the United States was on the verge of eliminating tuberculosis as a significant cause of illness. So the political leadership simply stopped funding research programs. Experts warned that this neglect would guarantee a new epidemic, but nobody listened. As the number of TB infections grew, specialists became increasingly alarmed. Yet, every year between 1981 and 1987, the Reagan Administration opposed the very existence of a federal TB program, calling for its repeal in every new budget.
By 1992, the United States had created its first preventable epidemic—with new TB strains that proved resistant to conventional antibiotics. I wrote about this needless resurgence at the time, noting that the last time New York City had four thousand cases of TB, in 1967, more than a thousand beds in municipal hospitals were specifically assigned for tuberculosis patients. By 1992, when there were four thousand cases that were even more virulent, the number of available beds was fewer than seventy-five.
What will it take to interrupt this endless cycle of purposeful ignorance? It is not hard to predict what will happen after this pandemic fades—as eventually it will. If more people die and become sick than we expect, groups such as the World Health Organization will be denounced for their inability to protect lives. If the death toll is far lower than what is envisioned in the worst-case scenarios, people will denounce the same groups, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as needlessly alarmist and blame them for the collapse of the economy.
There have been deep, systemic, and horrifying failures—most notably our inability to mobilize a testing regime that would provide the data that health-policy leaders need to make every other decision. You cannot understand the cause of a disease, its natural history, or the best ways to prevent infection without the ability to test the population. We have long had that ability—there are hundreds of American universities and medical centers that could create a useful diagnostic for COVID-19—but we have never bothered to properly prepare.
At a White House briefing on Tuesday, the President attempted to suggest that the federal response had been adequate. That is far from true. Trump has also suggested that the Obama Administration acted badly during the 2009 H1N1 epidemic and stated, as proof, that seventeen thousand people died. He was right about the death toll; what he seems not to understand is that that number is far lower than the death rate in any average influenza season.
Epidemics are spread at least as much by ignorance as by a virus. The tragedy of COVID-19 is that, this time, we are not ignorant. The virus was characterized quickly and sequenced in less than a month. By the end of February, scientists had re-created the coronavirus in a lab setting, and the data have now been shared throughout the world with anyone wishing to work on a vaccine, or design a diagnostic or a drug.


newyorker--2020-03-17--The Rise of Coronavirus Hate Crimes

The Rise of Coronavirus Hate Crimes

On a Monday night in late February , Jonathan Mok was walking down London ’ s busy Oxford Street , when he was attacked .
He was kicked and punched in the face , a beating that resulted in a bruised and swollen eye the size of a golf ball , which he showed to the world in a Facebook post .
Mok is twenty-three and Singaporean ; he had been studying for the last two years at the University of London .
The attack , which he described in his post , was brutal and racially motivated .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then said , ‘ I don ’ t want your coronavirus in my country , ’ ” he wrote , “ before swinging another sucker punch at me , which resulted in my face exploding with blood.
” The Metropolitan Police were called to the scene , near the Tottenham Court Road tube station , around nine-fifteen in the evening .
On March 6th , they called the incident “ racially aggravated assault ” and announced that they had arrested two teen-agers , one sixteen , the other fifteen .
At the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional men believed to have been involved , and asked the public for help in identifying them .
The pictures released of the two men are difficult to make out ; they ’ re blurry and black-and-white .
One of the men wears a thick parka and holds something to his mouth .
“ This attack left the victim shaken and hurt , ” Detective Sergeant Emma Kirby , the officer on the case , said in a statement .
“ There ’ s no room on our streets for this kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding the perpetrators.
” In recent days , however , as fear and anxiety about COVID-19 have spread , other incidents have emerged in the U.K. and elsewhere .
In New York City , on the subway , a man sprayed an Asian passenger with Febreze and verbally abused him .
Last week , a Vietnamese curator , An Nguyen , posted an e-mail from a gallerist preparing to exhibit at London ’ s Affordable Art Fair .
The gallerist asked Nguyen not to come assist with the booth .
