newyorker--2020-03-20--Watch the Films of Éric Rohmer on His Centenary

This Saturday , March 21st , is a centenary of Éric Rohmer , one of the few filmmakers in the history of the art whose movies are a genre unto themselves .
Today , whenever a director makes a movie in which characters talk at length in ways that blend romantic confusion and intellectual pith , it will inevitably be likened to a Rohmer film .
The idea of making that kind of movie is now obvious ; but it wasn ’ t in the late forties , when Rohmer articulated his distinctive vision in a series of essays ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that put him on the map of French criticism and made him a leading light for young Parisian movie nuts who believed , as he did , that the art form was thriving ( albeit far from France ’ s commercial mainstream ) , and who intended to make new kinds of films taking off from what they were seeing .
Those young movie nuts would launch the French New Wave , along with Rohmer , who was its virtual godfather ; yet it took him two decades to put his ideas into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this group ’ s movies was a new mode of production—scant budget , small crew , rapid shooting .
For Rohmer , these methods helped him fuse his way of filming with his way of living—and he lived a very strange life .
( There ’ s a remarkable biography of him by Antoine de Baecque and Noël Herpe . )
His practices—blending documentary and aestheticism , subjectivity and classicism—also made his characters ’ romantic doings seem deceptively frivolous , their intellectual disputations ironically austere .
The overarching subject of his films is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( often but not always in the form of lust ) while pursuing , awaiting , anticipating , or hardly even hoping for a true one .
In a handful of films , such as the deeply disturbing “ The Marquise of O ” and his final film , “ The Romance of Astrée and Céladon , ” he tips his hand with the abstract extremes of his ideas—including the nearly impossible radicality of Christian love ( which , in his view , is also romantic ) .
In a new and massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( “ The Salt of the Present ” ) , which was published in France by Capricci , in February , and which collects reviews that Rohmer wrote for a variety of general-readership magazines in the nineteen-fifties , he offers a thrilling vision of cinema as the supreme art of the times—of a future that he himself was planning to make—as well as a crystalline précis ( in a brief 1959 review of Kenji Mizoguchi ’ s “ Ugetsu ” ) of his own artistic philosophy : “ For the filmmaker as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one great subject : the idea of Unity hidden beneath the diversity of appearances , or , rather , translated into dramatic terms.
” For Rohmer , the essence of that Unity is the fury of desire and its forging , under intense pressure , into romance and its social forms .
The mighty intellectual energy of his movies arises from this underlying subject—his philosophical view of the centrality of the very concept and possibility of love , to culture , art , and constructive politics .
A generous batch of Rohmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Criterion Channel , Amazon , and Kanopy .
The one I ’ d start with is also the one I consider Rohmer ’ s best film , “ Le Rayon Vert , ” or “ The Green Ray , ” from 1986 , streaming on the Criterion Channel .
( It was released here then under the title “ Summer.
” ) It ’ s a film of wide-ranging curiosity and ardent observation , with a depth of passionate empathy that arises from the collaborative freedom of his lead actress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and charming character .
The story is exquisitely simple : the summer-vacation plans of Delphine ( Rivière ) , a young woman working as a secretary in Paris , are cancelled at the last minute , and she needs to find somewhere to go and something to do for a few weeks .
Delphine sees friends , she makes new ones , she travels to the mountains , she travels to the sea , and in each of these sudden new situations , she finds something wrong , she can ’ t fit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of negativity , with a Socratically intuitive sense of aversion .
Yet this depth of character and vision flows through the lambent light of the French countryside and the social whirl of energized encounters ; the movie ’ s leap between the trivial and the transcendent is wondrous .
Speaking of negativity and aversion , it ’ s worth recommending a movie of Rohmer ’ s that ’ s nearly great and also nearly unwatchable , “ Claire ’ s Knee , ” from 1970 ( on the Criterion Channel ) .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , set between the end of June and the end of July at a sumptuous community on France ’ s Lake Annecy ; its tale of love and lust is embedded in the context of the inspirations and dangers of art itself .
There , Jérôme ( Jean-Claude Brialy ) , a dashing young cultural diplomat in his late thirties who ’ s engaged to be married , is welcomed into a household that features two half-sisters , Laura ( Béatrice Romand ) , who ’ s sixteen , and Claire ( Laurence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little older .
Laura admits to being in love with him , and , though nothing “ happens ” beside a kiss—one that he initiates—the possibility is both in the air and in their minds .
Claire hardly knows he exists , but he becomes obsessed with her body—in particular , yes , with her knee , and he engages in a complex conspiracy to caress it , nothing more .
Yet , he says , none of this would have even begun had it not been for the literary imaginings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Romanian novelist who ’ s staying with the girls and their mother , and who has spun a tale for him about a man like him and young women like them .
Here , Rohmer ’ s prime idea about the avowal and repression of desire gets a complex elaboration in a distinctively creepy form , as the creation of masturbatory fantasies that nonetheless involve sexual aggression at a level of smarmy impunity .
If the history of love is implicated in the history of culture , so is the history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie that shows this , whether or not he knew it .
The nineteen-seventies were a tough time for French filmmaking and for Rohmer , and when his pace of production picked up again , in 1981 , France was different and he seemed different , too—in his sixties , he listened more carefully to the young women he worked with , and self-consciously developed movies around their perspectives .
One of them , “ Full Moon in Paris , ” from 1984 , is an expansive movie that swings with the brash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s also a retrospectively tragic movie , because she died two months after it opened , of a drug overdose , on the eve of her twenty-sixth birthday .
It ’ s a story centered on the Parisian rock night life , which Louise ( Ogier ) , a stylish and playful interior designer , loves and her boyfriend , Remi ( Tchéky Karyo ) , an architect , hates .
His apartment is in a new prefab suburb ; she has a pied-à-terre in Paris which she ’ s preparing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she meets a noodgy and brilliant young Parisian intellectual ( Fabrice Luchini , whose lofty diction and intense manner made him one of Rohmer ’ s fetish actors ) whose companionship tempts her even as his advances annoy her .
Rohmer ’ s graceful and ardent curiosity about the habits and styles of a new generation and its avant-garde of flair as embodied by Ogier spins a mood of exuberance that nonetheless shudders with the stifled and conflicting desires that he perceived as the great “ Unity ” beneath its energies .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Amazon , Google Play , and other services . )

