newyorker--2020-04-02--Is It Too Late to Prevent Mass Unemployment Owing to the Coronavirus?

The announcements from Macy ’ s and Gap on Monday that they are furloughing the majority of their more than two hundred and fifty thousand employees didn ’ t come as a surprise .
With large swaths of the U.S. economy effectively shut down , businesses large and small are slashing payroll and other costs to try and ride out the public-health crisis .
Faced with online competition , bricks-and-mortar retailers like Macy ’ s and Gap were struggling even before the coronavirus hit .
Given the current economic environment , the companys ’ senior executives arguably didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mass idlings .
In the coming days and weeks , countless other firms may well act in a similar way , if not more drastically .
According to calculations from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis , the COVID-19 outbreak could , absent government intervention , lead to forty-seven million lost jobs , and an unemployment rate of 32.1 per cent this quarter .
Thanks to the stimulus bill that Congress passed last week , most workers who lose their paychecks will be eligible to receive expanded unemployment benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial losses are limited , they will suffer the trauma of being laid off and not knowing whether they will be rehired when the crisis ends .
And the sight of unemployment mounting dramatically could trigger alarm in the rest of the economy , creating a downward spiral .
Does it have to be this way ?
Not necessarily .
As the virus and lockdowns have spread around the world , other countries have created a different type of economic environment—one that incentivizes businesses to keep employees on their payrolls rather than giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , March 20th , Rishi Sunak , Britain ’ s Chancellor of the Exchequer , who has only been in the job since February , announced that “ for the first time in our history , the government is going to step in and help to pay people ’ s wages.
” Under the U.K. Coronavirus Jobs Retention Scheme , any British employer , large or small , is now eligible for a government grant that covers about eighty per cent of the wages it pays to employees who aren ’ t working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the payroll .
Britain didn ’ t originate this approach .
It copied Denmark , whose government had announced , five days earlier , that it would pay seventy-five per cent of the wages of salaried employees who are furloughed , and ninety per cent of the wages of hourly employees who are in the same position .
In Denmark and Britain , there is an upper cap on the government payments , which is tied to the typical wage level , but there is no limit to how many workers can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s an investment that will be very expensive , ” the Danish finance minister , Nicolai Wammen , said in announcing his country ’ s plan .
“ But the alternative is that even more people would be sent out into unemployment at a time when the opposite is needed.
” The governments of Ireland and Italy have also vowed to pay the cost of keeping workers employed .
France and Germany , the two biggest economies in the European Union , are expanding existing subsidies that were provided to workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the effects of the virus , throughout Europe , the guiding principle has been the same : everything possible should be done to avoid mass unemployment .
In theory , at least , the same principle could have been applied here .
A few weeks ago , when a big stimulus bill was being debated , some economists on both sides of the political divide called for the federal government to pay firms to keep employees on their payrolls even if they weren ’ t working .
In a policy brief published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zucman , two liberal-leaning economists at the University of California , Berkeley , argued that the federal government needed to “ act as a payer of last resort so that hibernating businesses can keep paying their workers ( instead of laying them off ) .
” Four days later , Glenn Hubbard , who served as the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers in the George W. Bush Administration , and Michael Strain , an economist at the American Enterprise Institute , put forward a coronavirus plan focussed on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their employers during the coronavirus crisis.
” Under the Saez and Zucman proposal , any employer adversely affected by the virus shutdowns would tally its total monthly running costs , including things like rent and interest payments as well as wages , and the Internal Revenue Service would issue a payment to cover them .
This is similar to the British scheme , which is being run through H.M. Revenue and Customs , the British equivalent of the I.R.S .
The Hubbard and Strain proposal is restricted to small and medium-sized firms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commercial-banking system .
Firms would take out bank loans to cover their running costs for the duration of the crisis , and , as long as they didn ’ t lay off any of their workers , the federal government would repay the entire loans .
Despite the differences between the two plans , they share the common goal of preventing businesses from going bust and avoiding the sort of mass layoffs that we are now seeing .
When I spoke with Hubbard , on Tuesday , he said that allowing mass unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis , would create at least three big problems : states would struggle to deal with a deluge of unemployment insurance claims ; valuable relationships between individual employees and firms that have taken years to cultivate would be destroyed ; and many firms would go out of business .
“ It disrupts the entire economic system , ” Hubbard said .
“ You don ’ t want massive business failures .
The notion that these businesses will just pop back up when the crisis ends is fanciful.
” Zucman , whom I spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Hubbard ’ s analysis , and he also stressed the human cost of getting laid off .
“ Unemployment is anxiety-inducing , ” he said .
“ It ’ s very different being laid off rather than keeping your job at eighty per cent of your wages.
” The stimulus bill concentrated , first and foremost , on providing immediate assistance to people who saw their incomes fall or who lost their jobs .
In addition to providing a cash payment of twelve hundred dollars to most adult Americans , it raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , extended their duration by three months , and made gig workers eligible to receive them for the first time .
Arindrajit Dube , an economist at the University of Massachusetts , Amherst , reminded me that there were some strong arguments for going down this route .
With many service-industry workers already being laid off , the quickest way to help them was to use the unemployment-insurance system and cash transfers .
“ What Congress passed has some issues , ” Dube said .
“ But it did provide a first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for many millions of families that are facing unemployment.
” The bill also went some way in the direction of what Hubbard and Strain had proposed .
It set aside three hundred and sixty-six billion dollars for the federal government to recompense small and medium-sized firms that employ fewer than five hundred people and keep their payrolls intact .
Rather than having the federal government dispense the money directly , as Britain and Denmark have done , the scheme would rely on private lenders to extend forgivable loans , with the Small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government paying the banks a processing fee .
“ It is not as generous as I would have proposed , but it ’ s the same basic idea , ” Hubbard said .
“ You go to your bank , show them last year ’ s tax return , and get a loan to cover payroll and other costs for eight weeks.
” If , at the end of that period , you haven ’ t reduced your payroll numbers , the federal government would repay the loan in full .