“ The coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairly or not , Asians are being seen as carriers of the virus , ” the e-mail read .
“ Your presence on the stand would unfortunately create hesitation on the part of the audience to enter the exhibition space.
” The Affordable Art Fair later confirmed that the gallery would not be exhibiting at the fair by mutual agreement .
( In another irony , many of the initial news reports on the incident used the photo and biography of the wrong An Nguyen , an artist who lives in Canada .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the director of London services at Stop Hate U.K. , an anti-hate group , he said his organization had seen a spike in hate crimes and incidents reported by Asian communities and individuals in the U.K. “ There has been , for our helpline , a significant increase in calls from the Chinese community , ” he said .
“ The incidents range from name calling , through to spitting , through to someone having been pushed in the road in the path of oncoming vehicles.
” He called the increase a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is a community which we traditionally didn ’ t receive any calls from whatsoever.
” He also noted “ an upturn in concern and fear ” from the Chinese community in London regarding wearing surgical masks .
“ People that would normally wear masks are now feeling that somehow they would become the target of abuse if they continued to do so , ” he said .
In the U.S. , the Anti-Defamation League has been tracking racist memes and online activity directed toward Asian communities in reaction to the outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depicting an Asian “ Winnie the Flu , ” mocking references to “ bat soup , ” and more violent imagery .
“ For months , there have been posts on notoriously extremist-friendly platforms like Telegram , 4chan and Gab linking the coronavirus to racist and antisemitic slurs and memes , ” the A.D.L .
wrote , in a recent blog post .
“ Users across these channels regularly share racist messages or caricatures of Chinese people , mocking their eating habits , accents , and hygiene.
” Some posts , they went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the virus , hoping it will spread to predominately non-white countries , such as those in Africa.
” Oren Segal , the vice-president of the A.D.L.
’ s Center on Extremism , noted that extremists “ use every opportunity they can to create division.
” He worried about the spread of racist content as more and more people are asked to stay at home and communicate online .
“ The fact that this sort of hatred exists in the same spaces where people are collecting their legitimate news—it is a concern , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an urban-studies scholar who co-curated an exhibition titled “ Germ City : Microbes and the Metropolis ” at the Museum of the City of New York last year , told me that , throughout history , pandemics had often intensified discrimination against minorities .
In 1858 , a mob burned down a massive quarantine hospital on Staten Island .
Locals “ were afraid that immigrants were carrying yellow fever , especially Irish immigrants , ” Jacobs said .
Pandemics can intensify fears of “ the other , ” and exacerbate racist myths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Often the line between vigilance and fear can get really blurry , ” she said .
“ Vigilance is important to protect the population at large but , at the same time , underlying societal prejudices and problems can become extremely heightened when people are already predisposed to not trust one another.
” In the early twentieth century , immigrants at Ellis Island , seen as carriers of trachoma , underwent invasive screenings that were “ wrapped up in all kinds of anti-Semitism and xenophobia , ” she said .
Danielle Olsen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a health charity in the U.K. that recently coördinated a series of exhibitions for a project called “ Contagious Cities , ” told me , “ With SARS , in 2003 , you ’ d see people stopping going to Chinatown ” in Manhattan .
She noted a similar reaction to COVID-19 , which has given rise to “ these kinds of informal ideas that it ’ s anything to do with your race rather than where you happen to have travelled from , ” she said .
“ This inflammatory language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly , and is not based on any facts.
” Ainsworth , from Stop Hate U.K. , told me that , after Britain voted to leave the E.U.
, his organization also received an influx of calls about hate crimes .
“ There were a lot of people phoning us up saying , ‘ I have never experienced racism in the U.K. until last week and I ’ ve been living here twenty or thirty years.
’ ” Victims are often confused by what has happened to them .
“ Attacking members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly the same thing as attacking members of the Muslim community over leaving Europe : there is no logical connection .
This is a completely illogical act.
” Ainsworth stressed that hate crimes should be reported to the police .