This Saturday, March 21st, is a centenary of Éric Rohmer, one of the few filmmakers in the history of the art whose movies are a genre unto themselves. Today, whenever a director makes a movie in which characters talk at length in ways that blend romantic confusion and intellectual pith, it will inevitably be likened to a Rohmer film. The idea of making that kind of movie is now obvious; but it wasn’t in the late forties, when Rohmer articulated his distinctive vision in a series of essays (collected in “The Taste for Beauty that put him on the map of French criticism and made him a leading light for young Parisian movie nuts who believed, as he did, that the art form was thriving (albeit far from France’s commercial mainstream), and who intended to make new kinds of films taking off from what they were seeing.
Those young movie nuts would launch the French New Wave, along with Rohmer, who was its virtual godfather; yet it took him two decades to put his ideas into practice. What made the difference for this group’s movies was a new mode of production—scant budget, small crew, rapid shooting. For Rohmer, these methods helped him fuse his way of filming with his way of living—and he lived a very strange life. (There’s a remarkable biography of him by Antoine de Baecque and Noël Herpe.) His practices—blending documentary and aestheticism, subjectivity and classicism—also made his characters’ romantic doings seem deceptively frivolous, their intellectual disputations ironically austere. The overarching subject of his films is avoiding the temptations of a false love (often but not always in the form of lust) while pursuing, awaiting, anticipating, or hardly even hoping for a true one. In a handful of films, such as the deeply disturbing “The Marquise of O” and his final film, “The Romance of Astrée and Céladon,” he tips his hand with the abstract extremes of his ideas—including the nearly impossible radicality of Christian love (which, in his view, is also romantic).
In a new and massive volume, “Le Sel du Présent” (“The Salt of the Present”), which was published in France by Capricci, in February, and which collects reviews that Rohmer wrote for a variety of general-readership magazines in the nineteen-fifties, he offers a thrilling vision of cinema as the supreme art of the times—of a future that he himself was planning to make—as well as a crystalline précis (in a brief 1959 review of Kenji Mizoguchi’s “Ugetsu”) of his own artistic philosophy: “For the filmmaker as for the poet, there’s only one great subject: the idea of Unity hidden beneath the diversity of appearances, or, rather, translated into dramatic terms.” For Rohmer, the essence of that Unity is the fury of desire and its forging, under intense pressure, into romance and its social forms. The mighty intellectual energy of his movies arises from this underlying subject—his philosophical view of the centrality of the very concept and possibility of love, to culture, art, and constructive politics.
A generous batch of Rohmer’s films are available to stream on the Criterion Channel, Amazon, and Kanopy. The one I’d start with is also the one I consider Rohmer’s best film, “Le Rayon Vert,” or “The Green Ray,” from 1986, streaming on the Criterion Channel. (It was released here then under the title “Summer.”) It’s a film of wide-ranging curiosity and ardent observation, with a depth of passionate empathy that arises from the collaborative freedom of his lead actress, Marie Rivière, in constructing her thorny and charming character. The story is exquisitely simple: the summer-vacation plans of Delphine (Rivière), a young woman working as a secretary in Paris, are cancelled at the last minute, and she needs to find somewhere to go and something to do for a few weeks. Delphine sees friends, she makes new ones, she travels to the mountains, she travels to the sea, and in each of these sudden new situations, she finds something wrong, she can’t fit in; she’s a genius of negativity, with a Socratically intuitive sense of aversion. Yet this depth of character and vision flows through the lambent light of the French countryside and the social whirl of energized encounters; the movie’s leap between the trivial and the transcendent is wondrous.
Speaking of negativity and aversion, it’s worth recommending a movie of Rohmer’s that’s nearly great and also nearly unwatchable, “Claire’s Knee,” from 1970 (on the Criterion Channel). It, too, is a summer story, set between the end of June and the end of July at a sumptuous community on France’s Lake Annecy; its tale of love and lust is embedded in the context of the inspirations and dangers of art itself. There, Jérôme (Jean-Claude Brialy), a dashing young cultural diplomat in his late thirties who’s engaged to be married, is welcomed into a household that features two half-sisters, Laura (Béatrice Romand), who’s sixteen, and Claire (Laurence de Monaghan), who’s a little older. Laura admits to being in love with him, and, though nothing “happens” beside a kiss—one that he initiates—the possibility is both in the air and in their minds. Claire hardly knows he exists, but he becomes obsessed with her body—in particular, yes, with her knee, and he engages in a complex conspiracy to caress it, nothing more. Yet, he says, none of this would have even begun had it not been for the literary imaginings of his friend Aurora (Aurora Cornu), a Romanian novelist who’s staying with the girls and their mother, and who has spun a tale for him about a man like him and young women like them. Here, Rohmer’s prime idea about the avowal and repression of desire gets a complex elaboration in a distinctively creepy form, as the creation of masturbatory fantasies that nonetheless involve sexual aggression at a level of smarmy impunity. If the history of love is implicated in the history of culture, so is the history of predatory behavior. Rohmer made a movie that shows this, whether or not he knew it.
The nineteen-seventies were a tough time for French filmmaking and for Rohmer, and when his pace of production picked up again, in 1981, France was different and he seemed different, too—in his sixties, he listened more carefully to the young women he worked with, and self-consciously developed movies around their perspectives. One of them, “Full Moon in Paris,” from 1984, is an expansive movie that swings with the brash style of its star, Pascale Ogier—and it’s also a retrospectively tragic movie, because she died two months after it opened, of a drug overdose, on the eve of her twenty-sixth birthday. It’s a story centered on the Parisian rock night life, which Louise (Ogier), a stylish and playful interior designer, loves and her boyfriend, Remi (Tchéky Karyo), an architect, hates. His apartment is in a new prefab suburb; she has a pied-à-terre in Paris which she’s preparing to sell, but, meanwhile, she meets a noodgy and brilliant young Parisian intellectual (Fabrice Luchini, whose lofty diction and intense manner made him one of Rohmer’s fetish actors) whose companionship tempts her even as his advances annoy her. Rohmer’s graceful and ardent curiosity about the habits and styles of a new generation and its avant-garde of flair as embodied by Ogier spins a mood of exuberance that nonetheless shudders with the stifled and conflicting desires that he perceived as the great “Unity” beneath its energies. (Stream “Full Moon in Paris” on Amazon, Google Play, and other services.)
In 1962, while Rohmer’s young friends and acolytes Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut were already world-famous, Rohmer’s filmmaking career had failed to launch, and he therefore made his way back to directing by hook if not quite by crook: his young friend Barbet Schroeder produced and starred in Rohmer’s short film “The Bakery Girl of Monceau” (the Criterion Channel), a tale of a law student who’s in love at distant sight with an art-gallery associate he sees passing by in his neighborhood and tries his best to keep running into her. When she stops showing up, he flirts increasingly insistently with the title character, who’s eighteen and sells him the cakes and cookies on which he subsists. The film is shot mainly on location (made in several months’ worth of weekends) in a bustling Paris neighborhood near the Parc Monceau, and Rohmer exults in the textures and gestures of daily life as well as in the psychological implications of urban geography. The snap of his brisk direction as well as the intellectual energy of his protagonist’s tangled romantic logic gave his career its definitive stylistic arc.
Let’s end with a complaint: Rohmer made many other distinctive films that are available streaming (such as “Rendezvous in Paris,” from 1995, on Amazon), but one of his absolute achievements is unavailable to stream here in any form: “The Tree, the Mayor, and the Mediathèque,” from 1993, where the political side of his romantic vision is foregrounded. He satirizes a Socialist official whose pet project is the construction, in a rural town, of a “mediathèque” that would be a major cultural attraction, but that would be built on the site of a venerable tree beloved by a passionate local schoolteacher (again, Luchini), who does his best to drum up opposition to the modernizing project and to make trouble for the official. (Romantic complications result, as well.) It’s also an extravagantly utopian film that rings all too true to this moment—with a concluding musical paean to the concept and practice of telecommuting. It has played here a few times but appears to be officially unreleased in the U.S.; it’s been nearly lost to history as a result.


newyorker--2020-03-20--The Coronavirus and Building a Better Strategy for Fighting Pandemics