The announcements from Macy’s and Gap on Monday that they are furloughing the majority of their more than two hundred and fifty thousand employees didn’t come as a surprise. With large swaths of the U.S. economy effectively shut down, businesses large and small are slashing payroll and other costs to try and ride out the public-health crisis. Faced with online competition, bricks-and-mortar retailers like Macy’s and Gap were struggling even before the coronavirus hit. Given the current economic environment, the companies’ senior executives arguably didn’t have much of an option in resorting to mass idlings.
In the coming days and weeks, countless other firms may well act in a similar way, if not more drastically. According to calculations from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the COVID-19 outbreak could, absent government intervention, lead to forty-seven million lost jobs, and an unemployment rate of 32.1 per cent this quarter. Thanks to the stimulus bill that Congress passed last week, most workers who lose their paychecks will be eligible to receive expanded unemployment benefits. But, even if their short-term financial losses are limited, they will suffer the trauma of being laid off and not knowing whether they will be rehired when the crisis ends. And the sight of unemployment mounting dramatically could trigger alarm in the rest of the economy, creating a downward spiral.
Does it have to be this way? Not necessarily. As the virus and lockdowns have spread around the world, other countries have created a different type of economic environment—one that incentivizes businesses to keep employees on their payrolls rather than giving them a pink slip. On Friday, March 20th, Rishi Sunak, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has only been in the job since February, announced that “for the first time in our history, the government is going to step in and help to pay people’s wages.” Under the U.K. Coronavirus Jobs Retention Scheme, any British employer, large or small, is now eligible for a government grant that covers about eighty per cent of the wages it pays to employees who aren’t working because of the crisis but are kept on the payroll.
Britain didn’t originate this approach. It copied Denmark, whose government had announced, five days earlier, that it would pay seventy-five per cent of the wages of salaried employees who are furloughed, and ninety per cent of the wages of hourly employees who are in the same position. In Denmark and Britain, there is an upper cap on the government payments, which is tied to the typical wage level, but there is no limit to how many workers can be included in the schemes. “It’s an investment that will be very expensive,” the Danish finance minister, Nicolai Wammen, said in announcing his country’s plan. “But the alternative is that even more people would be sent out into unemployment at a time when the opposite is needed.”
The governments of Ireland and Italy have also vowed to pay the cost of keeping workers employed. France and Germany, the two biggest economies in the European Union, are expanding existing subsidies that were provided to workers placed on reduced hours. In responding to the effects of the virus, throughout Europe, the guiding principle has been the same: everything possible should be done to avoid mass unemployment.
In theory, at least, the same principle could have been applied here. A few weeks ago, when a big stimulus bill was being debated, some economists on both sides of the political divide called for the federal government to pay firms to keep employees on their payrolls even if they weren’t working. In a policy brief published in March, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two liberal-leaning economists at the University of California, Berkeley, argued that the federal government needed to “act as a payer of last resort so that hibernating businesses can keep paying their workers (instead of laying them off).” Four days later, Glenn Hubbard, who served as the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers in the George W. Bush Administration, and Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, put forward a coronavirus plan focussed on “allowing workers to continue being paid by their employers during the coronavirus crisis.”
Under the Saez and Zucman proposal, any employer adversely affected by the virus shutdowns would tally its total monthly running costs, including things like rent and interest payments as well as wages, and the Internal Revenue Service would issue a payment to cover them. This is similar to the British scheme, which is being run through H.M. Revenue and Customs, the British equivalent of the I.R.S. The Hubbard and Strain proposal is restricted to small and medium-sized firms, and it would operate largely through the commercial-banking system. Firms would take out bank loans to cover their running costs for the duration of the crisis, and, as long as they didn’t lay off any of their workers, the federal government would repay the entire loans.
Despite the differences between the two plans, they share the common goal of preventing businesses from going bust and avoiding the sort of mass layoffs that we are now seeing. When I spoke with Hubbard, on Tuesday, he said that allowing mass unemployment to develop, even on a temporary basis, would create at least three big problems: states would struggle to deal with a deluge of unemployment insurance claims; valuable relationships between individual employees and firms that have taken years to cultivate would be destroyed; and many firms would go out of business. “It disrupts the entire economic system,” Hubbard said. “You don’t want massive business failures. The notion that these businesses will just pop back up when the crisis ends is fanciful.” Zucman, whom I spoke with later on Tuesday, echoed much of Hubbard’s analysis, and he also stressed the human cost of getting laid off. “Unemployment is anxiety-inducing,” he said. “It’s very different being laid off rather than keeping your job at eighty per cent of your wages.”
The stimulus bill concentrated, first and foremost, on providing immediate assistance to people who saw their incomes fall or who lost their jobs. In addition to providing a cash payment of twelve hundred dollars to most adult Americans, it raised unemployment benefits by six hundred dollars a week, extended their duration by three months, and made gig workers eligible to receive them for the first time. Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, reminded me that there were some strong arguments for going down this route. With many service-industry workers already being laid off, the quickest way to help them was to use the unemployment-insurance system and cash transfers. “What Congress passed has some issues,” Dube said. “But it did provide a first level of support, a safety net, for many millions of families that are facing unemployment.”
The bill also went some way in the direction of what Hubbard and Strain had proposed. It set aside three hundred and sixty-six billion dollars for the federal government to recompense small and medium-sized firms that employ fewer than five hundred people and keep their payrolls intact. Rather than having the federal government dispense the money directly, as Britain and Denmark have done, the scheme would rely on private lenders to extend forgivable loans, with the Small Business Administration playing a supervisory role and the federal government paying the banks a processing fee. “It is not as generous as I would have proposed, but it’s the same basic idea,” Hubbard said. “You go to your bank, show them last year’s tax return, and get a loan to cover payroll and other costs for eight weeks.” If, at the end of that period, you haven’t reduced your payroll numbers, the federal government would repay the loan in full.


newyorker--2020-04-01--A New Study Questions the Effectiveness of a Potential “Game Changer” Against the Coronavirus

As the number of people who are infected with , hospitalized for , and die from SARS-CoV-2 escalates each day , the world is increasingly desperate for an effective treatment .
More than a hundred and fifty hospital workers in Boston , where I live and work , have contracted the virus , and I have relatives in New York and New Jersey who are hospitalized and fighting for their lives .
A potential immediate solution , based on supposedly positive results from clinical studies in Marseille , France , which President Trump touted as a possible “ game changer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antimalarial and an antibiotic , hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin .
On Saturday , the F.D.A .
approved hydroxychloroquine and a related medication , chloroquine , for emergency use .
Advocates for the cocktail argue that desperate diseases require desperate measures .
But a study published on Tuesday , led by Jean-Michel Molina , an infectious-diseases expert at Hôpital Saint-Louis , in Paris , reports that , when prescribed in the same regimen as was followed in Marseille , the cocktail shows no benefit .
This should give us serious pause before we rush into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and COVID-19 .
These drugs can have serious side effects , particularly in people most vulnerable to the virus : the elderly and those with heart problems .
As a physician who has worked on H.I.V./AIDS in the laboratory and at the bedside since the nineteen-eighties , I have become attuned to the value both of taking risks in the face of a devastating disease and of holding fast to solid science .
( Molina worked with me on this research three decades ago . )
I ’ ve learned that false hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment gives a welcome sense of respite and comfort but ultimately can do real harm .
In the late eighties , studies in the test tube showed that what was called Compound Q , extracted from a Chinese cucumber plant , killed H.I.V .
Some patients in California rushed to take it ; the lucky ones suffered no side effects , while others experienced severe toxicity , and several died .
In the end , the treatment was deemed ineffective and abandoned ; it stands as an example of how what happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinct from what happens in our bodies .
In the test tube , hydroxychloroquine , administered in relatively high doses , can block SARS-CoV-2 .
Hydroxychloroquine , in the test tube , also blocks other potentially lethal viruses , such as H.I.V.
, garden-variety influenza , dengue , and chikungunya , the latter two of which are spread by mosquitoes .
But subsequent rigorous scientific trials with control groups showed no evidence of benefit for actual patients with dengue or H.I.V.
, and no evidence of benefit preventing influenza .
More worrisome , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condition of patients with chikungunya .
We should take these disappointing results as cautionary tales about jumping from test-tube findings to clinical conclusions .
On Tuesday , a report from China , on a trial using hydroxychloroquine alone to treat COVID-19 patients , was posted online .
Although the researchers believe that the drug appears beneficial , a careful statistical analysis shows that there were insufficient numbers of patients to draw that conclusion and flaws in the design of the trial .
Other previously approved and readily available drugs have been considered as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antiviral drugs ritonavir and lopinavir , which have been used successfully against H.I.V .
But a recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine shows that , over all—despite test-tube data suggesting positive effects , and anecdotal reports from doctors who believe that the drugs may have helped their patients—the drugs have scant if any clinical benefit against the virus .
They also have potentially serious side effects .
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal on Monday , applauding the F.D.A.
’ s decision to approve emergency use of hydroxychloroquine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Marseille .
The study claims that , of eighty patients taking the cocktail of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin , seventy-eight showed “ clinical improvement.
” But a careful reading of the study reveals a striking finding : eighty-five per cent of the treated patients had no fever .
Ninety-two per cent were in the lowest category for clinical deterioration .
We know that many people with the virus have no symptoms at all , while others have mild to moderate ones , and that , in such people , their own immune systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of days or weeks .
So a reasonable alternative reading of the results might be that the “ clinical improvement ” had nothing to do with the treatment ; rather , the vast majority of the people in the study who were known to be at very low risk of becoming severely ill may have eradicated the virus on their own , and what the researchers observed was the natural history of the infection in those who were not destined to deteriorate .
Without an untreated comparison group of eighty infected people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no fever and ninety-two per cent were categorized as being at very low risk of becoming seriously ill , we ’ re left to conclude that there is no compelling evidence that the cocktail has a clinical benefit .
The idea that it would be unethical to withhold potential treatment from patients in a control group does not really apply in this case , because , based on the researchers ’ own reporting , the patients are not destined to deteriorate .
The Paris study that Molina oversaw was a pilot to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus in the time frame reported in Marseille .
But it was composed of the kinds of patients who desperately need treatment : those with underlying conditions , a fever , and significant respiratory and other symptoms .
( Here it would have been unethical to withhold a potentially useful therapy . )
Eleven patients who were quite ill at the time of their admission to Hôpital Saint-Louis were given the antibiotic cocktail in the precise doses and on the schedule that was purportedly beneficial .
Not only were the drugs ineffective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frame ; there was no evidence that they resulted in any clinical improvement .
It ’ s important to emphasize that , in patients with H.I.V./AIDS and certain other viral illnesses , even those with severe symptoms , authentic antiviral agents will show some positive effects .
That was the stunning benefit of the H.I.V .
protease inhibitors that turned the tide of the AIDS epidemic .
So we are left with conflicting results from two studies .
Neither is perfect , and Molina rightly calls for continued careful and rigorous assessment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embraces ( or dismisses ) a potential treatment should not color any analysis of the design and execution of clinical trials of that treatment .
We are in desperate need of hope , true hope , and that means being clear-eyed about all the difficulties and obstacles we face—not only about the gaps in the findings of others but also about our own assumptions and conclusions .
The Paris study is a wake-up call , one heard loudly by those , such as myself , who witnessed what truly powerful antiviral drugs did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even in people with impaired immune systems .
We must be alert to avoid detours of false hope that risk making us complacent and consume precious time and resources .
We must keep our focus on pushing forward by developing and ultimately approving drugs that show real impact on the virus , beyond the test tube , to those in need .
• How to practice social distancing , from responding to a sick housemate to the pros and cons of ordering food .
• How people cope and create new customs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

