newyorker--2020-05-02--Is America’s “One Nation, Indivisible” Being Killed Off by the Coronavirus?

Shortly after noon on Thursday , Dayna Polehanki , a Michigan state senator , was confronted by armed protesters marauding through the capitol , in Lansing , and demanding an end to the coronavirus lockdown .
“ Directly above me , men with rifles yelling at us , ” Polehanki tweeted frantically from the Senate floor .
The accompanying picture , shot from her desk , showed men in fatigues , with assault rifles , in the gallery above .
“ I was a high-school teacher for almost twenty years and I was aware someone could come in and shoot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough gal , but this seemed all too real , ” she told me the following day .
“ When anger is stoked like that , and people have guns , things can go wrong.
” She said her hands shook as she took the picture .
The protest erupted as the Michigan legislature debated whether to extend the state of emergency issued by Governor Gretchen Whitmer , which was about to expire .
Under Michigan law , all political signs are banned from the capitol , so protesters at the “ American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banners and placards at the door , but not their loaded weapons , which are legal to carry in public , even in the legislature .
“ I ’ m afraid that is the way it is in Michigan right now , ” Polehanki said .
The Michigan legislature , dominated by Republicans , rejected an extension of the stay-at-home order .
It voted instead to initiate a lawsuit challenging the authority and actions of Whitmer , a Democrat , in dealing with the pandemic .
“ We can no longer allow one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , ” Mike Shirkey , the Michigan Senate Majority Leader , said on Thursday .
The governor countered with an executive order extending the state of emergency another twenty-eight days .
“ COVID-19 is an enemy that has taken the lives of more Michiganders than we lost during the Vietnam War , ” she said on Friday .
Whitmer was right .
More than twenty-six hundred Michigan residents died during the decade-long U.S. presence in Vietnam .
In just two months , more than thirty-eight hundred have died in Michigan from COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected since the first case was confirmed , on March 12th .
“ While some members of the legislature might believe this crisis is over , ” Whitmer added , “ common sense and all of the scientific data tells us we ’ re not out of the woods yet.
” The pandemic has dangerously deepened divisions across America—a nation already riven in recent years by race , class , religion , and trash-talking politics .
The concept of “ one nation , indivisible ” seems ever more elusive , even unattainable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , soaring joblessness , and food shortages .
For many , the future seems so uncertain .
So does survival , a privilege taken as a virtual right by the majority of Americans courtesy of economic and medical achievements since the Second World War .
The coronavirus crisis has added new layers to our national divide : the tested and the untested ; the food deliverers and the food receivers ; the mask-wearers and the beach-goers ; the less vulnerable young and the vulnerable old .
Four new classes have been produced since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Robert Reich , the Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration and now a professor at the University of California , Berkeley .
The “ Remotes ” are the privileged professional , managerial , and technical workers still at their jobs , usually remotely and usually for the same pay .
The “ Essentials ” range from medical staff to workers in the food-supply chain , the police , and truck drivers ; many are putting their lives at risk with limited physical or economic protection .
The “ Unpaid ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Forty-three per cent of adults said that they or someone in their household had lost a job or taken a pay cut owing to the pandemic , the Pew Research Center reported last week .
More than thirty million Americans have lost their jobs in just two months .
U.S. unemployment could soon hit twenty-five per cent—unprecedented numbers since the Great Depression of the nineteen-thirties , Reich warned in a piece for Common Dreams .
The final class is the broad range of the “ Forgotten ” —the homeless , migrant workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elderly , and the imprisoned .
Outbreaks in nursing homes , homeless shelters , and prisons have proved among the most merciless .
The death rate in the Navajo Nation is higher than in thirteen states .
And this may only be the opening phase of the latest political chasm .
Historically , disease has been a divider .
“ Disgust and fear of infection lead people to favor contact with those who are familiar and trigger prejudice toward so-called outsiders , ” including members of minority groups , Ashley Quarcoo and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace .
In medieval Europe , the bubonic plague led to pogroms against Jews .
In the mid-nineteenth century , cholera widened discrimination against the Chinese in San Francisco .
And in the past decade , Ebola spawned prejudice against Africans .
“ Today , the desire to identify culprits for a public health disaster has already led to global increases in hate crimes and xenophobia , ” the authors noted .
The most dangerous divide emerging from the pandemic is the oldest in American history—over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ versus the power of the federal government .
We fought a war over the issue a hundred and sixty years ago ; it has flared again during the pandemic—and now threatens to tear the nation apart in new ways .
Last month , President Trump urged protests in Michigan and told Virginians to “ save your great 2nd Amendment .
It is under siege !
” On Friday , the President demanded in another tweet that Whitmer negotiate over a life-or-death issue—in one of the hardest hit states—with protesters who had swarmed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and put out the fire .
These are very good people , but they are angry , ” Trump wrote .
“ They want their lives back again , safely !
See them , talk to them , make a deal.
” At a press conference , Whitmer condemned the swastikas , nooses , and Confederate flags that were waved at the protests .
“ We came together as the arsenal of democracy to defeat the Nazis , ” she said .
“ We will not be making decisions based on an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure .
I ’ m not here to play games.
” Amid mounting anxieties , Americans are increasingly confused about who is supposed to lead , set standards , determine solutions , provide aid , and ultimately be held accountable .
The President has changed his position on the issue often and opportunistically .
As the pandemic swept the country in mid-March , Trump told governors that they were on their own in finding ventilators and protective gear .
In mid-April , the President claimed he had “ total ” authority over all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the way it ’ s got to be , ” he said , at a press conference .
Constitutional scholars and notable governors , including Republicans , disputed his assertion .
A few days later , he backtracked in a teleconference with the nation ’ s governors , “ You ’ re going to call your own shots , ” he reportedly said , possibly to avoid being held responsible in an election year if anything went wrong .
The President ’ s exchange this week with the Michigan governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem is mirrored at a lower level in the divide—between cities and their state governments , notably in Texas .