I recently spoke by phone with Dr. Ashish Jha , a physician and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute , who has been tracking the coronavirus story closely over the past couple months .
He has been especially outspoken about the Trump Administration ’ s slow response to the threat and also the scandalously slow pace of testing in the United States .
I asked Jha to explain where the government went wrong , and whether our existing health-care system has exacerbated the crisis .
In our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelmed medical facilities , how more testing could have spared us from worst-case scenarios , and why closing borders to prevent epidemics often draws attention away from measures that would do more good .
You have changed your Twitter name to “ Ashish ‘ We need PPEs [ personal protective equipment ] to protect docs & nurses ’ Jha.
” What are you calling for ?
So , look , the challenge in front of us in the upcoming week or two—and , actually , lasting much longer than that , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hit—is that the number of patients arriving with COVID-19 infections is going to spike across American hospitals .
There are lots of people thinking about hospital beds and I.C.U .
beds and ventilators , and those are absolutely critical things that we need to be thinking about .
But one of the things I am really worried about is personal protective equipment for nurses and physicians .
Hospitals are already running out of masks and gloves and gowns , and what that means is that doctors and nurses are going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do they take care of sick people with coronavirus without adequate protection , knowing that they are putting themselves at risk , or do they let these people die ?
And I know what doctors and nurses are going to do .
They are going to take care of these people .
And then the health-care workers will get sick , and we are heading toward a major crisis , because if we lose doctors and nurses it will be really hard to take care of sick people .
So that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the last couple of days , and recently I have just been changing my Twitter handle based on what I think we need to focus on next , and this to me is a really critical issue that I think is not getting enough attention .
What is the reason for the P.P.E .
shortage ?
Is it a built-in problem with the health-care system , or were we just not prepared enough for something like this ?
We weren ’ t prepared for this specific surge of patients .
This shortage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t think that this is a uniquely American problem .
But there are two things that are contributing to this .
One is that , because people knew this was going to be a problem , people started to hoard .
So patients and some people who work in hospitals are grabbing extra masks and extra gloves and taking them home , which of course is silly , because most people will not need them in their homes .
That is not what is going to protect them .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so that is one part of the problem .
The second part of the problem is that our supply chain just wasn ’ t designed for a massive surge in the need of these things , and nobody in the White House until really recently has made this a priority , and no one in the federal government has tried to figure out how to increase the supply of these products , and that is why we are finding ourselves in a shortage .
You have taught and written about the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us for and what does it leave us vulnerable to ?
And how has your analysis changed after what you have witnessed in the past month ?
I have written and thought a lot about the American health-care system .
One of the things that is really amazing about it is how dynamic and responsive it can be .
So , for instance , one of the things I have seen is that , when we have had this massive failure at the federal level with testing , all of a sudden you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building their own tests .
Now , of course , that is not the ideal way to do this .
The ideal way to do it is to have a strong , coördinated federal response , but one thing that has given me more hope is that because the health system is so fragmented—and fragmentation is usually a bad thing that causes all sorts of challenge—in this case , when there has been a failure at the top , the system has actually responded by gearing up on its own .
So now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousand tests a day .
My hope is that that number will gear up .
It is not because there has all of a sudden been great leadership in Washington allowing that to happen .
It is literally because cities and states , working with local hospitals and universities , are ramping up .
It ’ s a remarkable thing , and I am not sure it would be so easy to do in almost any other country .
So that ’ s the upside .
Of course , the downside is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and because every payer is different , there are all these very arcane rules .
How are we going to pay for all this stuff ?
Are people going to have to pay out of pocket for a COVID test ?
That kind of stuff doesn ’ t come up in other countries .
Because , even though some other countries have very decentralized systems , they are much more effectively coördinated at the federal level than we are .
So that stuff tends to work better in other places .
We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our system .
It does have some advantages , but , man , it creates a lot of new challenges , as well .
You recently told Bloomberg News , “ We ’ re so far behind this thing at this point .
And the reason we ’ re so far behind is because we ’ ve had so little testing .
This is such a rapidly moving infection that losing a few days is bad , and losing a couple of weeks is terrible .
Losing 2 months is close to disastrous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did.
” Can you explain the scenario where we have more testing starting two months ago , and what you think that would look like today ?
Oh , my God , if we had got on top of this thing two months ago , America would look very , very different .
So , let ’ s walk through that scenario .
Imagine that when the W.H.O .
put out its test kit [ in January ] we either took it or built an effective test ourselves .
We would have then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by late January was very clear that we were going to see a lot of these infections in the United States , and , actually , we had started seeing the first cases from travellers from China .
We would have started testing people who had symptoms .
Initially , it was the travellers , because that is how it got introduced .
We would have isolated those people .
We would have had contact tracing , which is really critical .
Everyone that had been in touch with them would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed symptoms would have been tested .

I recently spoke by phone with Dr. Ashish Jha, a physician and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, who has been tracking the coronavirus story closely over the past couple months. He has been especially outspoken about the Trump Administration’s slow response to the threat and also the scandalously slow pace of testing in the United States. I asked Jha to explain where the government went wrong, and whether our existing health-care system has exacerbated the crisis. In our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed his biggest concerns about overwhelmed medical facilities, how more testing could have spared us from worst-case scenarios, and why closing borders to prevent epidemics often draws attention away from measures that would do more good.
You have changed your Twitter name to “Ashish ‘We need PPEs [personal protective equipment] to protect docs & nurses’ Jha.” What are you calling for?
So, look, the challenge in front of us in the upcoming week or two—and, actually, lasting much longer than that, but that’s when it is really going to hit—is that the number of patients arriving with COVID-19 infections is going to spike across American hospitals.
There are lots of people thinking about hospital beds and I.C.U. beds and ventilators, and those are absolutely critical things that we need to be thinking about. But one of the things I am really worried about is personal protective equipment for nurses and physicians. Hospitals are already running out of masks and gloves and gowns, and what that means is that doctors and nurses are going to be faced with a dilemma, which is do they take care of sick people with coronavirus without adequate protection, knowing that they are putting themselves at risk, or do they let these people die? And I know what doctors and nurses are going to do. They are going to take care of these people. And then the health-care workers will get sick, and we are heading toward a major crisis, because if we lose doctors and nurses it will be really hard to take care of sick people. So that’s what I have got very worried about in the last couple of days, and recently I have just been changing my Twitter handle based on what I think we need to focus on next, and this to me is a really critical issue that I think is not getting enough attention.
What is the reason for the P.P.E. shortage? Is it a built-in problem with the health-care system, or were we just not prepared enough for something like this?
We weren’t prepared for this specific surge of patients. This shortage is also happening in Italy, so we don’t think that this is a uniquely American problem. But there are two things that are contributing to this. One is that, because people knew this was going to be a problem, people started to hoard. So patients and some people who work in hospitals are grabbing extra masks and extra gloves and taking them home, which of course is silly, because most people will not need them in their homes. That is not what is going to protect them. That has created a run on these supplies, so that is one part of the problem.
The second part of the problem is that our supply chain just wasn’t designed for a massive surge in the need of these things, and nobody in the White House until really recently has made this a priority, and no one in the federal government has tried to figure out how to increase the supply of these products, and that is why we are finding ourselves in a shortage.
You have taught and written about the American health-care system. What does it prepare us for and what does it leave us vulnerable to? And how has your analysis changed after what you have witnessed in the past month?
I have written and thought a lot about the American health-care system. One of the things that is really amazing about it is how dynamic and responsive it can be. So, for instance, one of the things I have seen is that, when we have had this massive failure at the federal level with testing, all of a sudden you have facilities, universities, and hospitals building their own tests. Now, of course, that is not the ideal way to do this. The ideal way to do it is to have a strong, coördinated federal response, but one thing that has given me more hope is that because the health system is so fragmented—and fragmentation is usually a bad thing that causes all sorts of challenge—in this case, when there has been a failure at the top, the system has actually responded by gearing up on its own. So now we are doing twenty-five thousand to thirty thousand tests a day. My hope is that that number will gear up. It is not because there has all of a sudden been great leadership in Washington allowing that to happen. It is literally because cities and states, working with local hospitals and universities, are ramping up. It’s a remarkable thing, and I am not sure it would be so easy to do in almost any other country. So that’s the upside.
Of course, the downside is that because the system is so fragmented, and because every payer is different, there are all these very arcane rules. How are we going to pay for all this stuff? Are people going to have to pay out of pocket for a COVID test? That kind of stuff doesn’t come up in other countries. Because, even though some other countries have very decentralized systems, they are much more effectively coördinated at the federal level than we are. So that stuff tends to work better in other places. We are learning both the upsides and downsides of our system. It does have some advantages, but, man, it creates a lot of new challenges, as well.
You recently told Bloomberg News, “We’re so far behind this thing at this point. And the reason we’re so far behind is because we’ve had so little testing. This is such a rapidly moving infection that losing a few days is bad, and losing a couple of weeks is terrible. Losing 2 months is close to disastrous, and that’s what we did.” Can you explain the scenario where we have more testing starting two months ago, and what you think that would look like today?
Oh, my God, if we had got on top of this thing two months ago, America would look very, very different. So, let’s walk through that scenario. Imagine that when the W.H.O. put out its test kit [in January] we either took it or built an effective test ourselves. We would have then ramped up those tests. The data by late January was very clear that we were going to see a lot of these infections in the United States, and, actually, we had started seeing the first cases from travellers from China. We would have started testing people who had symptoms. Initially, it was the travellers, because that is how it got introduced. We would have isolated those people. We would have had contact tracing, which is really critical. Everyone that had been in touch with them would have been monitored, and any of them that showed symptoms would have been tested.
If we had done that extensively across the United States, I believe we would have got on top of this infection. We wouldn’t have broad community spread the way we do right now, and I don’t know that we would have a lockdown right now. I could imagine in some communities the infection might have got a little out of control, and you would close schools and businesses for a couple of weeks, but where we are right now, with this broad, almost national—should be national—shutdown, it’s all because we let this infection get ahead of us. And what it would have taken to be on top of it was literally what we learned in first-year public-health programs about how you deal with outbreaks. It’s what we have done for hundreds of years, which is identify people infected, trace their contacts, monitor them, test them, and isolate whichever ones are positive. It’s a little chain. It’s a standard thing. It is what South Korea did. It is what Singapore did. It is what Taiwan did. And they are not out of the woods. But they have not had to shut down their schools or do the kinds of extreme things we have had to do because we haven’t done testing. I think what your readers need to know is that we are in this position today because we wasted two months not getting an infrastructure together for testing Americans who need to be identified with having COVID-19.