But he also noted that witnesses could help by interacting with the victim , to convey a sense of solidarity .
“ I don ’ t expect people to confront perpetrators , but I do expect people to show the victim that they don ’ t agree with what the perpetrators say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them about anything , it doesn ’ t matter .
What clothes are you wearing , where are you going , how are you ?
” “ There ’ s a narrative that happens with hate crime from the perpetrator which says , ‘ I am attacking you , but actually lots of people agree with me.
’ Where hate crime becomes really dangerous is if victims start to believe that , ” Ainsworth said .
“ I ’ ve talked to victims of hate crime in London , and one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abused on the tube station is horrible , but having two hundred people stand there saying nothing is the bit that starts to really upset me and corrode my trust in society.
’ ” • How people cope and create new customs amid a pandemic .
• What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
• How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
• Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
• The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are all irrational panic shoppers .
• The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome .

On a Monday night in late February, Jonathan Mok was walking down London’s busy Oxford Street, when he was attacked. He was kicked and punched in the face, a beating that resulted in a bruised and swollen eye the size of a golf ball, which he showed to the world in a Facebook post. Mok is twenty-three and Singaporean; he had been studying for the last two years at the University of London. The attack, which he described in his post, was brutal and racially motivated. “The guy who tried to kick me then said, ‘I don’t want your coronavirus in my country,’ ” he wrote, “before swinging another sucker punch at me, which resulted in my face exploding with blood.”
The Metropolitan Police were called to the scene, near the Tottenham Court Road tube station, around nine-fifteen in the evening. On March 6th, they called the incident “racially aggravated assault” and announced that they had arrested two teen-agers, one sixteen, the other fifteen. At the time, they were still looking for two additional men believed to have been involved, and asked the public for help in identifying them. The pictures released of the two men are difficult to make out; they’re blurry and black-and-white. One of the men wears a thick parka and holds something to his mouth. “This attack left the victim shaken and hurt,” Detective Sergeant Emma Kirby, the officer on the case, said in a statement. “There’s no room on our streets for this kind of violent behaviour and we are committed to finding the perpetrators.”
In recent days, however, as fear and anxiety about COVID-19 have spread, other incidents have emerged in the U.K. and elsewhere. In New York City, on the subway, a man sprayed an Asian passenger with Febreze and verbally abused him. Last week, a Vietnamese curator, An Nguyen, posted an e-mail from a gallerist preparing to exhibit at London’s Affordable Art Fair. The gallerist asked Nguyen not to come assist with the booth. “The coronavirus is causing much anxiety everywhere, and fairly or not, Asians are being seen as carriers of the virus,” the e-mail read. “Your presence on the stand would unfortunately create hesitation on the part of the audience to enter the exhibition space.” The Affordable Art Fair later confirmed that the gallery would not be exhibiting at the fair by mutual agreement. (In another irony, many of the initial news reports on the incident used the photo and biography of the wrong An Nguyen, an artist who lives in Canada.)
When I spoke to Mike Ainsworth, the director of London services at Stop Hate U.K., an anti-hate group, he said his organization had seen a spike in hate crimes and incidents reported by Asian communities and individuals in the U.K. “There has been, for our helpline, a significant increase in calls from the Chinese community,” he said. “The incidents range from name calling, through to spitting, through to someone having been pushed in the road in the path of oncoming vehicles.” He called the increase a modest but marked one, “given that this is a community which we traditionally didn’t receive any calls from whatsoever.” He also noted “an upturn in concern and fear” from the Chinese community in London regarding wearing surgical masks. “People that would normally wear masks are now feeling that somehow they would become the target of abuse if they continued to do so,” he said.