Shortly after noon on Thursday, Dayna Polehanki, a Michigan state senator, was confronted by armed protesters marauding through the capitol, in Lansing, and demanding an end to the coronavirus lockdown. “Directly above me, men with rifles yelling at us,” Polehanki tweeted frantically from the Senate floor. The accompanying picture, shot from her desk, showed men in fatigues, with assault rifles, in the gallery above. “I was a high-school teacher for almost twenty years and I was aware someone could come in and shoot things up. I consider myself a tough gal, but this seemed all too real,” she told me the following day. “When anger is stoked like that, and people have guns, things can go wrong.” She said her hands shook as she took the picture.
The protest erupted as the Michigan legislature debated whether to extend the state of emergency issued by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, which was about to expire. Under Michigan law, all political signs are banned from the capitol, so protesters at the “American Patriot Rally” had to leave their banners and placards at the door, but not their loaded weapons, which are legal to carry in public, even in the legislature. “I’m afraid that is the way it is in Michigan right now,” Polehanki said.
The Michigan legislature, dominated by Republicans, rejected an extension of the stay-at-home order. It voted instead to initiate a lawsuit challenging the authority and actions of Whitmer, a Democrat, in dealing with the pandemic. “We can no longer allow one person to make decisions for ten million people,” Mike Shirkey, the Michigan Senate Majority Leader, said on Thursday. The governor countered with an executive order extending the state of emergency another twenty-eight days. “COVID-19 is an enemy that has taken the lives of more Michiganders than we lost during the Vietnam War,” she said on Friday. Whitmer was right. More than twenty-six hundred Michigan residents died during the decade-long U.S. presence in Vietnam. In just two months, more than thirty-eight hundred have died in Michigan from COVID-19. At least forty-two thousand have been infected since the first case was confirmed, on March 12th. “While some members of the legislature might believe this crisis is over,” Whitmer added, “common sense and all of the scientific data tells us we’re not out of the woods yet.”
The pandemic has dangerously deepened divisions across America—a nation already riven in recent years by race, class, religion, and trash-talking politics. The concept of “one nation, indivisible” seems ever more elusive, even unattainable, in these anxious days of deadly pathogens, soaring joblessness, and food shortages. For many, the future seems so uncertain. So does survival, a privilege taken as a virtual right by the majority of Americans courtesy of economic and medical achievements since the Second World War.
The coronavirus crisis has added new layers to our national divide: the tested and the untested; the food deliverers and the food receivers; the mask-wearers and the beach-goers; the less vulnerable young and the vulnerable old. Four new classes have been produced since COVID-19 swept from coast to coast, according to Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration and now a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The “Remotes” are the privileged professional, managerial, and technical workers still at their jobs, usually remotely and usually for the same pay. The “Essentials” range from medical staff to workers in the food-supply chain, the police, and truck drivers; many are putting their lives at risk with limited physical or economic protection. The “Unpaid” are the growing numbers of the unemployed. Forty-three per cent of adults said that they or someone in their household had lost a job or taken a pay cut owing to the pandemic, the Pew Research Center reported last week. More than thirty million Americans have lost their jobs in just two months. U.S. unemployment could soon hit twenty-five per cent—unprecedented numbers since the Great Depression of the nineteen-thirties, Reich warned in a piece for Common Dreams. The final class is the broad range of the “Forgotten”—the homeless, migrant workers, Native Americans, the disabled, the elderly, and the imprisoned. Outbreaks in nursing homes, homeless shelters, and prisons have proved among the most merciless. The death rate in the Navajo Nation is higher than in thirteen states.
And this may only be the opening phase of the latest political chasm. Historically, disease has been a divider. “Disgust and fear of infection lead people to favor contact with those who are familiar and trigger prejudice toward so-called outsiders,” including members of minority groups, Ashley Quarcoo and Rachel Kleinfeld wrote, in a new report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In medieval Europe, the bubonic plague led to pogroms against Jews. In the mid-nineteenth century, cholera widened discrimination against the Chinese in San Francisco. And in the past decade, Ebola spawned prejudice against Africans. “Today, the desire to identify culprits for a public health disaster has already led to global increases in hate crimes and xenophobia,” the authors noted.
The most dangerous divide emerging from the pandemic is the oldest in American history—over the rights and duties of the states versus the power of the federal government. We fought a war over the issue a hundred and sixty years ago; it has flared again during the pandemic—and now threatens to tear the nation apart in new ways. Last month, President Trump urged protests in Michigan and told Virginians to “save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!”
On Friday, the President demanded in another tweet that Whitmer negotiate over a life-or-death issue—in one of the hardest hit states—with protesters who had swarmed the state capitol. “Give a little, and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they are angry,” Trump wrote. “They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.” At a press conference, Whitmer condemned the swastikas, nooses, and Confederate flags that were waved at the protests. “We came together as the arsenal of democracy to defeat the Nazis,” she said. “We will not be making decisions based on an arbitrary timeline, or political or legal pressure. I’m not here to play games.”
Amid mounting anxieties, Americans are increasingly confused about who is supposed to lead, set standards, determine solutions, provide aid, and ultimately be held accountable. The President has changed his position on the issue often and opportunistically. As the pandemic swept the country in mid-March, Trump told governors that they were on their own in finding ventilators and protective gear. In mid-April, the President claimed he had “total” authority over all issues spawned by the pandemic. “That’s the way it’s got to be,” he said, at a press conference. Constitutional scholars and notable governors, including Republicans, disputed his assertion. A few days later, he backtracked in a teleconference with the nation’s governors, “You’re going to call your own shots,” he reportedly said, possibly to avoid being held responsible in an election year if anything went wrong. The President’s exchange this week with the Michigan governor only added to the confusion. The problem is mirrored at a lower level in the divide—between cities and their state governments, notably in Texas.
The impact could outlast the pandemic’s pathogens. The American social contract—based on the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence—was already eroding; the interpretations were being redefined, a process begun by Reaganism in the nineteen-eighties as part of a sustained attack on the role and meaning of government, David Blight, a Yale historian, told me. From the Civil War to the nineteen-seventies, government expanded its reach to try to insure the same rights for African-Americans, women, Native Americans, the disabled, veterans, the elderly, and the ill. Government grew to fight wars and secure the homeland, improve the economy, advance education, and institute the first environmental protections. “But part of our political culture has never really supported this long and seismic change and done the best to roll it back,” Blight, who grew up in Flint, Michigan, told me. During the pandemic, those opposed to expansive government have decried shelter-in-place orders as excessive and questioned the recommendations of the government’s top health officials. “Only a society with sufficient hostility to government action and regulation could allow the Second Amendment to really authorize people to carry assault rifles into the state capitols while they protest,” Blight said.


newyorker--2020-05-05--We’re Sorry, the America You Ordered Is Currently Unavailable