newyorker--2020-03-20--The Shock Wave of COVID-19

The Shock Wave of COVID-19

As the coronavirus pandemic brings the country to a standstill , David Remnick and New Yorker writers examine the scope of the damage—emotional , physical , and economic .
Remnick speaks with a medical ethicist about the painful decisions that medical workers must make when ventilators and hospital beds run out ; John Cassidy assesses how the economic damage will compare to the Great Depression ; and an E.R .
doctor describes her fear for her safety in treating the onslaught of COVID-19 without adequate supplies .
At an emergency room in Oregon , a doctor prepares for an onslaught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of infection .
When Social Distancing Keeps Families Apart Elder-care facilities around the country have banned visitors to protect their patients .
Loved ones are stranded on the outside during a critical and uncertain time .
In a Nightmare Scenario , How Should We Decide Who Gets Care ?
An expert in the ethics of medical rationing explains the history of triage , and what we owe to those we can ’ t save .
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to be historically unprecedented .
What would it take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Showing Up for Work During a Global Pandemic Countless Americans are now working from home .
But for essential workers , waiting it out at home is not an option .

Illustration by Golden Cosmos
As the coronavirus pandemic brings the country to a standstill, David Remnick and New Yorker writers examine the scope of the damage—emotional, physical, and economic. Remnick speaks with a medical ethicist about the painful decisions that medical workers must make when ventilators and hospital beds run out; John Cassidy assesses how the economic damage will compare to the Great Depression; and an E.R. doctor describes her fear for her safety in treating the onslaught of COVID-19 without adequate supplies.
A Doctor on the Front Lines
At an emergency room in Oregon, a doctor prepares for an onslaught of COVID-19 patients—and wrestles with her fear of infection.
When Social Distancing Keeps Families Apart
Elder-care facilities around the country have banned visitors to protect their patients. Loved ones are stranded on the outside during a critical and uncertain time.
In a Nightmare Scenario, How Should We Decide Who Gets Care?
An expert in the ethics of medical rationing explains the history of triage, and what we owe to those we can’t save.
Uncharted Waters for the Global Economy
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to be historically unprecedented. What would it take to get markets back on track?
Showing Up for Work During a Global Pandemic
Countless Americans are now working from home. But for essential workers, waiting it out at home is not an option.


newyorker--2020-03-20--If We’re Bailing Out Corporations During the Coronavirus Crisis, They Should Bail Out the Planet

One of the best chances to make some positive use of the coronavirus pandemic may be passing swiftly .
As the economy craters , big corporations are in need of government assistance , and , on Capitol Hill , the sound of half a trillion dollars in relief money is bringing out the lobbyists .
On Thursday afternoon , Senator Sheldon Whitehouse , Democrat of Rhode Island , described the scene as a “ trough ” and mentioned a quote from a lobbyist in The Hill : “ Everybody ’ s asking for something and those that aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they don ’ t know how.
” Whitehouse added , “ I fear that enviros don ’ t know how to ask , because , so far in this scrum , we haven ’ t heard much from them.
” The corporations will get assistance , but the Democrats have enough legislative power to insure that it comes with at least a few strings attached .
If they attach those strings with even a modicum of care , they will have used this emergency to help solve the looming climate crisis in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days ago .
For busy legislators looking for a principle to enforce in handing out relief to corporations , here ’ s a shorthand : any bailout depends on your industry promising to meet the targets set in the Paris climate accords , and demonstrating in the next few months what that plan looks like .
Consider , say , the airline industry .
It obviously is in need of relief , even if the biggest airlines spent ninety-six per cent of their proceeds over the past decade buying back stock , instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
On behalf of the flight attendants and pilots and mechanics the airlines employ , they should get it .
But everyone who has to live on a rapidly heating planet should get something back in return .
And since , at current rates of growth , by 2050 , air travel threatens to eat up a quarter of the entire carbon the world can still emit and meet the climate targets set in Paris , that something should be a wholesale change in direction .
On Friday , some environmental groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. airline fleets at 2020 levels , and overall emissions must fall at least 20 % per decade thereafter.
” ( The Trump Administration has so far sidestepped Clean Air Act calls to regulate aircraft emissions . )
And the airlines should act not by pledging to plant trees but by burning less jet fuel—by making flight routes more logical , and designing more efficient planes .
Or take the banks : if they want a bailout , they should pledge an end to funding for expansionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem willing to rein themselves in—on Wednesday the Rainforest Action Network released an updated version of its “ Banking on Climate Change ” report , which shows that the four biggest U.S. banks continue to lead the way in funding global warming , with JPMorgan Chase reportedly having handed over more than a quarter of a trillion dollars to the fossil-fuel industry since the end of the Paris talks .
Or take the fossil-fuel industry itself .
It ’ s been dropping in value for a decade , as renewable energy takes most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus crisis has hammered the price of oil .
Trump promised to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “ right up to the top , ” but the drillers will doubtless want more .
Yet , as Michael Brune , the head of the Sierra Club , told me , on Thursday , “ the fossil-fuel industry is already heavily subsidized by the federal government , and they should not get yet another giveaway in any form , whether it ’ s low-interest loans , royalty relief , new tax subsidies , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come only if these companies pledge to stop exploring for new oil , since climate scientists have made it clear that we can ’ t burn what we already have in our reserves .
None of this is ideal .
In an ideal world , we ’ d use this moment to quickly enact a Green New Deal , employing all the suddenly unemployed Americans in building out our renewable-energy system and laying the high-speed rail tracks that would help curtail the need for short-haul aviation .
But , for now , here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Principles for Just COVID-19 Relief and Stimulus ” that dozens of environmental groups have signed on to ( 350.org , which I helped found , is a signatory ) , which offers a guide for thinking about the “ choices being made right now will shape our society for years , if not decades to come.
” These sorts of conditions are not without precedent : after the 2008 financial crisis , President Barack Obama used the government bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler to force them , and by extension the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stringent new fuel-economy standards , which may have been the single biggest blow he struck against climate change during his tenure in office .
( Needless to say , the Trump Administration has been hard at work wrecking this achievement . )
The principle is clear : taking money from society means that you owe society something .
Trump and the Senate Republicans aren ’ t likely to enforce that principle , but , since the Democrats control the House , they will have a big say in the outcome .
The question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come is : Did you strike a useful bargain when you had the leverage ?
Our goal can ’ t be simply a return to the status-quo ante , because that old normal was driving a climate crisis that will eventually prove every bit as destructive as a pandemic .
With just a little courage from Democratic legislators , we could actually be building a world that is safer on every front .
• How to practice social distancing , from responding to a sick housemate to the pros and cons of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