In the U.S., the Anti-Defamation League has been tracking racist memes and online activity directed toward Asian communities in reaction to the outbreak. They’ve uncovered lurid cartoons depicting an Asian “Winnie the Flu,” mocking references to “bat soup,” and more violent imagery. “For months, there have been posts on notoriously extremist-friendly platforms like Telegram, 4chan and Gab linking the coronavirus to racist and antisemitic slurs and memes,” the A.D.L. wrote, in a recent blog post. “Users across these channels regularly share racist messages or caricatures of Chinese people, mocking their eating habits, accents, and hygiene.” Some posts, they went on, “appear to be cheering on the virus, hoping it will spread to predominately non-white countries, such as those in Africa.” Oren Segal, the vice-president of the A.D.L.’s Center on Extremism, noted that extremists “use every opportunity they can to create division.” He worried about the spread of racist content as more and more people are asked to stay at home and communicate online. “The fact that this sort of hatred exists in the same spaces where people are collecting their legitimate news—it is a concern,” he said.
Rebecca Hayes Jacobs, an urban-studies scholar who co-curated an exhibition titled “Germ City: Microbes and the Metropolis” at the Museum of the City of New York last year, told me that, throughout history, pandemics had often intensified discrimination against minorities. In 1858, a mob burned down a massive quarantine hospital on Staten Island. Locals “were afraid that immigrants were carrying yellow fever, especially Irish immigrants,” Jacobs said. Pandemics can intensify fears of “the other,” and exacerbate racist myths about foreigners being diseased or unclean. “Often the line between vigilance and fear can get really blurry,” she said. “Vigilance is important to protect the population at large but, at the same time, underlying societal prejudices and problems can become extremely heightened when people are already predisposed to not trust one another.”In the early twentieth century, immigrants at Ellis Island, seen as carriers of trachoma, underwent invasive screenings that were “wrapped up in all kinds of anti-Semitism and xenophobia,” she said.
Danielle Olsen, who works for the Wellcome Trust, a health charity in the U.K. that recently coördinated a series of exhibitions for a project called “Contagious Cities,” told me, “With SARS, in 2003, you’d see people stopping going to Chinatown” in Manhattan. She noted a similar reaction to COVID-19, which has given rise to “these kinds of informal ideas that it’s anything to do with your race rather than where you happen to have travelled from,” she said. “This inflammatory language, or alarmist rhetoric, happens so quickly, and is not based on any facts.”
Ainsworth, from Stop Hate U.K., told me that, after Britain voted to leave the E.U., his organization also received an influx of calls about hate crimes. “There were a lot of people phoning us up saying, ‘I have never experienced racism in the U.K. until last week and I’ve been living here twenty or thirty years.’ ” Victims are often confused by what has happened to them. “Attacking members of the Chinese community over the coronavirus is exactly the same thing as attacking members of the Muslim community over leaving Europe: there is no logical connection. This is a completely illogical act.”
Ainsworth stressed that hate crimes should be reported to the police. But he also noted that witnesses could help by interacting with the victim, to convey a sense of solidarity. “I don’t expect people to confront perpetrators, but I do expect people to show the victim that they don’t agree with what the perpetrators say,” he said. “Talk to them about anything, it doesn’t matter. What clothes are you wearing, where are you going, how are you?”
“There’s a narrative that happens with hate crime from the perpetrator which says, ‘I am attacking you, but actually lots of people agree with me.’ Where hate crime becomes really dangerous is if victims start to believe that,” Ainsworth said. “I’ve talked to victims of hate crime in London, and one of the things they say is ‘being racially abused on the tube station is horrible, but having two hundred people stand there saying nothing is the bit that starts to really upset me and corrode my trust in society.’ ”
A Guide to the Coronavirus


newyorker--2020-03-17--The “Inequality of Pain”: West Virginia’s Gubernatorial Race Confronts the Coronavirus

Stephen Smith , a Democrat running for governor of West Virginia , was meeting voters in the Shenandoah Valley the other day , when he first encountered people holding back their handshakes .
“ They were sort of joking about it , ” he told me .
They said , “ Can we just do this ?
” offering a wave or an elbow bump , in lieu of a shake .
By the following evening , when Smith held another event , the jokes had given way to polite vigilance .
“ There was someone watching the buffet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their hands , ” he said .