As the number of people who are infected with, hospitalized for, and die from SARS-CoV-2 escalates each day, the world is increasingly desperate for an effective treatment. More than a hundred and fifty hospital workers in Boston, where I live and work, have contracted the virus, and I have relatives in New York and New Jersey who are hospitalized and fighting for their lives. A potential immediate solution, based on supposedly positive results from clinical studies in Marseille, France, which President Trump touted as a possible “game changer,” is a cocktail of an antimalarial and an antibiotic, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. On Saturday, the F.D.A. approved hydroxychloroquine and a related medication, chloroquine, for emergency use. Advocates for the cocktail argue that desperate diseases require desperate measures. But a study published on Tuesday, led by Jean-Michel Molina, an infectious-diseases expert at Hôpital Saint-Louis, in Paris, reports that, when prescribed in the same regimen as was followed in Marseille, the cocktail shows no benefit. This should give us serious pause before we rush into widespread use of prescription medications for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. These drugs can have serious side effects, particularly in people most vulnerable to the virus: the elderly and those with heart problems.
As a physician who has worked on H.I.V./AIDS in the laboratory and at the bedside since the nineteen-eighties, I have become attuned to the value both of taking risks in the face of a devastating disease and of holding fast to solid science. (Molina worked with me on this research three decades ago.) I’ve learned that false hope is a powerful lure, which in the moment gives a welcome sense of respite and comfort but ultimately can do real harm. In the late eighties, studies in the test tube showed that what was called Compound Q, extracted from a Chinese cucumber plant, killed H.I.V. Some patients in California rushed to take it; the lucky ones suffered no side effects, while others experienced severe toxicity, and several died. In the end, the treatment was deemed ineffective and abandoned; it stands as an example of how what happens in the lab is often distant and distinct from what happens in our bodies.
In the test tube, hydroxychloroquine, administered in relatively high doses, can block SARS-CoV-2. Hydroxychloroquine, in the test tube, also blocks other potentially lethal viruses, such as H.I.V., garden-variety influenza, dengue, and chikungunya, the latter two of which are spread by mosquitoes. But subsequent rigorous scientific trials with control groups showed no evidence of benefit for actual patients with dengue or H.I.V., and no evidence of benefit preventing influenza. More worrisome, there is evidence that hydroxychloroquine worsened the condition of patients with chikungunya. We should take these disappointing results as cautionary tales about jumping from test-tube findings to clinical conclusions. On Tuesday, a report from China, on a trial using hydroxychloroquine alone to treat COVID-19 patients, was posted online. Although the researchers believe that the drug appears beneficial, a careful statistical analysis shows that there were insufficient numbers of patients to draw that conclusion and flaws in the design of the trial.
Other previously approved and readily available drugs have been considered as agents to combat SARS-CoV-2, specifically the antiviral drugs ritonavir and lopinavir, which have been used successfully against H.I.V. But a recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine shows that, over all—despite test-tube data suggesting positive effects, and anecdotal reports from doctors who believe that the drugs may have helped their patients—the drugs have scant if any clinical benefit against the virus. They also have potentially serious side effects.
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, applauding the F.D.A.’s decision to approve emergency use of hydroxychloroquine, linked to the most recent study from Marseille. The study claims that, of eighty patients taking the cocktail of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, seventy-eight showed “clinical improvement.” But a careful reading of the study reveals a striking finding: eighty-five per cent of the treated patients had no fever. Ninety-two per cent were in the lowest category for clinical deterioration. We know that many people with the virus have no symptoms at all, while others have mild to moderate ones, and that, in such people, their own immune systems can purge the microbe in a matter of days or weeks.
So a reasonable alternative reading of the results might be that the “clinical improvement” had nothing to do with the treatment; rather, the vast majority of the people in the study who were known to be at very low risk of becoming severely ill may have eradicated the virus on their own, and what the researchers observed was the natural history of the infection in those who were not destined to deteriorate. Without an untreated comparison group of eighty infected people, in which eighty-five per cent of them had no fever and ninety-two per cent were categorized as being at very low risk of becoming seriously ill, we’re left to conclude that there is no compelling evidence that the cocktail has a clinical benefit. The idea that it would be unethical to withhold potential treatment from patients in a control group does not really apply in this case, because, based on the researchers’ own reporting, the patients are not destined to deteriorate.
The Paris study that Molina oversaw was a pilot to try to discern any effect in reducing the virus in the time frame reported in Marseille. But it was composed of the kinds of patients who desperately need treatment: those with underlying conditions, a fever, and significant respiratory and other symptoms. (Here it would have been unethical to withhold a potentially useful therapy.) Eleven patients who were quite ill at the time of their admission to Hôpital Saint-Louis were given the antibiotic cocktail in the precise doses and on the schedule that was purportedly beneficial. Not only were the drugs ineffective in reducing the virus within the time frame; there was no evidence that they resulted in any clinical improvement. It’s important to emphasize that, in patients with H.I.V./AIDS and certain other viral illnesses, even those with severe symptoms, authentic antiviral agents will show some positive effects. That was the stunning benefit of the H.I.V. protease inhibitors that turned the tide of the AIDS epidemic.
So we are left with conflicting results from two studies. Neither is perfect, and Molina rightly calls for continued careful and rigorous assessment of the drug cocktail. Whether the President embraces (or dismisses) a potential treatment should not color any analysis of the design and execution of clinical trials of that treatment. We are in desperate need of hope, true hope, and that means being clear-eyed about all the difficulties and obstacles we face—not only about the gaps in the findings of others but also about our own assumptions and conclusions.
The Paris study is a wake-up call, one heard loudly by those, such as myself, who witnessed what truly powerful antiviral drugs did to dramatically reverse the ravages of AIDS, even in people with impaired immune systems. We must be alert to avoid detours of false hope that risk making us complacent and consume precious time and resources. We must keep our focus on pushing forward by developing and ultimately approving drugs that show real impact on the virus, beyond the test tube, to those in need.
A Guide to the Coronavirus


newyorker--2020-04-01--Trump Practicing Distancing from All His Prior Statements About the Coronavirus

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Issuing a new distancing guideline on Wednesday , Donald Trump said that he was now practicing distancing from all of his previous statements about the coronavirus .
“ As of today , I will be keeping a great distance between myself and anything I said about COVID-19 in the months of January , February , and March , ” he said .
“ I will be staying at least six feet away from those statements , and probably more like ten thousand feet.
” Trump said that he could not predict how long his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but indicated , “ Next week , I will probably be distancing myself from things I said this week .
This could go on for a long time.
” He urged all Americans to distance themselves from his previous statements , as well .
“ If you ’ re watching CNN or MSNBC and they start showing things I said in February , leave the room immediately , ” he advised .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the esteemed virologist , expressed approval of Trump ’ s new policy .
“ Personally , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for months , ” he said .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Issuing a new distancing guideline on Wednesday, Donald Trump said that he was now practicing distancing from all of his previous statements about the coronavirus.
“As of today, I will be keeping a great distance between myself and anything I said about COVID-19 in the months of January, February, and March,” he said. “I will be staying at least six feet away from those statements, and probably more like ten thousand feet.”
Trump said that he could not predict how long his new practice of distancing would continue, but indicated, “Next week, I will probably be distancing myself from things I said this week. This could go on for a long time.”
He urged all Americans to distance themselves from his previous statements, as well. “If you’re watching CNN or MSNBC and they start showing things I said in February, leave the room immediately,” he advised.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the esteemed virologist, expressed approval of Trump’s new policy. “Personally, I have been distancing myself from his statements for months,” he said.