One of the best chances to make some positive use of the coronavirus pandemic may be passing swiftly. As the economy craters, big corporations are in need of government assistance, and, on Capitol Hill, the sound of half a trillion dollars in relief money is bringing out the lobbyists. On Thursday afternoon, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, described the scene as a “trough” and mentioned a quote from a lobbyist in The Hill: “Everybody’s asking for something and those that aren’t asking for something only aren’t because they don’t know how.” Whitehouse added, “I fear that enviros don’t know how to ask, because, so far in this scrum, we haven’t heard much from them.”
The corporations will get assistance, but the Democrats have enough legislative power to insure that it comes with at least a few strings attached. If they attach those strings with even a modicum of care, they will have used this emergency to help solve the looming climate crisis in ways that were unimaginable just a few days ago. For busy legislators looking for a principle to enforce in handing out relief to corporations, here’s a shorthand: any bailout depends on your industry promising to meet the targets set in the Paris climate accords, and demonstrating in the next few months what that plan looks like.
Consider, say, the airline industry. It obviously is in need of relief, even if the biggest airlines spent ninety-six per cent of their proceeds over the past decade buying back stock, instead of, say, preparing for the future. On behalf of the flight attendants and pilots and mechanics the airlines employ, they should get it. But everyone who has to live on a rapidly heating planet should get something back in return. And since, at current rates of growth, by 2050, air travel threatens to eat up a quarter of the entire carbon the world can still emit and meet the climate targets set in Paris, that something should be a wholesale change in direction. On Friday, some environmental groups proposed that “Congress must cap total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. airline fleets at 2020 levels, and overall emissions must fall at least 20% per decade thereafter.” (The Trump Administration has so far sidestepped Clean Air Act calls to regulate aircraft emissions.) And the airlines should act not by pledging to plant trees but by burning less jet fuel—by making flight routes more logical, and designing more efficient planes.
Or take the banks: if they want a bailout, they should pledge an end to funding for expansionary fossil-fuel projects. They don’t seem willing to rein themselves in—on Wednesday the Rainforest Action Network released an updated version of its “Banking on Climate Change” report, which shows that the four biggest U.S. banks continue to lead the way in funding global warming, with JPMorgan Chase reportedly having handed over more than a quarter of a trillion dollars to the fossil-fuel industry since the end of the Paris talks.
Or take the fossil-fuel industry itself. It’s been dropping in value for a decade, as renewable energy takes most of the growth in demand, but the coronavirus crisis has hammered the price of oil. Trump promised to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “right up to the top,” but the drillers will doubtless want more. Yet, as Michael Brune, the head of the Sierra Club, told me, on Thursday, “the fossil-fuel industry is already heavily subsidized by the federal government, and they should not get yet another giveaway in any form, whether it’s low-interest loans, royalty relief, new tax subsidies, or filling the reserve.” More assistance should come only if these companies pledge to stop exploring for new oil, since climate scientists have made it clear that we can’t burn what we already have in our reserves.
None of this is ideal. In an ideal world, we’d use this moment to quickly enact a Green New Deal, employing all the suddenly unemployed Americans in building out our renewable-energy system and laying the high-speed rail tracks that would help curtail the need for short-haul aviation. But, for now, here’s a list of “5 Principles for Just COVID-19 Relief and Stimulus” that dozens of environmental groups have signed on to (350.org, which I helped found, is a signatory), which offers a guide for thinking about the “choices being made right now will shape our society for years, if not decades to come.”
These sorts of conditions are not without precedent: after the 2008 financial crisis, President Barack Obama used the government bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler to force them, and by extension the rest of the automobile industry, to accept stringent new fuel-economy standards, which may have been the single biggest blow he struck against climate change during his tenure in office. (Needless to say, the Trump Administration has been hard at work wrecking this achievement.) The principle is clear: taking money from society means that you owe society something. Trump and the Senate Republicans aren’t likely to enforce that principle, but, since the Democrats control the House, they will have a big say in the outcome. The question that climate-minded voters will ask for years to come is: Did you strike a useful bargain when you had the leverage?
Our goal can’t be simply a return to the status-quo ante, because that old normal was driving a climate crisis that will eventually prove every bit as destructive as a pandemic. With just a little courage from Democratic legislators, we could actually be building a world that is safer on every front.
A Guide to the Coronavirus


newyorker--2020-03-20--Voting in the Time of the Coronavirus

Voting in the Time of the Coronavirus

Early Tuesday morning , Ohio became the fourth state—after Louisiana , Georgia , and Kentucky—to postpone a primary election because of COVID-19 .
The decision , which came just hours before polls were scheduled to open , was made by Governor Mike DeWine , who argued that voting would put older Americans , especially poll workers , at risk of contracting the virus .
In response , John Cranley , the mayor of Cincinnati , issued a public statement .
“ I believe the Governor made this decision because he believes it is right for public health , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the precedent could haunt future elections by people who are not motivated by the same public good.
” In Ohio , voters already have the right to request an absentee ballot , and send it in through the mail .
Because it seems unlikely that a new in-person election could be held anytime soon , Cranley continued , “ I am calling on the State to mail absentee ballots to all registered voters and encourage mail-in voting.
” Primary and local election dates are , to an extent , fungible .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1992 , and Hurricane Katrina decimated the Gulf Coast , thirteen years later , officials changed the dates of pending elections .
September 11 , 2001 , was a municipal primary day in New York .
After the planes hit , voting was halted and rescheduled for two weeks later .
More recently , the 2018 New York primary was moved to avoid conflicting with both 9/11 and Rosh Hashanah .
General elections are different .
Their dates are set by federal law , so changing them would require an act of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even then , a date change would , most likely , have to withstand a challenge in the courts .
Lately , I ’ ve been hearing people point out that a Presidential election was held in the midst of the Civil War , which illustrates either the commitment of American voters or the unyielding calendar of our democracy .
A pandemic , with its invisible enemy , presents a more miasmic challenge to voting , though .
Microbes are indiscriminate : anyone and everyone is susceptible .
But , while it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a threat to public health , it is equally true that not voting is a threat to the health of the Republic .
Could Donald Trump , who in the past has “ joked ” about staying in office past his term , use COVID-19 to subvert the electoral process ?
A recent piece in Slate lays out a frightening scenario where Trump could , in essence , hijack the Electoral College .
Richard L. Hasen , a law professor at the University of California , Irvine , and the author of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in such a scenario , “ there would be rioting in the streets.
” The next general election is on November 3rd .
Insuring free , fair , and safe elections will require providing everyone the ability to vote without having to step into the public sphere .
Hasen ’ s solution is to give voters the option—though not the obligation—to vote by mail .
This is also the goal of new legislation proposed by Senators Ron Wyden , of Oregon , and Amy Klobuchar , of Minnesota .
Wyden told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting for members of the military or people who can ’ t make it to the polls , so we ’ re not starting from scratch.
” Five states have universal vote-by-mail , and thirty allow voters to request an absentee ballot without having to provide an excuse .
Even so , scaling up in time for the November election—Wyden believes we have no more than six months to get there—will present challenges .
An earlier bill introduced by Wyden , the Resilient Elections During Quarantines and Natural Disasters Act of 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help all fifty states institute mail-in voting .
The Brennan Center for Justice , at New York University , estimates the real cost would range from $ 951 million to $ 1.4 billion .
( The Klobuchar-Wyden bill does not suggest a specific allocation , but Klobuchar told me that Congress should make sure that this transition does not burden the states . )
There are more than nine thousand voting districts in the country , with varying rules and regulations .
Some will require an act of the state legislature to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require a constitutional amendment .
And then there are the logistics .
It is highly unusual to introduce a new way of voting during a general election ; election officials will need time and training to adapt , and they may not have either .
In Wyden ’ s home state of Oregon , which allows universal vote by mail , every voter is sent a ballot and a prepaid return envelope with a tracking barcode inside .
This preserves anonymity and enables voters to check that their marked ballot was received .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bill , however , would allow voters to receive their ballots electronically and print them at home .
That ’ s convenient and expedient , but it raises security concerns .
“ Anytime you have people voting outside a polling place , ” Hasen said , “ there is going to be the possibility of coercion , vote tampering , and ballots that get tossed out.
” There are other concerns , as well .
In some cases , clerks have disproportionately challenged the authenticity of signatures on mail-in ballots cast by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A 2018 report by the A.C.L.U .
of Florida , for example , found that “ Younger and racial and ethnic minority voters casting VBM ballots were at least twice as likely as older and white voters to have their VBM ballot rejected in the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016.
” ( King County , Washington , which has had universal mail-in voting since 2005 , tries to preëmpt this kind of disenfranchisement by sending a ballot-rejection-challenge form and prepaid envelope within a day to voters whose ballots were not accepted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than optimal solution for voters without a fixed address or those who live on tribal lands .
“ We know it ’ s not going to be perfect , ” Klobuchar told me .
“ But we need to push as many people as we can to vote early as well as to vote by mail.
” On Wednesday , she and Wyden introduced the National Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020 , a hybrid of proposals from both senators to preserve and protect the franchise .
Klobuchar , who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican colleague from Missouri , to garner bipartisan support , is especially keen to see states introduce a twenty-day early-voting period , which would allow people who need ( or prefer ) to vote in person to do so without having to encounter crowds .
This would also lessen the exposure of poll workers , the majority of whom are over sixty , which puts them at high risk if they were to contract COVID-19 .
( The Klobuchar-Wyden bill also proposes training high-school and college students as poll workers . )
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to pass election-security legislation have been stymied by the Senate Majority Leader , Mitch McConnell , for the past three years , and that Republicans around the country have pursued policies to limit the franchise and suppress the vote .
It is also not lost on their Republican colleagues that states which have universal vote-by-mail have seen an increase in voter participation .
But that does not necessarily favor Democrats .
Hasen pointed out that Republican voters , who skew older , may prefer voting at home .
He also said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to vote that way than Democrats .
One Democratic operative I spoke with worried that if much of the country were to vote by mail in November the Republicans would have the advantage , because “ they actually return the ballots.
” Wyden reminded me that Utah , a state that is “ as red as it gets , ” votes by mail .
In other words , giving voters the option to vote by mail , over a longer election period , is not a stealth way to enlarge the franchise—it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We ’ re in an unprecedented emergency , ” Hasen said .
“ Let ’ s solve November , and we can worry about other things later.
” • None How to practice social distancing , from responding to a sick housemate to the pros and cons of ordering food .
• None How people cope and create new customs amid a pandemic .
• None What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
• None How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus .
• None The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available .
• None We are all irrational panic shoppers .
• None The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take Rome .