Valued Customer : Sincerest apologies , but our organically fed , hundred-per-cent pasture-raised chicken breasts are no longer available .
As a substitute , please accept this bag of heavily processed , fifty-per-cent meat , fifty-per-cent miscellaneous chicken-nugget-like product .
Dear Sir or Madam : We wanted to let you know that , though you ordered a single ergonomic desk chair for your two-hundred-square-foot apartment , we have inexplicably sent you three .
Unfortunately , we can not accept returns at this time .
Dear Parent : Sadly , the regular sources of entertainment and child care required for you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , we will be sending you a wine glass that will never seem big enough .
Note : it is as fragile as your rare moments of peace .
Attention , Hospital Staff : We ’ re so sorry , but we no longer have protective gloves in stock .
Please take these oven mitts covered in garbage bags .
Dear Essential Worker : We regret to inform you that the sense of humanity and empathy you have requested from Jared Kushner is currently on back order .
While he rolls around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why not try a bandanna ?
Greetings , Once-Enthusiastic Recipient of Letters and Packages : We are sorry to say that the United States Postal Service is no longer functioning , owing to underfunding .
As such , we can not deliver that birthday check from your grandma .
Dear Environment : We sincerely apologize for the mixed messages .
We know that your air has been uncharacteristically light on pollution lately , but , please , don ’ t get used to it .
Dear Small Business : The P.P.P .
loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the relevant fund has already been depleted .
Please accept this coupon for twenty-five per cent off your next meal at Ruth ’ s Chris Steak House , along with our apologies .
Hello , Mr. McConnell : Regrettably , the two hundred and fifty-six rolls of toilet paper you ordered are temporarily out of stock .
Please be assured that we plan to replenish our supply soon so that you do not resort to wiping your ass with the Constitution .
Dear Human Deserving of Basic Rights : Much to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fulfill your order for universal health care .
Might we kindly suggest that you turn back time and move to Canada ?
Valued Citizen : The competent leader you requested is no longer in the White House .
Please accept this impatient , uninformed , delusional ratings-chaser as an inadequate replacement .
Unfortunately , we can not accept returns at this time .
Deepest Apologies , America : Your democracy has been discontinued .
With enough November preorders , however , we hope to offer this product to you again in 2021 .

Photograph by Lisa Kyle Young / Getty
Valued Customer: Sincerest apologies, but our organically fed, hundred-per-cent pasture-raised chicken breasts are no longer available. As a substitute, please accept this bag of heavily processed, fifty-per-cent meat, fifty-per-cent miscellaneous chicken-nugget-like product.
Dear Sir or Madam: We wanted to let you know that, though you ordered a single ergonomic desk chair for your two-hundred-square-foot apartment, we have inexplicably sent you three. Unfortunately, we cannot accept returns at this time.
Dear Parent: Sadly, the regular sources of entertainment and child care required for you to maintain your sanity are unavailable. Instead, we will be sending you a wine glass that will never seem big enough. Note: it is as fragile as your rare moments of peace.
Attention, Hospital Staff: We’re so sorry, but we no longer have protective gloves in stock. Please take these oven mitts covered in garbage bags.
Dear Essential Worker: We regret to inform you that the sense of humanity and empathy you have requested from Jared Kushner is currently on back order. While he rolls around in his national stockpile of masks, why not try a bandanna?
Greetings, Once-Enthusiastic Recipient of Letters and Packages: We are sorry to say that the United States Postal Service is no longer functioning, owing to underfunding. As such, we cannot deliver that birthday check from your grandma.
Dear Environment: We sincerely apologize for the mixed messages. We know that your air has been uncharacteristically light on pollution lately, but, please, don’t get used to it.
Dear Small Business: The P.P.P. loan you applied for cannot be processed, as the relevant fund has already been depleted. Please accept this coupon for twenty-five per cent off your next meal at Ruth’s Chris Steak House, along with our apologies.
Hello, Mr. McConnell: Regrettably, the two hundred and fifty-six rolls of toilet paper you ordered are temporarily out of stock. Please be assured that we plan to replenish our supply soon so that you do not resort to wiping your ass with the Constitution.
Dear Human Deserving of Basic Rights: Much to our dismay, we remain unable to fulfill your order for universal health care. Might we kindly suggest that you turn back time and move to Canada?
Valued Citizen: The competent leader you requested is no longer in the White House. Please accept this impatient, uninformed, delusional ratings-chaser as an inadequate replacement. Unfortunately, we cannot accept returns at this time.
Deepest Apologies, America: Your democracy has been discontinued. With enough November preorders, however, we hope to offer this product to you again in 2021.