newyorker--2020-04-02--The Coronavirus Is the World’s Only Superpower

On Tuesday , the U.N. Secretary-General , Antonio Guterres , said the coronavirus pandemic is the greatest challenge that the world has faced since the Second World War .
More than a hundred and fifty countries , many of them ill-equipped to battle the virus , are already gravely affected .
Guterres predicted , as a result , “ enhanced instability , enhanced unrest , and enhanced conflict.
” In the United States , President Trump and his advisers now concede that more than two hundred thousand Americans could die , and businesses are bracing for a recession that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cold , ” as one prominent economist told me this week .
On Thursday , at 8:30 A.M. , came the staggering news that a record 6.6 million Americans had filed for unemployment last week , meaning that ten million Americans have lost their jobs in just the first fourteen days of this coronavirus recession .
Yet , less than an hour after this awful revelation , in the midst of a week that must surely count as one of the grimmest of his lifetime , Donald Trump was whining on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the “ complainers ” at the center of the epidemic in New York , who “ should have been stocked up and ready long before this crisis hit.
” By Thursday evening , he was grousing about “ witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt ” launched by Democrats against him .
The day before , when more than a thousand Americans died of the disease , the President staged a bizarre photo opportunity with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , the Secretary of Defense , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timed opening of a major new front in America ’ s war on Mexican drug cartels .
During the event , Trump extemporized about what he often calls his “ big , beautiful ” wall on the southern border and its “ tremendous impact , ” and announced that he would deploy various Navy and Coast Guard ships for the new drug-fighting mission .
( He also bragged about his “ No .
1 ” status on Facebook , accused the former Secretary of State John Kerry of violating the law by advising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that no one could have possibly foreseen the global pandemic that nearly every global-health leader had been warning about for years . )
After this performance , I received a note from a former senior State Department official in the Trump Administration : “ Seriously , WTF ?
?
A new war on drugs ?
These people have so lost the plot it ’ s beyond parody.
” Foreign Policy later reported that the whole thing had been just what it seemed to be : a political optics play by the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a former Trump Administration official told the magazine .
“ Didn ’ t matter to POTUS.
” When you are done being angry about all the crazy , nasty , inconsistent , and untrue things that Donald Trump says each day about the coronavirus and other matters , remember that the flood of words is cover for an Administration that in some ways barely exists relative to its predecessors , especially when it comes to crucial areas of domestic , economic , and international security—or even straightforward crisis management .
Turnover at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House stands at eighty-three per cent , according to a Brookings Institution tracker .
In his Cabinet , Trump has had far more turnover than Presidents Ronald Reagan , Barack Obama , and both George Bushes .
The capacity of the federal government to respond to this catastrophe—even if Trump had been so inclined—has never been weaker .
The virus was not of Trump ’ s making , but his government ’ s incoherent , disorganized response to it was utterly predictable .
On March 6th , Trump fired his acting White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraordinary headlines of the world ’ s largest economy shutting down and the mass closure of U.S. schools and businesses , little attention was paid to the ouster of Mick Mulvaney and Trump ’ s appointment of a combative North Carolina congressman , the Republican Mark Meadows , as his successor .
Even more remarkably , it was only this week , nearly a month later , that Meadows officially resigned from Congress and started in the White House , which he was required to do in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative branches .
Trump , facing the gravest test a President can face , was literally without anyone to run his perpetually dysfunctional and faction-ridden White House .
Meadows is just the sort of political opportunist and cable-TV talking head to have been pulled into the President ’ s gravitational orbit—a former small-time real-estate developer in North Carolina ’ s Highlands with none of the executive experience or leadership credentials needed in this sort of crisis .
In 2016 , Meadows disdained Trump so much that he considered not taking part in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , “ because he feared living with the legacy of nominating the erratic Trump , ” the journalist Tim Alberta reported in his book “ American Carnage : On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump.
” Yet Meadows soon turned the House faction that he led , the Freedom Caucus , into Trump ’ s most vocal and reliable public defenders .
On Tuesday , Meadows ’ s official first day in the White House , he became Trump ’ s fourth chief of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump forced out Kirstjen Nielsen , the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security—a massive agency , created after the 9/11 attacks , to respond to major domestic crises , such as the current pandemic—a full year ago .
Not only has he yet to nominate a replacement , there is no longer even any talk that he will do so .
In addition to its lack of a new Secretary , the department currently has no permanent Deputy Secretary , chief of staff , executive secretary , or undersecretary for management .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ which falls under D.H.S.
’ s purview , there is no permanent deputy administrator , which is also the case at the Transportation Security Administration .
The Times reported the other day that , out of seventy-five top positions in the department , twenty are either vacant or filled by acting officials .
This is the case across the government .
Amid the pandemic upending the world , Trump has no Senate-confirmed director of National Intelligence , having pushed aside both the director and the subsequent acting director for perceived disloyalty .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrier , the U.S.S .
Theodore Roosevelt , sent a memo pleading for relief for the hundreds of sailors facing a spreading COVID-19 outbreak on his ship , he was relieved of his command by the acting secretary of the Navy .
The previous Navy secretary had been pushed out by Trump in November , after he objected when the President intervened in a war-crimes case involving a Navy SEAL and two other service members .
Elsewhere at the Pentagon , the undersecretary in charge of policy planning for the military was recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key vacancy at a moment when the global health crisis seems to suggest an urgent rethinking of America ’ s entire national-security strategy .
As far as the White House staff , much has already been made of Trump ’ s downgrading of the pandemic-response team at the National Security Council .
But even where positions are filled , as in many of the top government jobs related to health , the problem is not so much endemic vacancy but “ feebleness , cluelessness , disempowerment , ” as Stephen Morrison , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center for Strategic and International Studies , put it to me .

On Tuesday, the U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres, said the coronavirus pandemic is the greatest challenge that the world has faced since the Second World War. More than a hundred and fifty countries, many of them ill-equipped to battle the virus, are already gravely affected. Guterres predicted, as a result, “enhanced instability, enhanced unrest, and enhanced conflict.” In the United States, President Trump and his advisers now concede that more than two hundred thousand Americans could die, and businesses are bracing for a recession that will make the 2008 crisis “look like a cold,” as one prominent economist told me this week.
On Thursday, at 8:30 A.M., came the staggering news that a record 6.6 million Americans had filed for unemployment last week, meaning that ten million Americans have lost their jobs in just the first fourteen days of this coronavirus recession. Yet, less than an hour after this awful revelation, in the midst of a week that must surely count as one of the grimmest of his lifetime, Donald Trump was whining on Twitter about “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer” and the “complainers” at the center of the epidemic in New York, who “should have been stocked up and ready long before this crisis hit.” By Thursday evening, he was grousing about “witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt” launched by Democrats against him.
The day before, when more than a thousand Americans died of the disease, the President staged a bizarre photo opportunity with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and other national-security leaders, to announce an oddly timed opening of a major new front in America’s war on Mexican drug cartels. During the event, Trump extemporized about what he often calls his “big, beautiful” wall on the southern border and its “tremendous impact,” and announced that he would deploy various Navy and Coast Guard ships for the new drug-fighting mission. (He also bragged about his “No. 1” status on Facebook, accused the former Secretary of State John Kerry of violating the law by advising Iran, and lamented, yet again, that no one could have possibly foreseen the global pandemic that nearly every global-health leader had been warning about for years.)
After this performance, I received a note from a former senior State Department official in the Trump Administration: “Seriously, WTF?? A new war on drugs? These people have so lost the plot it’s beyond parody.” Foreign Policy later reported that the whole thing had been just what it seemed to be: a political optics play by the President. “DoD was against it,” a former Trump Administration official told the magazine. “Didn’t matter to POTUS.”
When you are done being angry about all the crazy, nasty, inconsistent, and untrue things that Donald Trump says each day about the coronavirus and other matters, remember that the flood of words is cover for an Administration that in some ways barely exists relative to its predecessors, especially when it comes to crucial areas of domestic, economic, and international security—or even straightforward crisis management. Turnover at the upper levels of Trump’s White House stands at eighty-three per cent, according to a Brookings Institution tracker. In his Cabinet, Trump has had far more turnover than Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and both George Bushes. The capacity of the federal government to respond to this catastrophe—even if Trump had been so inclined—has never been weaker. The virus was not of Trump’s making, but his government’s incoherent, disorganized response to it was utterly predictable.
On March 6th, Trump fired his acting White House chief of staff. Amid the extraordinary headlines of the world’s largest economy shutting down and the mass closure of U.S. schools and businesses, little attention was paid to the ouster of Mick Mulvaney and Trump’s appointment of a combative North Carolina congressman, the Republican Mark Meadows, as his successor. Even more remarkably, it was only this week, nearly a month later, that Meadows officially resigned from Congress and started in the White House, which he was required to do in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition on serving simultaneously in the executive and legislative branches. Trump, facing the gravest test a President can face, was literally without anyone to run his perpetually dysfunctional and faction-ridden White House.
Meadows is just the sort of political opportunist and cable-TV talking head to have been pulled into the President’s gravitational orbit—a former small-time real-estate developer in North Carolina’s Highlands with none of the executive experience or leadership credentials needed in this sort of crisis. In 2016, Meadows disdained Trump so much that he considered not taking part in the Republican Convention, in Cleveland, that year, “because he feared living with the legacy of nominating the erratic Trump,” the journalist Tim Alberta reported in his book “American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump.” Yet Meadows soon turned the House faction that he led, the Freedom Caucus, into Trump’s most vocal and reliable public defenders. On Tuesday, Meadows’s official first day in the White House, he became Trump’s fourth chief of staff in less than four years.
Trump forced out Kirstjen Nielsen, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security—a massive agency, created after the 9/11 attacks, to respond to major domestic crises, such as the current pandemic—a full year ago. Not only has he yet to nominate a replacement, there is no longer even any talk that he will do so. In addition to its lack of a new Secretary, the department currently has no permanent Deputy Secretary, chief of staff, executive secretary, or undersecretary for management. At the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which falls under D.H.S.’s purview, there is no permanent deputy administrator, which is also the case at the Transportation Security Administration. The Times reported the other day that, out of seventy-five top positions in the department, twenty are either vacant or filled by acting officials.
This is the case across the government. Amid the pandemic upending the world, Trump has no Senate-confirmed director of National Intelligence, having pushed aside both the director and the subsequent acting director for perceived disloyalty. After the captain of an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, sent a memo pleading for relief for the hundreds of sailors facing a spreading COVID-19 outbreak on his ship, he was relieved of his command by the acting secretary of the Navy. The previous Navy secretary had been pushed out by Trump in November, after he objected when the President intervened in a war-crimes case involving a Navy SEAL and two other service members. Elsewhere at the Pentagon, the undersecretary in charge of policy planning for the military was recently fired, with no replacement in sight—a key vacancy at a moment when the global health crisis seems to suggest an urgent rethinking of America’s entire national-security strategy.
As far as the White House staff, much has already been made of Trump’s downgrading of the pandemic-response team at the National Security Council. But even where positions are filled, as in many of the top government jobs related to health, the problem is not so much endemic vacancy but “feebleness, cluelessness, disempowerment,” as Stephen Morrison, the head of global health programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, put it to me.
A month—and a different era—ago, I made my last trip outside of Washington, before the great quarantine, to a conference on “America’s Role in the World,” at Indiana University, in Bloomington. In a packed auditorium that, in hindsight, seems so reckless—who knows how long until we see a roomful of people crowded together again?—I interviewed William Burns, the former Deputy Secretary of State who now leads the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Burns, who had been a career diplomat through five Presidencies, has in recent months become a scathing public critic of the Trump Administration. Last fall, he wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, “The Demolition of American Diplomacy,” which said that “not since Joe McCarthy has the State Department suffered such a devastating blow.” In our conversation, he pointed to the unilateral diplomatic disarmament that the Administration has been engaged in, a “hollowing out” that has led to just one of twenty-eight State Department Assistant Secretaries coming from the Foreign Service. Many of these positions have acting officials or are empty altogether. (Nine by my count, as of today.) “What sets us apart from lonelier powers, like China and Russia, is our capacity to invest in alliances, to mobilize coalitions or countries, to help shape rules and adapt institutions. And that’s what I worry that we’re squandering,” Burns told me.