Subscribers to The New Yorker’s new 2020 election newsletter, On the Trail, received this piece in their in-boxes. Sign up to receive future installments.
Early Tuesday morning, Ohio became the fourth state—after Louisiana, Georgia, and Kentucky—to postpone a primary election because of COVID-19. The decision, which came just hours before polls were scheduled to open, was made by Governor Mike DeWine, who argued that voting would put older Americans, especially poll workers, at risk of contracting the virus. In response, John Cranley, the mayor of Cincinnati, issued a public statement. “I believe the Governor made this decision because he believes it is right for public health,” he wrote. “However, I worry that the precedent could haunt future elections by people who are not motivated by the same public good.” In Ohio, voters already have the right to request an absentee ballot, and send it in through the mail. Because it seems unlikely that a new in-person election could be held anytime soon, Cranley continued, “I am calling on the State to mail absentee ballots to all registered voters and encourage mail-in voting.”
Primary and local election dates are, to an extent, fungible. When Hurricane Andrew ravaged parts of Florida, in 1992, and Hurricane Katrina decimated the Gulf Coast, thirteen years later, officials changed the dates of pending elections. September 11, 2001, was a municipal primary day in New York. After the planes hit, voting was halted and rescheduled for two weeks later. More recently, the 2018 New York primary was moved to avoid conflicting with both 9/11 and Rosh Hashanah. General elections are different. Their dates are set by federal law, so changing them would require an act of Congress and the blessing of the President. Even then, a date change would, most likely, have to withstand a challenge in the courts.
Lately, I’ve been hearing people point out that a Presidential election was held in the midst of the Civil War, which illustrates either the commitment of American voters or the unyielding calendar of our democracy. A pandemic, with its invisible enemy, presents a more miasmic challenge to voting, though. Microbes are indiscriminate: anyone and everyone is susceptible. But, while it is true that public polling places present a threat to public health, it is equally true that not voting is a threat to the health of the Republic. Could Donald Trump, who in the past has “joked” about staying in office past his term, use COVID-19 to subvert the electoral process? A recent piece in Slate lays out a frightening scenario where Trump could, in essence, hijack the Electoral College. Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of “Election Meltdown,” told me that, in such a scenario, “there would be rioting in the streets.”
The next general election is on November 3rd. Insuring free, fair, and safe elections will require providing everyone the ability to vote without having to step into the public sphere. Hasen’s solution is to give voters the option—though not the obligation—to vote by mail. This is also the goal of new legislation proposed by Senators Ron Wyden, of Oregon, and Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota. Wyden told me, “Every jurisdiction already allows absentee voting for members of the military or people who can’t make it to the polls, so we’re not starting from scratch.” Five states have universal vote-by-mail, and thirty allow voters to request an absentee ballot without having to provide an excuse. Even so, scaling up in time for the November election—Wyden believes we have no more than six months to get there—will present challenges. An earlier bill introduced by Wyden, the Resilient Elections During Quarantines and Natural Disasters Act of 2020, proposes five hundred million dollars in grants to help all fifty states institute mail-in voting. The Brennan Center for Justice, at New York University, estimates the real cost would range from $951 million to $1.4 billion. (The Klobuchar-Wyden bill does not suggest a specific allocation, but Klobuchar told me that Congress should make sure that this transition does not burden the states.)
There are more than nine thousand voting districts in the country, with varying rules and regulations. Some will require an act of the state legislature to allow no-excuse absentee voting. Some will require a constitutional amendment. And then there are the logistics. It is highly unusual to introduce a new way of voting during a general election; election officials will need time and training to adapt, and they may not have either. In Wyden’s home state of Oregon, which allows universal vote-by-mail, every voter is sent a ballot and a prepaid return envelope with a tracking bar code inside. This preserves anonymity and enables voters to check that their marked ballot was received. One of the provisions of Wyden’s bill, however, would allow voters to receive their ballots electronically and print them at home. That’s convenient and expedient, but it raises security concerns. “Anytime you have people voting outside a polling place,” Hasen said, “there is going to be the possibility of coercion, vote tampering, and ballots that get tossed out.”
There are other concerns, as well. In some cases, clerks have disproportionately challenged the authenticity of signatures on mail-in ballots cast by people of color and younger voters. A 2018 report by the A.C.L.U. of Florida, for example, found that “Younger and racial and ethnic minority voters casting VBM ballots were at least twice as likely as older and white voters to have their VBM ballot rejected in the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016.” (King County, Washington, which has had universal mail-in voting since 2005, tries to preëmpt this kind of disenfranchisement by sending a ballot-rejection-challenge form and prepaid envelope within a day to voters whose ballots were not accepted.) And voting by mail is a less than optimal solution for voters without a fixed address or those who live on tribal lands.
“We know it’s not going to be perfect,” Klobuchar told me. “But we need to push as many people as we can to vote early as well as to vote by mail.” On Wednesday, she and Wyden introduced the National Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020, a hybrid of proposals from both senators to preserve and protect the franchise. Klobuchar, who has been talking with Roy Blunt, her Republican colleague from Missouri, to garner bipartisan support, is especially keen to see states introduce a twenty-day early-voting period, which would allow people who need (or prefer) to vote in person to do so without having to encounter crowds. This would also lessen the exposure of poll workers, the majority of whom are over sixty, which puts them at high risk if they were to contract COVID-19. (The Klobuchar-Wyden bill also proposes training high-school and college students as poll workers.)
It is not lost on either senator that efforts to pass election-security legislation have been stymied by the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, for the past three years, and that Republicans around the country have pursued policies to limit the franchise and suppress the vote. It is also not lost on their Republican colleagues that states which have universal vote-by-mail have seen an increase in voter participation. But that does not necessarily favor Democrats. Hasen pointed out that Republican voters, who skew older, may prefer voting at home. He also said that, until recently, Republicans were more likely to vote that way than Democrats. One Democratic operative I spoke with worried that if much of the country were to vote by mail in November the Republicans would have the advantage, because “they actually return the ballots.” Wyden reminded me that Utah, a state that is “as red as it gets,” votes by mail. In other words, giving voters the option to vote by mail, over a longer election period, is not a stealth way to enlarge the franchise—it’s a way to preserve it. “We’re in an unprecedented emergency,” Hasen said. “Let’s solve November, and we can worry about other things later.”
A Guide to the Coronavirus