newyorker--2020-05-05--Demystifying the Golden State Warriors

Demystifying the Golden State Warriors

One revelation of life without sports is that I miss the games less than I thought I would—there are only so many ways for a team to win or lose .
What I actually miss is all the ambient , extracurricular stuff that fills the rest of the calendar : the wheeling and dealing , the rumors and speculation , the storytelling that gives shape to struggle .
At some point during the past decade , every professional sports league became a year-round business , never quite vacating a hard-core fan ’ s periphery .
The N.B.A.
, when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever really stop : the season ran from October through mid-June , by which time there was the draft ( late June ) , free agency and summer league ( July ) , and then training camp and preseason ( September ) .
The fans have followed along : they want to understand a team ’ s long-term planning and speculate about its future , looking toward possible tweaks that might not unfold for years .
In another life , Ethan Strauss , a reporter for the Athletic , may have covered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business sector .
He seems preternaturally interested in institutions and how to demystify them .
Rather than reheating N.B.A .
talking points , Strauss delves into how professional basketball works organizationally .
“ The Victory Machine : The Making and Unmaking of the Warriors Dynasty ” is his book about the 2018-19 Golden State Warriors , one of the most talented basketball teams ever assembled .
The Warriors had won three championships in the previous four years , and they likely would have won another that season were it not for untimely injuries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two of their best players .
But the book isn ’ t really about the Warriors ’ style of play or their place in N.B.A .
history .
It ’ s barely about basketball .
It ’ s essentially a workplace drama revolving around thirty or so incredibly wealthy and psychotically competitive people—players , agents , management , ownership—united in professional purpose yet also seeking their own versions of personal fulfillment .
Strauss has been writing about the Warriors since 2010 , back when relatively few people wanted to read about them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ homegrown core of Stephen Curry , Thompson , and Draymond Green , which , in 2015 , brought the Bay Area its first championship in forty years .
But the admiration and good vibes dissolved in the summer of 2016 , when the Warriors signed Durant , a former rival and the human equivalent of a cheat code .
The team ’ s success became conflated with Silicon Valley as a whole—one of its owners , Joe Lacob , crowed that the organization was “ light-years ” ahead of other teams .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ laughingstock for decades had come to seem smug and entitled .
It ’ s hard to convey how unlikely all of this seemed to someone who grew up watching the Warriors back when they were scrappy but irrelevant .
I could never have imagined that the team would win anything of note ; even more improbable was the idea that it could become a destination for a superstar like Durant , who , as Strauss reports , hoped that winning titles with the Warriors would elevate him above LeBron James .
But critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply joined a ready-made winner .
For the entirety of the 2018-19 season , the last of Durant ’ s contract , the question of whether he would continue to play with the Warriors hung uncomfortably in the air .
He could stay and secure a dynasty for years to come , or opt for free agency and try to build something new for himself .
While Strauss clearly loves the sport , he also treats the N.B.A .
as a reflection of the “ Darwinian contest ” prized by American society , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loyalty to a team or a city can seem silly when an élite player ’ s longest-term economic relationship might be to their shoe company .
Given that players can sign a shoe deal before getting drafted , and work for Nike or Adidas well into retirement , Strauss states that “ an NBA team is impotent by comparison.
” Strauss wrote one of ESPN ’ s most popular stories of 2016 , piecing together the inner workings that convinced Curry , a generational basketball talent , to leave his Nike sponsorship and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under Armour .
When Durant joined the Warriors that year , it wasn ’ t just a question of whether he and Curry could share the ball .
It was also a question of whether Nike , via Durant , was quashing the one team that was making Under Armour relevant .
Strauss is interested in workplace culture , decision-making processes , and hierarchies , and he carefully maps the web of intermediaries and liaisons between players , their teams , and their business interests .
That basketball players are wealthy doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or paranoias present in any office setting .
We ’ re just accustomed to seeing them as heroes and villains , rather than as workers within an org chart .
Strauss offers insights into how power gets played out in personalities—the motivations , insecurities , and over-all vibe of people who are often insulated from judgment .
His wonky air equips him to talk shop with the Warriors ’ executives and management .
He describes Lacob as “ accidentally quite entertaining , ” despite disagreeing with the owner ’ s libertarian politics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coach Steve Kerr ’ s nice-guy persona , when Kerr mutters under his breath about an overeager autograph hound .
In February , 2019 , Strauss ’ s doggedness actually got him in trouble , when he reported that many within the Warriors organization saw Durant ’ s departure as inevitable .
Perhaps the only surprising aspect of Strauss ’ s piece was that someone close to the situation had confirmed it .
But Durant tried to make an example out of Strauss and his anonymous sources .
After steering clear of reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ You got a dude , Ethan Strauss , who come in here and give his whole opinion on stuff and make it seem like it ’ s coming from me .
He walk around here , don ’ t talk to nobody , just walk in here , survey , and write something like that.
” The situation , Durant explained , represented why he loathed talking to the media .
It was a no-win situation .
“ I just don ’ t trust none of y ’ all .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twisted up and thrown out in so many different publications , to try to tear me down with my words that I say .
So , when I don ’ t say nothing , it ’ s a problem .
I just want to play ball .
I want to go to the gym and go home .
That ’ s all .
Is that a problem ?
” It struck many as odd that one of the most prominent athletes on the planet saw fit to eviscerate a reporter .
The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” revolves around this incident .
Strauss recounts first meeting Durant by chance at a San Francisco hookah bar , shortly after the superstar had signed with the Warriors .
It ’ s an odd and charming scene .
It happened to be Fleet Week , and Durant kept welcoming random servicemen into his V.I.P .
section .
He was “ quietly curious ” about their backgrounds and day-to-day experiences , humbly listening as they shared their ambitions .
But Durant also comes across as pensive and world-weary , joking to his new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time until some media chump—such as Strauss—would proclaim his career over .