Around the country , in campaigns up and down the ballot , candidates have abandoned public events for the foreseeable future , in an effort to curtail the spread of COVID-19 .
( Smith ’ s town halls will now be online . )
On Sunday night , the Democratic debate between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders was held with no studio audience .
Georgia , Kentucky , and Louisiana postponed their Presidential primaries , as did Ohio , on Monday night—hours before the vote was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( The three other primaries scheduled for Tuesday—in Arizona , Florida , and Illinois—are proceeding . )
In addition to altering the political logistics , the virus has already begun to exert larger , less predictable pressures on the politics themselves , in a historic campaign year .
Smith ’ s race is a case in point .
He is a forty-year-old West Virginia native , who graduated from Harvard and returned to his home state to work as a community organizer .
In his first run for office—against the incumbent Republican governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the richest man in the state—Smith has put more than a candidate ’ s usual emphasis on meeting voters face to face .
He has renounced corporate donations and travelled , at least twice , to each of West Virginia ’ s fifty-five counties , to recruit more than ninety other candidates to run for office , under the banner of a movement that calls itself “ West Virginia Can ’ t Wait.
” By mid-March , his campaign had broken the state record for individual contributions in a governor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Manchin , now a U.S .
Senator .
But the coronavirus has brought Smith ’ s face-to-face campaign to a halt .
His campaign has turned its focus , for the moment , to publicizing health information , and its volunteers are circulating a petition calling on the governor to take bolder steps , including expanding testing , instituting voting by mail , and barring utilities from suspending service to customers who fall behind on payments during the crisis .
Whatever the effect on his election prospects , Smith cites the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heart of his candidacy—the radically unequal risks facing Americans with varying levels of savings and health-care protection and different capacities for absorbing a shock to the economy .
“ It ’ s not just inequality of wealth or income ; it ’ s also the inequality of pain , ” he said .
“ The people who have the most bear the least , and the people who have the least bear the most .
During a crisis , that is especially true.
” A study published last week by the Kaiser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a higher share of adults who are considered at risk of serious illness if they contract the coronavirus than any other state , because it has an older population and high rates of smoking , heart disease , and diabetes .
An estimated fifty-one per cent of the state ’ s adult population is considered at risk from the virus—according to the study , that ’ s twenty percentage points greater than in Washington , D.C. As of Monday , West Virginia had yet to register its first confirmed case of the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press conference , attributed the absence of confirmed cases to the low rate of testing so far .
“ This virus is without question in West Virginia—probably somewhere right now , ” he said .
In the weeks since the virus reached the United States , it has shone a clarifying light on American leadership .
Some figures have radiated competence ; Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top expert on infectious diseases , who has advised six Presidents , has been a blunt but calming presence to a public unsure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Political leaders have struggled to keep pace .
By now , the faults in the Trump Administration ’ s handling are well-known : the cuts to staff at the National Security Council , which left it underprepared ; the catastrophic delays in deploying tests ; and , for weeks , the President ’ s downplaying of the danger .
( In January , after the first U.S. case was detected , Trump was asked whether there was a risk of a pandemic , and he dismissed the notion .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we have it under control , ” he said .
“ It ’ s going to be just fine.
” ) In some cases , Trump ’ s signals have cascaded through American politics in ways that have explicitly affected how far lower-level officials have gone , or not gone , to curb the spread of the virus .
Through the years , Governor Justice , who inherited coal-mining interests from his father and has built a fortune estimated at $ 1.2 billion , has allied closely with Trump .
At a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President by his side , switched his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican .
Some of Trump ’ s political aides have joined his reëlection bid .
On Monday afternoon , as other states and localities were shutting down restaurants and bars , Justice said that he would “ not yet ” take that step .
“ For crying out loud , go to the grocery stores .
If you want to go to Bob Evans and eat , go to Bob Evans and eat.
” But , that evening , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reversed course and said that bars and restaurants would likely close the next day .