newyorker--2020-03-20--The Republican Stimulus Bill Is Full of Holes

On Thursday afternoon , Mitch McConnell , the Senate Majority Leader , released a two-hundred-and-forty-seven-page spending bill designed to stabilize the economy during the great COVID-19 shutdown .
It would provide financial assistance to individuals and businesses , including direct payments of up to twelve hundred dollars for Americans who earn less than a hundred thousand dollars a year .
Although the bill didn ’ t come with an official price tag , analysts estimated the total cost of its proposals was roughly eight hundred billion dollars .
Despite the bill ’ s length , its publication is merely the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will begin on Friday .
With McConnell seven short of the sixty votes necessary to pass the measure , he will have to engage in some horse-trading with Democrats .
As the economic fallout from the coronavirus spreads , virtually everyone on Capitol Hill now agrees that a larger-scale fiscal package is necessary .
( On Wednesday , the Senate passed an emergency spending bill worth about a hundred billion dollars . )
But there is a lot less agreement on what the big package should contain .
The McConnell bill is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations .
Democrats want more money for people who are losing their jobs and for states that are fighting the virus .
On Thursday night , I spoke with Gene Sperling , who served as the head of the National Economic Council at the White House under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama .
He was closely involved in discussions about the 2009 stimulus package , the bailout of Chrysler , and the payroll-tax cut of 2010 .
When I reached him , he had just finished reading McConnell ’ s bill .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sperling said , “ it has four big holes.
” The first is that the bill fails to expand paid sick leave , which was included in legislation that the Senate passed on Wednesday .
Democrats had been pushing for a twelve-week eligibility period , but Republicans insisted on limiting it to two weeks with exemptions for businesses with more than five hundred employees .
“ If you stay home to look after a family member and at the end of two weeks you fall sick yourself , your sick leave will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an incentive to return to work and infect people there , ” Sperling pointed out .
That doesn ’ t make any sense .
Neither does the fact that , under McConnell ’ s proposal , low-income people and the disabled would receive smaller cash payments than everybody else—as little as six hundred dollars .
Sperling rightly described this feature as inexcusable .
On Thursday night , even some Republicans , including Senator Josh Hawley , of Missouri , distanced themselves from the bill .
The third hole that Sperling identified is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient financial aid to states and municipalities that are in desperate need of medical supplies , protective equipment , and additional hospital capacity .
With the number of COVID-19 cases rising dramatically , there is also an urgent need to bolster the federal share of Medicaid , the federal health-care program that covers seventy-five million low-income American adults and children , which the states administer and partly finance .
At the end of last week , I wrote about a detailed plan from a group of public-health experts and former health officials that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barely addresses them .
Given Republican recalcitrance , it may not be easy to fill these three holes .
At least in theory , though , doing so would be straightforward .
But the fourth issue that Sperling identified raises fundamental questions about how to deal with what is rapidly emerging as one of the biggest problems of all : mass joblessness .
In California on Tuesday , eighty thousand people applied for unemployment benefits , the Los Angeles Times reported .
That ’ s about forty times the normal rate of applications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long before we see similar trends in other states .
The unemployment-insurance system , which dates back to the New Deal , is the first line of defense against mass joblessness .
In its current form , however , it isn ’ t up to the huge task at hand .
Qualified workers are entitled to receive roughly half of their previous earnings , up to a certain cap , for a period of six months .
But the system doesn ’ t cover gig workers and other self-employed individuals .
To be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been categorized as a wage employee at the job you lost , and , in today ’ s economy , many workers aren ’ t categorized that way .
Sperling believes unemployment insurance should cover a hundred per cent of the labor force for at least the next few months .
“ I ’ m talking to people—Uber drivers , tutors , domestic workers , people who teach yoga—and they are telling me they are losing about ninety per cent of their business through no fault of their own , ” Sperling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most of these people—as well as other types of workers—would qualify to receive a direct payment of up to twelve hundred dollars , more if they have children .
But , as Sperling pointed out , such a payment “ is never going to be enough ” for people who are likely to be out of work for months to cover the cost of their rents or mortgage payments , food , and other expenses .
Last week , I raised the idea of sending out monthly checks of a thousand dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to adopting a temporary version of Andrew Yang ’ s universal-basic-income proposal .
The Senate bill only proposes a one-time payment , which would be woefully inadequate for those being hitting hardest by the virus shutdown .
Sperling and a number of other experts believe it would be quicker and fairer to enroll self-employed people in the unemployment-insurance system , at least temporarily .
Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman , two economists at the University of California , Berkeley , who worked on Elizabeth Warren ’ s wealth tax , have put forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their proposal , self-employed “ individuals ( such as gig workers ) could report themselves as idle and be eligible for this special unemployment insurance ” for a limited time period .
It ’ s not clear whether Chuck Schumer and other prominent Democrats will get behind this suggestion .
“ It is one of those proposals that was considered a far-out idea a short while ago but is quickly becoming regarded as reasonable , ” Mike Konczal , the director for progressive thought at the Roosevelt Institute , who has written a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me on Thursday evening .
After a remarkable couple of weeks , that analysis applies to a lot of policy proposals .
At this stage , it remains unclear which ones will make it into the final stimulus legislation , even though both sides say they want to get it passed rapidly .
One item virtually certain to be included is a loan package for large companies whose businesses the pandemic has battered , such as airlines .
McConnell ’ s bill sets aside more than two hundred billion dollars for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have to limit the pay of their senior executives .
But this stipulation stops far short of Democratic demands that loan recipients should be required to maintain their payrolls , refrain from stock buybacks , and pay their workers a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour .
“ Any bailout should be conditioned on a set of reforms that make workers and businesses more resilient to future external shocks , and to prevent the kind of broad-based political distrust that followed from the poorly structured bailouts during the financial crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , there is the question of whether this stimulus is big enough .
If the COVID-19 shutdown extends beyond a few weeks , which seems highly likely , it probably isn ’ t .
Some economists are talking about an economic-rescue package of two trillion dollars , or even three trillion dollars , being needed .
In other words , whatever happens in Washington during the next few days , we will likely be back here again very soon .
• None How to practice social distancing , from responding to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ordering food .
• None How people cope and create new customs amid a pandemic .
• None What it means to contain and mitigate the coronavirus outbreak .
• None How much of the world is likely to be quarantined ?
• None Donald Trump in the time of coronavirus .
• None The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine could be widely available .
• None We are all irrational panic shoppers .
• None The strange terror of watching the coronavirus take @ @