One revelation of life without sports is that I miss the games less than I thought I would—there are only so many ways for a team to win or lose. What I actually miss is all the ambient, extracurricular stuff that fills the rest of the calendar: the wheeling and dealing, the rumors and speculation, the storytelling that gives shape to struggle. At some point during the past decade, every professional sports league became a year-round business, never quite vacating a hard-core fan’s periphery. The N.B.A., when it was fully operational, didn’t ever really stop: the season ran from October through mid-June, by which time there was the draft (late June), free agency and summer league (July), and then training camp and preseason (September). The fans have followed along: they want to understand a team’s long-term planning and speculate about its future, looking toward possible tweaks that might not unfold for years.
In another life, Ethan Strauss, a reporter for the Athletic, may have covered the behind-the-scenes machinery of city politics or the business sector. He seems preternaturally interested in institutions and how to demystify them. Rather than reheating N.B.A. talking points, Strauss delves into how professional basketball works organizationally. “The Victory Machine: The Making and Unmaking of the Warriors Dynasty” is his book about the 2018-19 Golden State Warriors, one of the most talented basketball teams ever assembled. The Warriors had won three championships in the previous four years, and they likely would have won another that season were it not for untimely injuries to Kevin Durant and Klay Thompson, two of their best players. But the book isn’t really about the Warriors’ style of play or their place in N.B.A. history. It’s barely about basketball. It’s essentially a workplace drama revolving around thirty or so incredibly wealthy and psychotically competitive people—players, agents, management, ownership—united in professional purpose yet also seeking their own versions of personal fulfillment.
Strauss has been writing about the Warriors since 2010, back when relatively few people wanted to read about them. He came of age alongside the Warriors’ homegrown core of Stephen Curry, Thompson, and Draymond Green, which, in 2015, brought the Bay Area its first championship in forty years. But the admiration and good vibes dissolved in the summer of 2016, when the Warriors signed Durant, a former rival and the human equivalent of a cheat code. The team’s success became conflated with Silicon Valley as a whole—one of its owners, Joe Lacob, crowed that the organization was “light-years” ahead of other teams. A franchise that had been a pitiable laughingstock for decades had come to seem smug and entitled.
It’s hard to convey how unlikely all of this seemed to someone who grew up watching the Warriors back when they were scrappy but irrelevant. I could never have imagined that the team would win anything of note; even more improbable was the idea that it could become a destination for a superstar like Durant, who, as Strauss reports, hoped that winning titles with the Warriors would elevate him above LeBron James. But critics and opposing fans felt that Durant had simply joined a ready-made winner. For the entirety of the 2018-19 season, the last of Durant’s contract, the question of whether he would continue to play with the Warriors hung uncomfortably in the air. He could stay and secure a dynasty for years to come, or opt for free agency and try to build something new for himself.
While Strauss clearly loves the sport, he also treats the N.B.A. as a reflection of the “Darwinian contest” prized by American society, and writes about it without romance. Loyalty to a team or a city can seem silly when an élite player’s longest-term economic relationship might be to their shoe company. Given that players can sign a shoe deal before getting drafted, and work for Nike or Adidas well into retirement, Strauss states that “an NBA team is impotent by comparison.” Strauss wrote one of ESPN’s most popular stories of 2016, piecing together the inner workings that convinced Curry, a generational basketball talent, to leave his Nike sponsorship and move to the comically unloved apparel company Under Armour. When Durant joined the Warriors that year, it wasn’t just a question of whether he and Curry could share the ball. It was also a question of whether Nike, via Durant, was quashing the one team that was making Under Armour relevant.
Strauss is interested in workplace culture, decision-making processes, and hierarchies, and he carefully maps the web of intermediaries and liaisons between players, their teams, and their business interests. That basketball players are wealthy doesn’t make them immune to the resentments or paranoias present in any office setting. We’re just accustomed to seeing them as heroes and villains, rather than as workers within an org chart. Strauss offers insights into how power gets played out in personalities—the motivations, insecurities, and over-all vibe of people who are often insulated from judgment. His wonky air equips him to talk shop with the Warriors’ executives and management. He describes Lacob as “accidentally quite entertaining,” despite disagreeing with the owner’s libertarian politics. Elsewhere, Strauss adds texture to the coach Steve Kerr’s nice-guy persona, when Kerr mutters under his breath about an overeager autograph hound.
In February, 2019, Strauss’s doggedness actually got him in trouble, when he reported that many within the Warriors organization saw Durant’s departure as inevitable. Perhaps the only surprising aspect of Strauss’s piece was that someone close to the situation had confirmed it. But Durant tried to make an example out of Strauss and his anonymous sources. After steering clear of reporters for a few days, Durant said, “You got a dude, Ethan Strauss, who come in here and give his whole opinion on stuff and make it seem like it’s coming from me. He walk around here, don’t talk to nobody, just walk in here, survey, and write something like that.” The situation, Durant explained, represented why he loathed talking to the media. It was a no-win situation. “I just don’t trust none of y’all. Every time I say something, it gets twisted up and thrown out in so many different publications, to try to tear me down with my words that I say. So, when I don’t say nothing, it’s a problem. I just want to play ball. I want to go to the gym and go home. That’s all. Is that a problem?” It struck many as odd that one of the most prominent athletes on the planet saw fit to eviscerate a reporter.
The most absorbing chapter of “The Victory Machine” revolves around this incident. Strauss recounts first meeting Durant by chance at a San Francisco hookah bar, shortly after the superstar had signed with the Warriors. It’s an odd and charming scene. It happened to be Fleet Week, and Durant kept welcoming random servicemen into his V.I.P. section. He was “quietly curious” about their backgrounds and day-to-day experiences, humbly listening as they shared their ambitions. But Durant also comes across as pensive and world-weary, joking to his new friends that it was only a matter of time until some media chump—such as Strauss—would proclaim his career over.
N.B.A. executives have grown concerned with any seeming unhappiness among their top players. In order to reach the league, players have had to be single-minded in their pursuit. It’s understandable that when they reach their mid-twenties, and are finally able to catch their breath, they may feel a spiritual void, a loss of meaning, a disdain toward the amount of attention and scrutiny that surrounds their lives. Even when Durant gets embroiled in Twitter beefs with random fans, it seems driven by restless neurosis, not petulance. “Not only was Kevin Durant insecure,” Strauss writes, “but he was especially insecure about his insecurities.” He describes his attempts to reach out to Durant in the days after their February blowout. Other players intervened, encouraging Strauss to simply apologize, even if he didn’t feel like he was in the wrong. Meanwhile, Strauss was sucked into the proverbial “take zone”—debated on sports-talk television and radio, praised and pilloried by people he will never meet. It’s the zone that Durant lives in every single day.