newyorker--2020-04-02--Pick Up the Damn Phone, and Other Thoughts on Ordering Restaurant Delivery

The “ South America ” episode of the BBC series “ Seven Worlds , One Planet ” opens with a sequence of harrowing intensity .
As Sir David Attenborough narrates and dramatic music mounts , a puma in the Chilean highlands stalks a herd of llama-like guanacos , watching the graceful creatures with her flat , unnerving predator ’ s gaze .
She sees her moment , and gives chase to one of the animals , launching herself into the air and onto the terrified creature ’ s back .
The guanaco , three times the cat ’ s size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fur ripping away in gauzy chunks under the cat ’ s claws .
Eventually , it succeeds in hurling the puma off its body ; the cat slams to the ground , now with a bloody gash in her foreleg .
Shrugging off the injury , she launches a second failed attempt on the herd .
A third time , she brings a guanaco down , but her long pursuit has brought her dangerously deep into another cat ’ s territory .
The puma grips the fallen guanaco ’ s neck with her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its massive , flaccid corpse up and over the high plains of the southern Andes , toward the spot where her hungry cubs are waiting .
At this point , my doorbell rang , and I walked away from the TV .
It was my Seamless delivery driver , more than an hour past the app ’ s estimated arrival time , bearing a Taco Bell Crunchwrap Supreme .
How lucky we are to live in an age of near-effortless , near-instant sustenance !
That night , I had grown hungry , briefly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desire for stoner tacos , and then swiped open my iPhone , tapped into an app , selected exactly what food I wanted , and flicked my index finger in a brief rat-a-tat of microgestures to complete the order .
Then I sat on my sofa , glancing occasionally from television to phone to check , with growing impatience , whether my food was en route .
Meanwhile , at a Taco Bell a mile and a half away , a brigade of workers prepared , cooked , wrapped , packaged , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person , who transported it directly to my front door .
Days and weeks and months before that , others had sown and harvested wheat and lettuce , raised animals and milked or slaughtered them , and switched on the machines that pressed tortillas and shredded cheese .
I did so little to get this meal , and I paid so little for it .
The total for the food was $ 12.97 ( in addition to the Crunchwrap Supreme , my husband and I got a soft taco combo and a bean-and-cheese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3.99 delivery fee , set by the restaurant , and a $ 1.62 charge for the delivery platform ( “ This 12.5 % fee helps Seamless cover operating costs ” ) , plus New York City sales tax of 8.875 % .
With a tip to the driver , the total cost for my $ 12.97 meal , plus the privilege of not having to go get it myself , came to $ 26 even , which is kind of a lot for Taco Bell .
Was it worth it ?
The Crunchwrap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature ; the half-life of deliciousness for Taco Bell food is so infinitesimal that it arguably has no business providing delivery in the first place .
But compared to , say , hunting for a meal on the Andean steppe to stave off the starvation of my babies ?
I couldn ’ t really complain .
The coronavirus pandemic currently raging throughout the United States has brought into sharp focus many extraordinary truths about our society : the insufficiency of the American safety net , the catastrophic failure of the Trump Administration to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the ease and speed with which the human body can founder .
It has also , more quietly , prompted a striking awakening to the relentless labor of domestic life , including the job of feeding ourselves .
In the world before mass self-quarantine , letting a restaurant do the cooking was such an easy , pleasurable efficiency that it hardly registered as an efficiency at all .
For those lucky enough to afford it and live within abundant reach of it , restaurant food was just there , a taken-for-granted part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slice or a two-hundred-dollar bistro dinner .
Now , suddenly , ordering in seems exquisitely luxurious .
Restaurants and bars all over the country have been ordered to close their dining rooms , as state and local governments scramble to contain the coronavirus ’ s spread .
These measures have proved necessary : in New York , for instance , despite increasingly urgent calls for social distancing , and despite an earlier rule limiting restaurants to fifty-per-cent capacity , many establishments remained packed right up until Mayor Bill de Blasio ’ s closure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their workers , though , the regulations have been cataclysmic .
Many owners have been forced to lay off their entire staffs ; the number of unemployed food-service workers is likely well into the millions .
Those restaurants that have been able to adapt to a takeout-only model are operating with skeleton crews—no servers , no bartenders , fewer cooks , both to reduce overhead costs and to protect their workers from crowding together in kitchens .
In this precarious new kingdom , delivery apps are jealous princes , fighting for the throne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , DoorDash ( which owns Caviar ) , and Grubhub ( which merged with Seamless ) control the lion ’ s share of the app-based delivery market .
Restaurants that want to survive during this radical recalibration have little choice but to play by their rules .
In recent weeks , restaurants that had never before offered takeout have signed up with delivery services for the first time .
But for many owners the revenue from takeout is barely enough to keep the lights on .
( “ Our economic model requires people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-profile restaurateurs wrote in a Times Op-Ed last week . )
Even in normal times , the fees the delivery apps charge—up to thirty per cent of each transaction—can be crippling .
For restaurants currently facing sharp declines in revenue , these percentages make already unsteady balance sheets even more precarious .
Patrons who are eager to support their favorite places are finding creative ways to do so : buying T-shirts , tote bags , and other merchandise , as well as bottles of wine and liquor from restaurants selling off their inventory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to redeem them right away , to give restaurants time to get back on their feet ) ; donating to crowdfunding efforts to support laid-off employees .
For the delivery apps , this spirit of coöperation presents another opportunity for growth .
“ Support neighborhood restaurants : First order $ 0 delivery fee , ” a banner on the DoorDash Web site reads , advertising a benefit to diners but not restaurants .
The company is offering restaurants new to its platforms thirty days commission-free , and is eliminating commission fees on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on board .
Grubhub , which has made the news in the past year for its aggressive fees and recruitment tactics , announced in early March that it would offer a hundred-million-dollar fee-relief program for restaurants suffering in the pandemic-stricken economy .
But , after considerable public confusion , the company clarified that it would only be relieving a portion of its fees , and that those would not be refunded or eliminated but temporarily deferred .
Grubhub ’ s most recent coronavirus-related promotion , “ Supper for Support , ” is sneakier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site ’ s home page urges customers to “ Save while supporting the restaurants you love , ” offering a ten-dollar discount on delivery orders of thirty dollars or more .
But a copy of the agreement restaurants sign to participate , which circulated on Twitter earlier this week , reveals that restaurants who opt in to this promotion are eating the cost of the discount themselves , while Grubhub continues to charge its standard commission on the restaurants ’ pre-discount orders .
On Tuesday , a Grubhub spokesman told me , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the optional initiative have , on average , seen a more than twenty-per-cent increase in the number of orders they have received as well as over-all sales .
We are proud of that and will continue to try to connect them with hungry diners and grow their businesses.
” A few days later , after Grubhub weathered considerable criticism , the rep reached out to let me know that the company would begin giving up to two hundred and fifty dollars to each restaurant participating in the promotion .