Trump had altered his advice—he is now urging people to avoid gatherings of more than ten people—and Justice said that he is “ following the President ’ s guidelines.
” As the disarray in the White House became clearer last week , the Times reported that Trump ’ s son-in-law , Jared Kushner , a senior official involved in the virus response , shares “ the President ’ s more jaundiced view ” of the risks and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a health reality , according to people who have spoken with him.
” It is a powerful insight into the social psychology of life in a country divided by the “ inequality of pain.
” To one degree or another , Trump , Kushner , and Justice hail from the same , narrow slice of American experience : each is the scion of a family fortune ; each has been insulated from financial and personal ruin .
None has experienced the kind of vulnerability in which the difference between security and catastrophe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ For better and worse , we ’ re good at crises in West Virginia , because we have to be , ” Smith told me .
In 2016 , an extraordinary downpour caused one of the worst floods in West Virginia history , killing at least twenty-three people .
“ There were essentially two responses to the flood .
There was a federally funded , government response , where they had a hundred and forty-seven million dollars from the Feds to spend—and they still haven ’ t spent most of it four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delays in relief and rebuilding have attracted criticism for years .
“ Meanwhile , there was a parallel response , led by local community groups and volunteers .
The community response built more homes , and faster.
” It ’ s not clear how the sudden end to face-to-face campaigning will alter the landscape of West Virginia ’ s gubernatorial campaign , or other races around the country .
Smith is one of five contenders in the Democratic primary , which is still scheduled for May 12th .
In Smith ’ s case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for policy priorities , such as instituting paid sick leave .
“ The health care costs will be prohibitive for many people , ” he said .
“ All of this is an infuriating reminder of how poorly our state serves our people.
” • How people cope and create new customs amid a pandemic .
• What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
• How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
• Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
• The coronavirus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year before a vaccine could be widely available .
• We are all irrational panic shoppers .
• The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome .

Stephen Smith, a Democrat running for governor of West Virginia, was meeting voters in the Shenandoah Valley the other day, when he first encountered people holding back their handshakes. “They were sort of joking about it,” he told me. They said, “Can we just do this?” offering a wave or an elbow bump, in lieu of a shake. By the following evening, when Smith held another event, the jokes had given way to polite vigilance. “There was someone watching the buffet to make sure people used utensils instead of their hands,” he said.
Around the country, in campaigns up and down the ballot, candidates have abandoned public events for the foreseeable future, in an effort to curtail the spread of COVID-19. (Smith’s town halls will now be online.) On Sunday night, the Democratic debate between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders was held with no studio audience. Georgia, Kentucky, and Louisiana postponed their Presidential primaries, as did Ohio, on Monday night—hours before the vote was scheduled to take place on Tuesday. (The three other primaries scheduled for Tuesday—in Arizona, Florida, and Illinois—are proceeding.)
In addition to altering the political logistics, the virus has already begun to exert larger, less predictable pressures on the politics themselves, in a historic campaign year. Smith’s race is a case in point. He is a forty-year-old West Virginia native, who graduated from Harvard and returned to his home state to work as a community organizer. In his first run for office—against the incumbent Republican governor, Jim Justice, who happens to be the richest man in the state—Smith has put more than a candidate’s usual emphasis on meeting voters face to face. He has renounced corporate donations and travelled, at least twice, to each of West Virginia’s fifty-five counties, to recruit more than ninety other candidates to run for office, under the banner of a movement that calls itself “West Virginia Can’t Wait.” By mid-March, his campaign had broken the state record for individual contributions in a governor’s race, a mark previously held by Joe Manchin, now a U.S. Senator.
But the coronavirus has brought Smith’s face-to-face campaign to a halt. His campaign has turned its focus, for the moment, to publicizing health information, and its volunteers are circulating a petition calling on the governor to take bolder steps, including expanding testing, instituting voting by mail, and barring utilities from suspending service to customers who fall behind on payments during the crisis. Whatever the effect on his election prospects, Smith cites the coronavirus as prime evidence of the issues at the heart of his candidacy—the radically unequal risks facing Americans with varying levels of savings and health-care protection and different capacities for absorbing a shock to the economy. “It’s not just inequality of wealth or income; it’s also the inequality of pain,” he said. “The people who have the most bear the least, and the people who have the least bear the most. During a crisis, that is especially true.”