newyorker--2020-05-03--Paul Romer’s Case for Nationwide Coronavirus Testing

One of the biggest questions every country faces is how to reopen businesses without causing a resurgence of coronavirus infections .
Paul Romer , a Nobel Prize-winning economist who has served as the chief economist at the World Bank , has been putting forward plans to mitigate the economic fallout from the coronavirus and to allow for a return of normal economic activity in the U.S. His main proposal is to offer bimonthly tests to every person in the country , allowing more of us to go about our daily lives safely .
But testing is still short of where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be facing an economic crisis akin to the Great Depression .
I recently spoke by phone with Romer , who is a professor at N.Y.U .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we also discussed why Americans may be resistant to digital contact tracing , the need for states to administer tests , and what lessons economists have learned from the crisis .
Over a month ago , you co-wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times that stated , “ To protect our way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within a couple of months to a targeted approach that limits the spread of the virus but still lets most people go back to work and resume their daily activities.
” Are we anywhere close to that approach ?
And , if not , is our way of life at risk ?
We ’ re not much closer , no .
We ’ ve made very little progress , and I think we are running some risks here .
There ’ s a difference between saying “ Here ’ s something which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that ’ s possible , but it ’ s so bad we have to start preventing it and avoiding that risk right away.
” And that ’ s what I ’ m trying to say about the possibility that a depression worse than the Great Depression could lead to political turmoil that could do long-lasting damage to the nation .
So I think we have to proceed with urgency to try and solve both the health crisis and the economic crisis , and I ’ m not surprised that we haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But I will tell you that I ’ m actually encouraged by the decision by Congress to spend twenty-five billion dollars for testing in the phase-three bill .
[ This allocation is part of Phase 3.5 . ]
That was not what most people were expecting a few weeks ago , and it happened .
What is your biggest fear about the economy right now ?
There was some analysis that was done at the St. Louis Fed , going through job categories and just thinking about the employment consequences of physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that we were going to be at an unemployment rate above thirty per cent , so that was the early-warning sign that we ’ re headed for an economic catastrophe that ’ s worse than the Great Depression .
Different people have talked about different ways to get through this .
Your plan focusses on testing more than almost anything else , and more than some of the other plans .
Everyone acknowledges that testing is important , but why is it so central to every idea that you ’ ve put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic crisis is to reduce the fear that someone will get sick if they go to work or go shop .
So it ’ s really about building confidence .
The thing about testing is that it ’ s easy to explain and it doesn ’ t frighten people the way digital contact tracing does .
It ’ s not subject to technological and social , political uncertainty the way digital contact tracing is .
It doesn ’ t require the organizational capacity that doing human contact tracing does .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea—that to control the pandemic , we need to get a reasonable majority of the people who are infectious into a quarantine , and then we ’ re good .
That ’ s really all it ’ s about .
So I wanted to try and articulate a very simple approach for managing this crisis , because I think that ’ s central to restoring confidence .
For example , think about me going back to my dentist .
It doesn ’ t really matter what the law says or the governor says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to go back to the dentist ’ s office in New York City until I know that he can show me a recent negative test , and he doesn ’ t want me to come into his office until I can show him that I ’ ve got a recent negative test .
So I think it ’ s easy to explain this idea to people , and I think it ’ s also easy to convince people that this is something we could do for as long as it takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes more than twenty-four months to get to a vaccine .
If it takes more than twenty-four months , I could see going and getting tested before I go to the dentist and the dentist could get tested .
Neither of us has a problem with that .
I really think that confidence is so central to investment decisions , to planning , to anticipating the future , that we need something so simple that nobody worries if it ’ s going to work , nobody worries if we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ painful .
Everybody just says , “ O.K.
, yep , that ’ s the plan .
We ’ re going to stick to it.
” And then we go .
Some of the other plans that have come out have dealt more with things like contract tracing and digital surveillance .
Is your critique of this approach that you yourself are worried about privacy issues , or is it more that you think that politics or that those plans will be concerning to citizens , which will then impair our ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic growth back where we want ?
I ’ m not worried about the privacy issues , because it ’ s kind of , like , “ Compared to what ?
” I think we ’ ve got enormous problems with surveillance right now .
This doesn ’ t seem to me to make it much worse .
But I was participating in digital discussions about response to the crisis , and the meeting would go like this : “ We need more testing.
” Financial people said , “ Yep , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and protective equipment.
” “ Yep , fine.
” “ And then we need to have the digital contact tracing.
” And then , all of a sudden , the whole meeting is taken up with hand-wringing and anxiety and all kinds of fears .
Every time somebody said “ digital contact tracing , ” it became a target .
So I just don ’ t see how you get something done with the kind of speed we need right now when it raises so many concerns among so many people .
Testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where it needs to be .
Shouldn ’ t the government be willing to do basically anything , including spending any amount of money , to amp up testing , because the money it spends will be a rounding error in the budget compared to the economy coming back ?
I think I share your puzzlement about why that doesn ’ t just end the discussion .
And some people ask , “ Well , what do you as an economist have , what ’ s your business poking into an issue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” And my answer is , “ Listen , you need the perspective of economics to say that , right now , this depression is costing us , in an order of magnitude , back-of-the-envelope , five hundred billion dollars per month .
So , if we can come up with a solution that costs us like eight to ten billion a month , we ’ re way ahead .
And so don ’ t worry about whether we can afford to do the testing compared to the alternative .
We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just see if we can agree to testing at that level , then provide the kind of safety we need , and that we can communicate to everybody how this works and why it will work .

One of the biggest questions every country faces is how to reopen businesses without causing a resurgence of coronavirus infections. Paul Romer, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who has served as the chief economist at the World Bank, has been putting forward plans to mitigate the economic fallout from the coronavirus and to allow for a return of normal economic activity in the U.S. His main proposal is to offer bimonthly tests to every person in the country, allowing more of us to go about our daily lives safely. But testing is still short of where it needs to be, and we may be facing an economic crisis akin to the Great Depression.
I recently spoke by phone with Romer, who is a professor at N.Y.U. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed why Americans may be resistant to digital contact tracing, the need for states to administer tests, and what lessons economists have learned from the crisis.
Over a month ago, you co-wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times that stated, “To protect our way of life, we need to shift within a couple of months to a targeted approach that limits the spread of the virus but still lets most people go back to work and resume their daily activities.” Are we anywhere close to that approach? And, if not, is our way of life at risk?
We’re not much closer, no. We’ve made very little progress, and I think we are running some risks here. There’s a difference between saying “Here’s something which is likely” and “Here’s something that’s possible, but it’s so bad we have to start preventing it and avoiding that risk right away.” And that’s what I’m trying to say about the possibility that a depression worse than the Great Depression could lead to political turmoil that could do long-lasting damage to the nation. So I think we have to proceed with urgency to try and solve both the health crisis and the economic crisis, and I’m not surprised that we haven’t made a lot of progress yet. But I will tell you that I’m actually encouraged by the decision by Congress to spend twenty-five billion dollars for testing in the phase-three bill. [This allocation is part of Phase 3.5.] That was not what most people were expecting a few weeks ago, and it happened.
What is your biggest fear about the economy right now?
There was some analysis that was done at the St. Louis Fed, going through job categories and just thinking about the employment consequences of physical lockdown and social distancing. Their conclusion was that we were going to be at an unemployment rate above thirty per cent, so that was the early-warning sign that we’re headed for an economic catastrophe that’s worse than the Great Depression.
Different people have talked about different ways to get through this. Your plan focusses on testing more than almost anything else, and more than some of the other plans. Everyone acknowledges that testing is important, but why is it so central to every idea that you’ve put forward?
The key to solving the economic crisis is to reduce the fear that someone will get sick if they go to work or go shop. So it’s really about building confidence. The thing about testing is that it’s easy to explain and it doesn’t frighten people the way digital contact tracing does. It’s not subject to technological and social, political uncertainty the way digital contact tracing is. It doesn’t require the organizational capacity that doing human contact tracing does. It’s really just a very simple, easy-to-explain idea—that to control the pandemic, we need to get a reasonable majority of the people who are infectious into a quarantine, and then we’re good. That’s really all it’s about. So I wanted to try and articulate a very simple approach for managing this crisis, because I think that’s central to restoring confidence.
For example, think about me going back to my dentist. It doesn’t really matter what the law says or the governor says I can do. I don’t want to go back to the dentist’s office in New York City until I know that he can show me a recent negative test, and he doesn’t want me to come into his office until I can show him that I’ve got a recent negative test. So I think it’s easy to explain this idea to people, and I think it’s also easy to convince people that this is something we could do for as long as it takes to manage this pandemic. Suppose it takes more than twenty-four months to get to a vaccine. If it takes more than twenty-four months, I could see going and getting tested before I go to the dentist and the dentist could get tested. Neither of us has a problem with that.
I really think that confidence is so central to investment decisions, to planning, to anticipating the future, that we need something so simple that nobody worries if it’s going to work, nobody worries if we’re going to abandon it because it’s too painful. Everybody just says, “O.K., yep, that’s the plan. We’re going to stick to it.” And then we go.
Some of the other plans that have come out have dealt more with things like contract tracing and digital surveillance. Is your critique of this approach that you yourself are worried about privacy issues, or is it more that you think that politics or that those plans will be concerning to citizens, which will then impair our ability to put them into effect and get the economic growth back where we want?
I’m not worried about the privacy issues, because it’s kind of, like, “Compared to what?” I think we’ve got enormous problems with surveillance right now. This doesn’t seem to me to make it much worse. But I was participating in digital discussions about response to the crisis, and the meeting would go like this: “We need more testing.” Financial people said, “Yep, we got it.” “We need masks and protective equipment.” “Yep, fine.” “And then we need to have the digital contact tracing.” And then, all of a sudden, the whole meeting is taken up with hand-wringing and anxiety and all kinds of fears. Every time somebody said “digital contact tracing,” it became a target. So I just don’t see how you get something done with the kind of speed we need right now when it raises so many concerns among so many people.
Testing has sped up but is still not where it needs to be. Shouldn’t the government be willing to do basically anything, including spending any amount of money, to amp up testing, because the money it spends will be a rounding error in the budget compared to the economy coming back?
I think I share your puzzlement about why that doesn’t just end the discussion. And some people ask, “Well, what do you as an economist have, what’s your business poking into an issue that should be the domain of the epidemiologists?” And my answer is, “Listen, you need the perspective of economics to say that, right now, this depression is costing us, in an order of magnitude, back-of-the-envelope, five hundred billion dollars per month. So, if we can come up with a solution that costs us like eight to ten billion a month, we’re way ahead. And so don’t worry about whether we can afford to do the testing compared to the alternative. We can obviously afford it. Let’s just see if we can agree to testing at that level, then provide the kind of safety we need, and that we can communicate to everybody how this works and why it will work.