The “South America” episode of the BBC series “Seven Worlds, One Planet” opens with a sequence of harrowing intensity. As Sir David Attenborough narrates and dramatic music mounts, a puma in the Chilean highlands stalks a herd of llama-like guanacos, watching the graceful creatures with her flat, unnerving predator’s gaze. She sees her moment, and gives chase to one of the animals, launching herself into the air and onto the terrified creature’s back. The guanaco, three times the cat’s size, bucks and kicks wildly, its fur ripping away in gauzy chunks under the cat’s claws. Eventually, it succeeds in hurling the puma off its body; the cat slams to the ground, now with a bloody gash in her foreleg. Shrugging off the injury, she launches a second failed attempt on the herd. A third time, she brings a guanaco down, but her long pursuit has brought her dangerously deep into another cat’s territory. The puma grips the fallen guanaco’s neck with her heavy teeth, and begins to drag its massive, flaccid corpse up and over the high plains of the southern Andes, toward the spot where her hungry cubs are waiting. At this point, my doorbell rang, and I walked away from the TV. It was my Seamless delivery driver, more than an hour past the app’s estimated arrival time, bearing a Taco Bell Crunchwrap Supreme.
How lucky we are to live in an age of near-effortless, near-instant sustenance! That night, I had grown hungry, briefly interrogated my hunger until I detected a desire for stoner tacos, and then swiped open my iPhone, tapped into an app, selected exactly what food I wanted, and flicked my index finger in a brief rat-a-tat of microgestures to complete the order. Then I sat on my sofa, glancing occasionally from television to phone to check, with growing impatience, whether my food was en route. Meanwhile, at a Taco Bell a mile and a half away, a brigade of workers prepared, cooked, wrapped, packaged, and handed off my meal to a delivery person, who transported it directly to my front door. Days and weeks and months before that, others had sown and harvested wheat and lettuce, raised animals and milked or slaughtered them, and switched on the machines that pressed tortillas and shredded cheese.
I did so little to get this meal, and I paid so little for it. The total for the food was $12.97 (in addition to the Crunchwrap Supreme, my husband and I got a soft taco combo and a bean-and-cheese burrito); there was a $3.99 delivery fee, set by the restaurant, and a $1.62 charge for the delivery platform (“This 12.5% fee helps Seamless cover operating costs”), plus New York City sales tax of 8.875%. With a tip to the driver, the total cost for my $12.97 meal, plus the privilege of not having to go get it myself, came to $26 even, which is kind of a lot for Taco Bell. Was it worth it? The Crunchwrap Supreme was horrible, limp and room temperature; the half-life of deliciousness for Taco Bell food is so infinitesimal that it arguably has no business providing delivery in the first place. But compared to, say, hunting for a meal on the Andean steppe to stave off the starvation of my babies? I couldn’t really complain.
The coronavirus pandemic currently raging throughout the United States has brought into sharp focus many extraordinary truths about our society: the insufficiency of the American safety net, the catastrophic failure of the Trump Administration to protect its citizens from a foreseeable threat, the ease and speed with which the human body can founder. It has also, more quietly, prompted a striking awakening to the relentless labor of domestic life, including the job of feeding ourselves. In the world before mass self-quarantine, letting a restaurant do the cooking was such an easy, pleasurable efficiency that it hardly registered as an efficiency at all. For those lucky enough to afford it and live within abundant reach of it, restaurant food was just there, a taken-for-granted part of life, whether a ninety-nine-cent pizza slice or a two-hundred-dollar bistro dinner.
Now, suddenly, ordering in seems exquisitely luxurious. Restaurants and bars all over the country have been ordered to close their dining rooms, as state and local governments scramble to contain the coronavirus’s spread. These measures have proved necessary: in New York, for instance, despite increasingly urgent calls for social distancing, and despite an earlier rule limiting restaurants to fifty-per-cent capacity, many establishments remained packed right up until Mayor Bill de Blasio’s closure order took effect. For restaurants and their workers, though, the regulations have been cataclysmic. Many owners have been forced to lay off their entire staffs; the number of unemployed food-service workers is likely well into the millions. Those restaurants that have been able to adapt to a takeout-only model are operating with skeleton crews—no servers, no bartenders, fewer cooks, both to reduce overhead costs and to protect their workers from crowding together in kitchens.
In this precarious new kingdom, delivery apps are jealous princes, fighting for the throne. Services like Postmates, Uber Eats, DoorDash (which owns Caviar), and Grubhub (which merged with Seamless) control the lion’s share of the app-based delivery market. Restaurants that want to survive during this radical recalibration have little choice but to play by their rules. In recent weeks, restaurants that had never before offered takeout have signed up with delivery services for the first time. But for many owners the revenue from takeout is barely enough to keep the lights on. (“Our economic model requires people in seats,” a group of high-profile restaurateurs wrote in a Times Op-Ed last week.) Even in normal times, the fees the delivery apps charge—up to thirty per cent of each transaction—can be crippling. For restaurants currently facing sharp declines in revenue, these percentages make already unsteady balance sheets even more precarious.
Patrons who are eager to support their favorite places are finding creative ways to do so: buying T-shirts, tote bags, and other merchandise, as well as bottles of wine and liquor from restaurants selling off their inventory; buying gift cards (and promising not to redeem them right away, to give restaurants time to get back on their feet); donating to crowdfunding efforts to support laid-off employees. For the delivery apps, this spirit of coöperation presents another opportunity for growth. “Support neighborhood restaurants: First order $0 delivery fee,” a banner on the DoorDash Web site reads, advertising a benefit to diners but not restaurants. The company is offering restaurants new to its platforms thirty days commission-free, and is eliminating commission fees on pickup orders to restaurants that were already on board. Grubhub, which has made the news in the past year for its aggressive fees and recruitment tactics, announced in early March that it would offer a hundred-million-dollar fee-relief program for restaurants suffering in the pandemic-stricken economy. But, after considerable public confusion, the company clarified that it would only be relieving a portion of its fees, and that those would not be refunded or eliminated but temporarily deferred.
Grubhub’s most recent coronavirus-related promotion, “Supper for Support,” is sneakier still. A pop-up banner on the site’s home page urges customers to “Save while supporting the restaurants you love,” offering a ten-dollar discount on delivery orders of thirty dollars or more. But a copy of the agreement restaurants sign to participate, which circulated on Twitter earlier this week, reveals that restaurants who opt in to this promotion are eating the cost of the discount themselves, while Grubhub continues to charge its standard commission on the restaurants’ pre-discount orders. On Tuesday, a Grubhub spokesman told me, “Local restaurants that chose to participate in the optional initiative have, on average, seen a more than twenty-per-cent increase in the number of orders they have received as well as over-all sales. We are proud of that and will continue to try to connect them with hungry diners and grow their businesses.” A few days later, after Grubhub weathered considerable criticism, the rep reached out to let me know that the company would begin giving up to two hundred and fifty dollars to each restaurant participating in the promotion.
Ordering in at all right now is an ethical and practical minefield. According to the C.D.C. and the F.D.A., food itself is unlikely to be a carrier of the coronavirus; the containers the food comes in, however, conceivably could be. (At Serious Eats, J. Kenji López-Alt explains that we can minimize the risk of contamination by avoiding direct contact with the containers and immediately transferring the food into clean plates and bowls.) Then there’s the question of what those of us on the receiving end of the samosa supply chain owe to the people ferrying them to our doors. All of the major delivery apps have created medical-assistance funds for their delivery drivers, though only Uber Eats has said it will provide drivers with masks, sanitizer, and other basic safety equipment. In any case, is it fair for consumers to ask delivery workers—usually poorly paid, and almost always without employer health care—to take on the considerable risks currently inherent in being out and about, crisscrossing the city by bike and scooter, visiting dozens of homes each day? On the other hand, is it fair to avoid delivery out of concern for the safety of the people preparing and transporting it, knowing that it means depriving them of much-needed income?