On Thursday afternoon, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, released a two-hundred-and-forty-seven-page spending bill designed to stabilize the economy during the great COVID-19 shutdown. It would provide financial assistance to individuals and businesses, including direct payments of up to twelve hundred dollars for Americans who earn less than a hundred thousand dollars a year. Although the bill didn’t come with an official price tag, analysts estimated the total cost of its proposals was roughly eight hundred billion dollars.
Despite the bill’s length, its publication is merely the opening bid in a set of negotiations that will begin on Friday. With McConnell seven short of the sixty votes necessary to pass the measure, he will have to engage in some horse-trading with Democrats. As the economic fallout from the coronavirus spreads, virtually everyone on Capitol Hill now agrees that a larger-scale fiscal package is necessary. (On Wednesday, the Senate passed an emergency spending bill worth about a hundred billion dollars.) But there is a lot less agreement on what the big package should contain. The McConnell bill is slanted toward helping small businesses and large corporations. Democrats want more money for people who are losing their jobs and for states that are fighting the virus.
On Thursday night, I spoke with Gene Sperling, who served as the head of the National Economic Council at the White House under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He was closely involved in discussions about the 2009 stimulus package, the bailout of Chrysler, and the payroll-tax cut of 2010. When I reached him, he had just finished reading McConnell’s bill. “As far as I can see,” Sperling said, “it has four big holes.”
The first is that the bill fails to expand paid sick leave, which was included in legislation that the Senate passed on Wednesday. Democrats had been pushing for a twelve-week eligibility period, but Republicans insisted on limiting it to two weeks with exemptions for businesses with more than five hundred employees. “If you stay home to look after a family member and at the end of two weeks you fall sick yourself, your sick leave will have run out, so you will have an incentive to return to work and infect people there,” Sperling pointed out.
That doesn’t make any sense. Neither does the fact that, under McConnell’s proposal, low-income people and the disabled would receive smaller cash payments than everybody else—as little as six hundred dollars. Sperling rightly described this feature as inexcusable. On Thursday night, even some Republicans, including Senator Josh Hawley, of Missouri, distanced themselves from the bill.
The third hole that Sperling identified is the bill’s failure to provide sufficient financial aid to states and municipalities that are in desperate need of medical supplies, protective equipment, and additional hospital capacity. With the number of COVID-19 cases rising dramatically, there is also an urgent need to bolster the federal share of Medicaid, the federal health-care program that covers seventy-five million low-income American adults and children, which the states administer and partly finance. At the end of last week, I wrote about a detailed plan from a group of public-health experts and former health officials that addresses these needs. The Senate bill barely addresses them.
Given Republican recalcitrance, it may not be easy to fill these three holes. At least in theory, though, doing so would be straightforward. But the fourth issue that Sperling identified raises fundamental questions about how to deal with what is rapidly emerging as one of the biggest problems of all: mass joblessness. In California on Tuesday, eighty thousand people applied for unemployment benefits, the Los Angeles Times reported. That’s about forty times the normal rate of applications, and it won’t be long before we see similar trends in other states.
The unemployment-insurance system, which dates back to the New Deal, is the first line of defense against mass joblessness. In its current form, however, it isn’t up to the huge task at hand. Qualified workers are entitled to receive roughly half of their previous earnings, up to a certain cap, for a period of six months. But the system doesn’t cover gig workers and other self-employed individuals. To be eligible for benefits, you need to have been categorized as a wage employee at the job you lost, and, in today’s economy, many workers aren’t categorized that way. Sperling believes unemployment insurance should cover a hundred per cent of the labor force for at least the next few months.
“I’m talking to people—Uber drivers, tutors, domestic workers, people who teach yoga—and they are telling me they are losing about ninety per cent of their business through no fault of their own,” Sperling told me. Under the Republican proposal, most of these people—as well as other types of workers—would qualify to receive a direct payment of up to twelve hundred dollars, more if they have children. But, as Sperling pointed out, such a payment “is never going to be enough” for people who are likely to be out of work for months to cover the cost of their rents or mortgage payments, food, and other expenses. Last week, I raised the idea of sending out monthly checks of a thousand dollars to all Americans, which would amount to adopting a temporary version of Andrew Yang’s universal-basic-income proposal. The Senate bill only proposes a one-time payment, which would be woefully inadequate for those being hitting hardest by the virus shutdown.
Sperling and a number of other experts believe it would be quicker and fairer to enroll self-employed people in the unemployment-insurance system, at least temporarily. Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists at the University of California, Berkeley, who worked on Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax, have put forward a plan along these lines. Under their proposal, self-employed “individuals (such as gig workers) could report themselves as idle and be eligible for this special unemployment insurance” for a limited time period.
It’s not clear whether Chuck Schumer and other prominent Democrats will get behind this suggestion. “It is one of those proposals that was considered a far-out idea a short while ago but is quickly becoming regarded as reasonable,” Mike Konczal, the director for progressive thought at the Roosevelt Institute, who has written a useful guide to the stimulus debate, told me on Thursday evening. After a remarkable couple of weeks, that analysis applies to a lot of policy proposals. At this stage, it remains unclear which ones will make it into the final stimulus legislation, even though both sides say they want to get it passed rapidly.
One item virtually certain to be included is a loan package for large companies whose businesses the pandemic has battered, such as airlines. McConnell’s bill sets aside more than two hundred billion dollars for this purpose. Companies that receive government loans would have to limit the pay of their senior executives. But this stipulation stops far short of Democratic demands that loan recipients should be required to maintain their payrolls, refrain from stock buybacks, and pay their workers a minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour. “Any bailout should be conditioned on a set of reforms that make workers and businesses more resilient to future external shocks, and to prevent the kind of broad-based political distrust that followed from the poorly structured bailouts during the financial crisis,” Konczal wrote in his paper.
Finally, there is the question of whether this stimulus is big enough. If the COVID-19 shutdown extends beyond a few weeks, which seems highly likely, it probably isn’t. Some economists are talking about an economic-rescue package of two trillion dollars, or even three trillion dollars, being needed. In other words, whatever happens in Washington during the next few days, we will likely be back here again very soon.
A Guide to the Coronavirus


newyorker--2020-03-20--“Lizzie McGuire” Episodes Deemed Too Adult for Disney+

Fans rejoiced when Disney+ announced a “ Lizzie McGuire ” reboot , which would feature a thirty-year-old Lizzie navigating adulthood @ @ @ @ @ as an apprentice to an interior designer .
( The series would also include the @ @ @ @ @ thirteen-year-old animated alter ego . )
But the dream was over as quickly as it @ @ @ @ @ network suddenly put the show on hold , presumably over concerns that it wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ what was Disney+ so afraid of ?
Here are some of the episodes that were @ @ @ @ @ streaming service .

Fans rejoiced when Disney+ announced a “Lizzie McGuire” reboot, which would feature a thirty-year-old Lizzie navigating adulthood in New York City, as an apprentice to an interior designer. (The series would also include the inner monologue of her memorable thirteen-year-old animated alter ego.) But the dream was over as quickly as it had begun, when the network suddenly put the show on hold, presumably over concerns that it wasn’t family-friendly enough.
Just what was Disney+ so afraid of? Here are some of the episodes that were simply too adult for the streaming service.


newyorker--2020-03-20--Richard Burr Demands Assurance That Senators Working from Home Will Still Get Stock Tips

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Amid speculation that United States senators might soon be working remotely , Senator Richard Burr on Friday demanded guarantees that senators working from home will still have access to insider-trading tips .
Speaking from the well of the Senate , an impassioned Burr , a Republican from North Carolina , said that a “ system needs to be put in place—not tomorrow , not next week , but today—to insure that senators receive the insider-trading information that is both our lifeblood and our birthright.
” Burr blasted the Obama Administration for not establishing contingency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stock tips to U.S. senators in the event of a pandemic , nuclear war , or asteroid strike .
“ The fact that we will soon be isolated in our homes , forced to seek out stock tips through e-mails , text messages , and what have you is , to put it mildly , unconscionable , ” Burr , his voice quavering with anger , told his colleagues .
The North Carolina lawmaker urged the Senate to appropriate one and a half billion dollars immediately to fund the construction of a secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moments after his speech , it was revealed that Burr yesterday invested in SecurePortalTek , a company that builds secure portals to provide real-time insider stock tips .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Amid speculation that United States senators might soon be working remotely, Senator Richard Burr on Friday demanded guarantees that senators working from home will still have access to insider-trading tips.
Speaking from the well of the Senate, an impassioned Burr, a Republican from North Carolina, said that a “system needs to be put in place—not tomorrow, not next week, but today—to insure that senators receive the insider-trading information that is both our lifeblood and our birthright.”
Burr blasted the Obama Administration for not establishing contingency plans to safeguard the steady flow of stock tips to U.S. senators in the event of a pandemic, nuclear war, or asteroid strike.
“The fact that we will soon be isolated in our homes, forced to seek out stock tips through e-mails, text messages, and what have you is, to put it mildly, unconscionable,” Burr, his voice quavering with anger, told his colleagues.
The North Carolina lawmaker urged the Senate to appropriate one and a half billion dollars immediately to fund the construction of a secure portal to provide real-time insider stock tips.
Moments after his speech, it was revealed that Burr yesterday invested in SecurePortalTek, a company that builds secure portals to provide real-time insider stock tips.