newyorker--2020-05-05--HBO’s New Natalie Wood Documentary Doesn’t Have the Answers

It takes a little more than an hour to discover what the new HBO documentary “ Natalie Wood : What Remains Behind ” is really about , if only because we ’ ve been thrown off the scent .
At the beginning of the film , directed by Laurent Bouzereau , Wood ’ s older daughter , Natasha Gregson Wagner , describes hearing , at age eleven , of her mother ’ s shocking and mysterious death , in 1981 .
“ Since then , there ’ s been so much speculation and focus on how she died that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work and who she was as a person , ” says Gregson Wagner , who is a producer of the film , and whose memoir about her mother coincides with the film ’ s release .
The documentary then weaves through the story of Wood ’ s life and career : her child stardom , in movies such as “ Miracle on 34th Street ” ; her breakthrough adult roles in “ Rebel Without a Cause , ” “ Splendor in the Grass , ” and “ West Side Story ” ; her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whom she married twice , with another marriage , to the producer Richard Gregson , in between ; and her struggle to balance domesticity and work later in her career .
There are interviews with friends and co-stars , including Robert Redford , Mia Farrow , and Elliott Gould , who attest to Wood ’ s fortitude and heart .
There ’ s a brief but intriguing sequence about Wood ’ s rebellion against the studio system , when she battled Jack Warner for the right to choose her own projects .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) And , as it ’ s told from a daughter ’ s perspective , there are fond recollections of Wood ’ s ability to host fabulous birthday parties and New Year ’ s Eve bashes , backed up by home movies and family photos .
Then , with half an hour to go , the film returns to the inescapable subject : that fateful , foggy weekend in late November , 1981 , when Wood , Robert Wagner , and her latest co-star , Christopher Walken , took off in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the California coast .
On the evening of November 28th , Wood , who was forty-three , somehow wound up in the water .
The next morning , her body was found a mile from the boat , near an inflatable dinghy .
Decades of conjecture about what happened have , indeed , overshadowed Wood ’ s life : Was it an accident ?
Or did Wagner push his wife overboard , the result of too much booze or perhaps some sort of love triangle with Walken ?
In the documentary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with whom she is close—she calls him “ Daddy Wagner ” —and walks through his memory of the events .
( Walken is not interviewed . )
And here the film reveals its underlying intent : to exonerate Robert Wagner .
The actor , now ninety , describes a fight he had with Walken that night .
Walken and Wood were starring in the movie “ Brainstorm , ” part of her comeback after years of staying home to raise her children .
When Walken proclaimed that she was a great actress and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wagner recalls responding , “ I think it ’ s important that you stay out of our life.
” ( They had been drinking wine , and Wagner says that he was high . )
Wood , he says , went down to the bedroom , below decks .
Wagner smashed a bottle in fury and followed Walken out to the deck , berating him .
Wagner and the captain cleaned up the broken glass , and by the time Wagner went down for bed , Wood had disappeared .
He called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guard , but there was no sign of her .
“ That night ’ s gone through my mind so many times , ” Wagner says .
Father and daughter agree that Wood was sensitive to noise and might have been trying to re-tie the dinghy into a quieter position , and she could have hit her head .
The coroner reported that Wood had been drunk , and had wine and Champagne in her system .
“ It ’ s important to me , Daddy , that people think of you the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Natasha says , “ and it bothers me that anyone would ever think that you would be involved in what happened to her.
” The alternate narrative—murder !
—is laid at the feet of Wood ’ s sister , Lana , who detailed her suspicions in a 1984 memoir and in appearances everywhere from “ Dr .
Phil ” to CrimeCon .
Lana is herself an actress , whose credits include the series “ Peyton Place ” and the James Bond film “ Diamonds Are Forever , ” and the documentary paints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalize on her sister ’ s fame ; as Wagner ’ s current wife , Jill St. John , notes , “ Her name was not Wood , but her mother changed it to Lana Wood.
” “ I don ’ t even think she believes what she ’ s saying , ” Natalie ’ s younger daughter , Courtney , says , of her aunt .
By now it ’ s clear that we have entered an interfamilial blood feud .
Minutes before the end credits , Natasha , speaking directly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s literally accused my dad of killing my mom , when that ’ s the farthest thing from the truth.
” Wood ’ s death was clearly shattering for her young children , and decades of public sleuthing only compounded the tragedy .
But it ’ s possible to sympathize with the family ’ s unresolved grief—and even to believe in Wagner ’ s innocence—while feeling unsettled by the film ’ s unspoken agenda , which gives it the sheen of a “ nothing to see here ” Hollywood P.R .
job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rabbit hole , there ’ s an exhaustive body of literature on the other side of the scale : not just Lana ’ s tell-all but a comprehensive biography of Natalie Wood by Suzanne Finstad , which came out in 2001 and was rereleased this year , with new information about the circumstances of Wood ’ s death .
“ People would come to see , as I had , that Natalie Wood ’ s drowning was not an accident , ” Finstad says , of the new evidence , which includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was an intern at the L.A. Coroner ’ s Office at the time , and saw suspicious bruising on Wood ’ s thighs and shins that suggested that she was pushed .
When he pointed them out to the coroner , Franco claims , he was told , “ Some things are best left unsaid.
” The deckhand , Dennis Davern ( who has co-authored his own book ) , has said that he initially lied to the police and in fact overheard a fight between Wagner and Wood that night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off my fucking boat !
” In 2011 , the L.A.P.D .
reopened the case after receiving new information , and , as of 2018 , Wagner has been named a “ person of interest.
” Wood ’ s official cause of death , originally recorded as “ accidental drowning , ” is now “ drowning and other undetermined factors.
” Few things are as intoxicating as a Hollywood mystery ; people are still trying to solve the murder of the director William Desmond Taylor , in 1922 .
As convincing and heartfelt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Behind ” may be , it makes sense only in the context of the last decade of renewed speculation , which the new film is more likely to exacerbate than to quell .
It ’ s a shame that the documentary doesn ’ t stick more to its ostensible goal : to refocus attention on Wood ’ s life and work .
A film critic or historian , for instance , might have shed more light on Wood ’ s transitional place in film acting , as a product of the old studio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Marlon Brando , injected movies with an explosive kind of neurosis .
( She did great nervous breakdowns , notably in the bathtub scene in “ Splendor in the Grass.
” ) Unlike Dean and Brando , Wood didn ’ t train in Method acting , but she spent years in Freudian analysis and learned to use her “ demons ” onscreen .
She attempted suicide multiple times and suffered from debilitating phobias instilled by a superstitious and unstable mother , who was told by a fortune-teller that her daughter would die @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost too ominous for a Hollywood screenplay .
Her relationship with Nicholas Ray , the much older director of “ Rebel Without a Cause , ” when she was sixteen , makes her a # MeToo victim decades before the phrase gained notoriety .
The documentary does give glimpses of Wood ’ s conflicted psyche , as revealed in a 1966 essay that she wrote for Ladies ’ Home Journal but never published , titled “ Public Property , Private Person.
” “ How do you separate reality from illusion , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Wagner , “ when you have been trapped in make-believe all your life ?
” Her screen legacy now seems trapped in the mystery of her demise , skewing and obscuring what came before .
We ’ ll probably never know how Natalie Wood died—Finstad calls it a “ Chekhovian tragedy with no resolution short of a confession ” —but her dual existence , as both public property and private person , remains a captivating paradox .