newyorker--2020-04-02--Trump Launches “Celebrity Coronavirus Briefing” with Gary Busey and Dennis Rodman

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Hoping to inject some ratings magic into an aging TV franchise , Donald J. Trump announced on Thursday that he would soon launch “ Celebrity Coronavirus Briefing.
” Trump said that he was green-lighting the reboot because the current version of the show was “ getting kind of old.
” “ CNN and MSNBC started cutting away from the show , and that made me very unhappy , ” he said .
“ I realized I had to jazz things up.
” The first episode of “ Celebrity Coronavirus Briefing , ” to air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorites , Gary Busey and Dennis Rodman .
“ We ’ re going to be seeing a lot of Gary and Dennis and lot less of those boring charts , ” he said .
“ Everybody I talk to hates the charts.
” Trump said that the addition of celebrities to the coronavirus briefings meant that some of the show ’ s current cast members would have to go .
“ Does Mike Pence stay in the cast ?
” he said .
“ He ’ s not a lock .
Tony and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person who ’ s a definite at this point is the MyPillow guy .
We ’ re going to be seeing a lot more of the MyPillow guy .
”

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Hoping to inject some ratings magic into an aging TV franchise, Donald J. Trump announced on Thursday that he would soon launch “Celebrity Coronavirus Briefing.”
Trump said that he was green-lighting the reboot because the current version of the show was “getting kind of old.”
“CNN and MSNBC started cutting away from the show, and that made me very unhappy,” he said. “I realized I had to jazz things up.”
The first episode of “Celebrity Coronavirus Briefing,” to air next Monday, will feature two Trump favorites, Gary Busey and Dennis Rodman.
“We’re going to be seeing a lot of Gary and Dennis and lot less of those boring charts,” he said. “Everybody I talk to hates the charts.”
Trump said that the addition of celebrities to the coronavirus briefings meant that some of the show’s current cast members would have to go.
“Does Mike Pence stay in the cast?” he said. “He’s not a lock. Tony and Deborah? Not sure. The only person who’s a definite at this point is the MyPillow guy. We’re going to be seeing a lot more of the MyPillow guy.”


newyorker--2020-04-02--The Coronavirus Case for Everyone to Start Wearing Masks or Bandannas

On Wednesday evening , Eric Garcetti , the mayor of Los Angeles , gave the people of his city a message regarding masks : if you really must go out on the street , for whatever reason , cover your mouth and nose .
But don ’ t go out and buy N95 or surgical masks .
Medical workers in hospitals thick with COVID-19 cases need those , and there are not enough even for them .
For everyone else , a cloth mask , home-sewn or rigged up , or even a “ tucked-in bandanna , ” combined with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a start .
“ We ’ re going to have to get used to seeing each other like this , ” Garcetti said .
“ This will be the look.
” He told people in the city to post images of themselves wearing masks on social media with the hashtag # LAPROTECTS .
There is much that remains uncertain in the epidemiology of the novel coronavirus .
The best reason for wearing even non-N95 face masks , as the science writer Ed Yong noted in a summary of the evidence in The Atlantic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shield you from the virus—they probably won ’ t—but that “ they can stop viruses from getting out.
” In other words , masks prevent their wearers from spreading virus-bearing droplets .
Los Angeles was ahead of New York City in closing schools ; Garcetti ’ s advice sounds like something else that should probably have been issued here and in other hard-hit areas already .
The reasoning was clear even in what were , as of Thursday , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s hedged directives regarding masks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ facemask should be used by people who have COVID-19 and are showing symptoms .
This is to protect others from the risk of getting infected.
” But there is growing , strong evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission of the virus .
So how do you know if you have COVID-19 , in the absence of testing ?
The C.D.C .
has said that it is considering issuing even stronger guidance on masks and face coverings , but , logically , it ’ s there already .
In a city like New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it seems like a matter of responsibility to act as if you are infected—there is a chance that you might be—in a way that will protect others .
Covering your mouth and nose if you go out is one way to try to do that .
( Questions like how far an infectious droplet can travel have not been entirely resolved ; there are some indications that it can reach farther than the often-mentioned six feet if , for example , propelled by a vigorous sneeze . )
Austria already hands out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store ; that is a sensible measure , particularly considering the risks that clerks are bearing to keep everyone else supplied .
A point Garcetti emphasized is that a mask is not a get-out-of-social-distancing-free card : “ To be clear , you should still stay at home .
This isn ’ t an excuse to suddenly all go out.
” The goal may be to protect other people more than you , but that is a pretty good goal .
In an opinion piece for the Times , with the title “ Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Masks Backfired , ” Zeynep Tufekci , a technology writer , noted , “ If the public is told that only the sick people are to wear masks , then those who do wear them will be stigmatized and people may well avoid wearing them.
” The way to counter that is to normalize mask-wearing .
And unlike , say , rushing a drug to the public without adequate testing , there is no harm in wearing a bandanna or a homemade cloth mask , which takes nothing away from anyone .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at work in our reluctance to wear masks .
Perhaps we have become too used to archly dismissing the widespread wearing of masks in certain Asian countries , not only during pandemics but in regular flu seasons ; there is a notion that they make people look silly , or maybe even weak or timid .
But Hong Kong , Taiwan , and South Korea , where mask-wearing is prevalent , seem to have broken the back of the pandemic , and the U.S. has not .
Masks are certainly not the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no reason to dismiss them , particularly when our own situation is so volatile .
( Also , we are not doing the amount of testing we need . )
If nothing else , it is facile to attribute such success only to extreme restrictive measures that would never be acceptable in a democratic society when mask-wearing , which has been a large part of the response , can be the most democratic gesture available .
Covering your face is like casting a vote for the pandemic to end .
That can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new American look .
And , yes , there is a point to wearing something that falls short of the standard of an N95 mask .
The value of N95s is that , if properly fitted , they can protect their wearers from most particles , even those in finely dispersed , aerosolized form .
This is what you might encounter , say , intubating a patient , or in an emergency room where a large number of people are exhaling the virus .
But the broadest way the virus spreads is through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help to stop a lot of those , particularly , again , if the mask-wearer is the one who is infected .
Some materials are better than others ; tightly woven cottons are good .
The Times has a pattern and instructions for making one , if you can sew .
( For those with sewing machines and more skills , the craft community has organized efforts to make masks for health-care workers ; designers such as Christian Siriano have been involved in similar efforts , and the fabric conservators at the Metropolitan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Indeed , the C.D.C .
has said , in its directives to health officials and medical-care-industry leaders , “ In settings where facemasks are not available , HCP ” —health care professionals— “ might use homemade masks ( e.g.
, bandana , scarf ) for care of patients with COVID-19 as a last resort.
” Those same instructions acknowledge that they are not ideal , particularly in a hospital setting .
By wearing a bandanna on the street , any person can head off the day when an exhausted nurse or doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to tie on a bandanna before attending to yet another COVID-19 patient .
Why hadn ’ t the public been told to do this earlier , in clear terms ?
Why , indeed , did the Surgeon General initially discourage healthy-seeming people from wearing masks ?
Politico referred to the confusing message as a “ mask mystery , ” especially given that other governments are recommending their use .
A widely acknowledged answer is that there are not enough medical-grade masks , and the government fears that people would rush to buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , in answer to a question from CNN ’ s Jim Sciutto about telling the public to wear masks , said , “ The thing that has inhibited us a bit is to make sure we don ’ t take away the supply of masks from the health-care workers who need them.
” In a briefing on Tuesday , President Trump , as he sometimes does , carelessly acknowledged this truth , saying , with regard to masks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things Dr. Fauci told me today is that we don ’ t want them competing , we don ’ t want everybody competing with the hospitals .
We really need them.
” Trump advised wearing a scarf— “ everybody , a lot of people have scarves ” —twirling his hands to show how one might be worn .
And this is , indeed , the best that the richest country in the world can offer now .