A study published last week by the Kaiser Family Foundation calculated that West Virginia has a higher share of adults who are considered at risk of serious illness if they contract the coronavirus than any other state, because it has an older population and high rates of smoking, heart disease, and diabetes. An estimated fifty-one per cent of the state’s adult population is considered at risk from the virus—according to the study, that’s twenty percentage points greater than in Washington, D.C. As of Monday, West Virginia had yet to register its first confirmed case of the disease, but Governor Justice, in a press conference, attributed the absence of confirmed cases to the low rate of testing so far. “This virus is without question in West Virginia—probably somewhere right now,” he said.
In the weeks since the virus reached the United States, it has shone a clarifying light on American leadership. Some figures have radiated competence; Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top expert on infectious diseases, who has advised six Presidents, has been a blunt but calming presence to a public unsure of whom to trust in Washington. Political leaders have struggled to keep pace. By now, the faults in the Trump Administration’s handling are well-known: the cuts to staff at the National Security Council, which left it underprepared; the catastrophic delays in deploying tests; and, for weeks, the President’s downplaying of the danger. (In January, after the first U.S. case was detected, Trump was asked whether there was a risk of a pandemic, and he dismissed the notion. “It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control,” he said. “It’s going to be just fine.”)
In some cases, Trump’s signals have cascaded through American politics in ways that have explicitly affected how far lower-level officials have gone, or not gone, to curb the spread of the virus. Through the years, Governor Justice, who inherited coal-mining interests from his father and has built a fortune estimated at $1.2 billion, has allied closely with Trump. At a rally in 2017, Justice, with the President by his side, switched his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican. Some of Trump’s political aides have joined his reëlection bid. On Monday afternoon, as other states and localities were shutting down restaurants and bars, Justice said that he would “not yet” take that step. “For crying out loud, go to the grocery stores. If you want to go to Bob Evans and eat, go to Bob Evans and eat.” But, that evening, in an interview on local television, Justice reversed course and said that bars and restaurants would likely close the next day. Trump had altered his advice—he is now urging people to avoid gatherings of more than ten people—and Justice said that he is “following the President’s guidelines.”
As the disarray in the White House became clearer last week, the Times reported that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a senior official involved in the virus response, shares “the President’s more jaundiced view” of the risks and “considers the problem more about public psychology than a health reality, according to people who have spoken with him.” It is a powerful insight into the social psychology of life in a country divided by the “inequality of pain.” To one degree or another, Trump, Kushner, and Justice hail from the same, narrow slice of American experience: each is the scion of a family fortune; each has been insulated from financial and personal ruin. None has experienced the kind of vulnerability in which the difference between security and catastrophe is the slenderest margin of happenstance.
“For better and worse, we’re good at crises in West Virginia, because we have to be,” Smith told me. In 2016, an extraordinary downpour caused one of the worst floods in West Virginia history, killing at least twenty-three people. “There were essentially two responses to the flood. There was a federally funded, government response, where they had a hundred and forty-seven million dollars from the Feds to spend—and they still haven’t spent most of it four years later,” he said. Delays in relief and rebuilding have attracted criticism for years. “Meanwhile, there was a parallel response, led by local community groups and volunteers. The community response built more homes, and faster.”
It’s not clear how the sudden end to face-to-face campaigning will alter the landscape of West Virginia’s gubernatorial campaign, or other races around the country. Smith is one of five contenders in the Democratic primary, which is still scheduled for May 12th. In Smith’s case, the epidemic has renewed his argument for policy priorities, such as instituting paid sick leave. “The health care costs will be prohibitive for many people,” he said. “All of this is an infuriating reminder of how poorly our state serves our people.”
A Guide to the Coronavirus