On Wednesday evening, Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, gave the people of his city a message regarding masks: if you really must go out on the street, for whatever reason, cover your mouth and nose. But don’t go out and buy N95 or surgical masks. Medical workers in hospitals thick with COVID-19 cases need those, and there are not enough even for them. For everyone else, a cloth mask, home-sewn or rigged up, or even a “tucked-in bandanna,” combined with social distancing, would at least be a start. “We’re going to have to get used to seeing each other like this,” Garcetti said. “This will be the look.” He told people in the city to post images of themselves wearing masks on social media with the hashtag #LAPROTECTS.
There is much that remains uncertain in the epidemiology of the novel coronavirus. The best reason for wearing even non-N95 face masks, as the science writer Ed Yong noted in a summary of the evidence in The Atlantic, is not that they will absolutely shield you from the virus—they probably won’t—but that “they can stop viruses from getting out.” In other words, masks prevent their wearers from spreading virus-bearing droplets. Los Angeles was ahead of New York City in closing schools; Garcetti’s advice sounds like something else that should probably have been issued here and in other hard-hit areas already. The reasoning was clear even in what were, as of Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s hedged directives regarding masks. Currently, they say that “a facemask should be used by people who have COVID-19 and are showing symptoms. This is to protect others from the risk of getting infected.” But there is growing, strong evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission of the virus. So how do you know if you have COVID-19, in the absence of testing? The C.D.C. has said that it is considering issuing even stronger guidance on masks and face coverings, but, logically, it’s there already.
In a city like New York, with some fifty thousand confirmed cases, it seems like a matter of responsibility to act as if you are infected—there is a chance that you might be—in a way that will protect others. Covering your mouth and nose if you go out is one way to try to do that. (Questions like how far an infectious droplet can travel have not been entirely resolved; there are some indications that it can reach farther than the often-mentioned six feet if, for example, propelled by a vigorous sneeze.) Austria already hands out masks to everyone going into a grocery store; that is a sensible measure, particularly considering the risks that clerks are bearing to keep everyone else supplied. A point Garcetti emphasized is that a mask is not a get-out-of-social-distancing-free card: “To be clear, you should still stay at home. This isn’t an excuse to suddenly all go out.” The goal may be to protect other people more than you, but that is a pretty good goal. In an opinion piece for the Times, with the title “Why Telling People They Don’t Need Masks Backfired,” Zeynep Tufekci, a technology writer, noted, “If the public is told that only the sick people are to wear masks, then those who do wear them will be stigmatized and people may well avoid wearing them.” The way to counter that is to normalize mask-wearing. And unlike, say, rushing a drug to the public without adequate testing, there is no harm in wearing a bandanna or a homemade cloth mask, which takes nothing away from anyone.
There is an odd sort of American exceptionalism at work in our reluctance to wear masks. Perhaps we have become too used to archly dismissing the widespread wearing of masks in certain Asian countries, not only during pandemics but in regular flu seasons; there is a notion that they make people look silly, or maybe even weak or timid. But Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea, where mask-wearing is prevalent, seem to have broken the back of the pandemic, and the U.S. has not. Masks are certainly not the only reason for that—testing has been crucial—but that is no reason to dismiss them, particularly when our own situation is so volatile. (Also, we are not doing the amount of testing we need.) If nothing else, it is facile to attribute such success only to extreme restrictive measures that would never be acceptable in a democratic society when mask-wearing, which has been a large part of the response, can be the most democratic gesture available. Covering your face is like casting a vote for the pandemic to end. That can be, as Garcetti suggested, the new American look.
And, yes, there is a point to wearing something that falls short of the standard of an N95 mask. The value of N95s is that, if properly fitted, they can protect their wearers from most particles, even those in finely dispersed, aerosolized form. This is what you might encounter, say, intubating a patient, or in an emergency room where a large number of people are exhaling the virus. But the broadest way the virus spreads is through droplets, and a cloth mask can help to stop a lot of those, particularly, again, if the mask-wearer is the one who is infected. Some materials are better than others; tightly woven cottons are good. The Times has a pattern and instructions for making one, if you can sew. (For those with sewing machines and more skills, the craft community has organized efforts to make masks for health-care workers; designers such as Christian Siriano have been involved in similar efforts, and the fabric conservators at the Metropolitan Museum of Art have joined in.) Indeed, the C.D.C. has said, in its directives to health officials and medical-care-industry leaders, “In settings where facemasks are not available, HCP”—health care professionals—“might use homemade masks (e.g., bandana, scarf) for care of patients with COVID-19 as a last resort.” Those same instructions acknowledge that they are not ideal, particularly in a hospital setting. By wearing a bandanna on the street, any person can head off the day when an exhausted nurse or doctor, slumped in a hospital corridor, has to tie on a bandanna before attending to yet another COVID-19 patient.
Why hadn’t the public been told to do this earlier, in clear terms? Why, indeed, did the Surgeon General initially discourage healthy-seeming people from wearing masks? Politico referred to the confusing message as a “mask mystery,” especially given that other governments are recommending their use. A widely acknowledged answer is that there are not enough medical-grade masks, and the government fears that people would rush to buy any that are left to find. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in answer to a question from CNN’s Jim Sciutto about telling the public to wear masks, said, “The thing that has inhibited us a bit is to make sure we don’t take away the supply of masks from the health-care workers who need them.” In a briefing on Tuesday, President Trump, as he sometimes does, carelessly acknowledged this truth, saying, with regard to masks, “I mean, one of the things Dr. Fauci told me today is that we don’t want them competing, we don’t want everybody competing with the hospitals. We really need them.” Trump advised wearing a scarf—“everybody, a lot of people have scarves”—twirling his hands to show how one might be worn. And this is, indeed, the best that the richest country in the world can offer now.
Trump’s answer points to a deep dysfunction in his Administration’s COVID-19 response: everybody is competing for the same supplies. (New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo compared the current situation to eBay.) Governors have been pleading for the medical-supply chain to be nationalized. E. Tammy Kim, writing in the Times, describes how South Korea countered its own rush on masks with just such a nationwide market intervention, and solved the problem. In many ways, this looks like rationing. But what the United States is doing is worse than ineffectual: it is rationing by misdirection. This will only consume trust, and trust, in a democracy, is a two-way street. Early in the Second World War, a desperate British government had fishermen and other civilians lend them their own small boats in a race to rescue soldiers from Dunkirk. Ours can ask us to wear a bandanna.
This post has been updated to include developments regarding the White House’s recommendations on masks.
A Guide to the Coronavirus


newyorker--2020-04-02--The People Staying, and Living, in America’s Motels

Though Singer ’ s photos can be coolly appraising , they do not feel like the work of a detached outsider .
Her previous series , “ If It Rained an Ocean , ” focussed on her own working-class family and extended friend group in the town she grew up in , Toms River , New Jersey .
Many of Singer ’ s subjects struggled with addiction , mental-health challenges , and chronic money woes .
Two of her sisters lived in campers on their parents ’ property for a while after being displaced by Hurricane Sandy .
Singer first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sixteen and attending what she once described as “ the alternate high school for kids who would rather light shopping carts on fire than sit in a classroom considering options that we knew were for people other than ourselves.
” When she was in her late thirties , she made it to the Pratt Institute , for a B.F.A.
, and later to Yale , where she studied with the photographer Gregory Crewdson , for an M.F.A.
, which she earned when she was forty-six .
Singer was a single mother to two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , as she told me , “ We certainly ate from the food bank ” at times .
She also struggled with substance abuse .
A boyfriend ’ s death in a drunk-driving accident shook her enough to help her get and stay sober .

Though Singer’s photos can be coolly appraising, they do not feel like the work of a detached outsider. Her previous series, “If It Rained an Ocean,” focussed on her own working-class family and extended friend group in the town she grew up in, Toms River, New Jersey. Many of Singer’s subjects struggled with addiction, mental-health challenges, and chronic money woes. Two of her sisters lived in campers on their parents’ property for a while after being displaced by Hurricane Sandy. Singer first picked up a camera when she was sixteen and attending what she once described as “the alternate high school for kids who would rather light shopping carts on fire than sit in a classroom considering options that we knew were for people other than ourselves.” When she was in her late thirties, she made it to the Pratt Institute, for a B.F.A., and later to Yale, where she studied with the photographer Gregory Crewdson, for an M.F.A., which she earned when she was forty-six. Singer was a single mother to two boys, who are now grown, and, as she told me, “We certainly ate from the food bank” at times. She also struggled with substance abuse. A boyfriend’s death in a drunk-driving accident shook her enough to help her get and stay sober.