Natalie Wood with her daughter, Natasha Gregson Wagner, in Hawaii, 1978. Photograph Courtesy HBO
It takes a little more than an hour to discover what the new HBO documentary “Natalie Wood: What Remains Behind” is really about, if only because we’ve been thrown off the scent. At the beginning of the film, directed by Laurent Bouzereau, Wood’s older daughter, Natasha Gregson Wagner, describes hearing, at age eleven, of her mother’s shocking and mysterious death, in 1981. “Since then, there’s been so much speculation and focus on how she died that it’s overshadowed her life’s work and who she was as a person,” says Gregson Wagner, who is a producer of the film, and whose memoir about her mother coincides with the film’s release.
The documentary then weaves through the story of Wood’s life and career: her child stardom, in movies such as “Miracle on 34th Street”; her breakthrough adult roles in “Rebel Without a Cause,” “Splendor in the Grass,” and “West Side Story”; her unusual romance with the actor Robert Wagner, whom she married twice, with another marriage, to the producer Richard Gregson, in between; and her struggle to balance domesticity and work later in her career. There are interviews with friends and co-stars, including Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, and Elliott Gould, who attest to Wood’s fortitude and heart. There’s a brief but intriguing sequence about Wood’s rebellion against the studio system, when she battled Jack Warner for the right to choose her own projects. (She chose “West Side Story.”) And, as it’s told from a daughter’s perspective, there are fond recollections of Wood’s ability to host fabulous birthday parties and New Year’s Eve bashes, backed up by home movies and family photos.
Then, with half an hour to go, the film returns to the inescapable subject: that fateful, foggy weekend in late November, 1981, when Wood, Robert Wagner, and her latest co-star, Christopher Walken, took off in a yacht called Splendour to Catalina Island, off the California coast. On the evening of November 28th, Wood, who was forty-three, somehow wound up in the water. The next morning, her body was found a mile from the boat, near an inflatable dinghy. Decades of conjecture about what happened have, indeed, overshadowed Wood’s life: Was it an accident? Or did Wagner push his wife overboard, the result of too much booze or perhaps some sort of love triangle with Walken? In the documentary, Natasha sits across from her stepfather, with whom she is close—she calls him “Daddy Wagner”—and walks through his memory of the events. (Walken is not interviewed.) And here the film reveals its underlying intent: to exonerate Robert Wagner.
The actor, now ninety, describes a fight he had with Walken that night. Walken and Wood were starring in the movie “Brainstorm,” part of her comeback after years of staying home to raise her children. When Walken proclaimed that she was a great actress and it was important that she keep acting, Wagner recalls responding, “I think it’s important that you stay out of our life.” (They had been drinking wine, and Wagner says that he was high.) Wood, he says, went down to the bedroom, below decks. Wagner smashed a bottle in fury and followed Walken out to the deck, berating him. Wagner and the captain cleaned up the broken glass, and by the time Wagner went down for bed, Wood had disappeared. He called the shore patrol and then the coast guard, but there was no sign of her. “That night’s gone through my mind so many times,” Wagner says. Father and daughter agree that Wood was sensitive to noise and might have been trying to re-tie the dinghy into a quieter position, and she could have hit her head. The coroner reported that Wood had been drunk, and had wine and Champagne in her system. “It’s important to me, Daddy, that people think of you the way I know that you are,” Natasha says, “and it bothers me that anyone would ever think that you would be involved in what happened to her.”
The alternate narrative—murder!—is laid at the feet of Wood’s sister, Lana, who detailed her suspicions in a 1984 memoir and in appearances everywhere from “Dr. Phil” to CrimeCon. Lana is herself an actress, whose credits include the series “Peyton Place” and the James Bond film “Diamonds Are Forever,” and the documentary paints her as a hanger-on who tried to capitalize on her sister’s fame; as Wagner’s current wife, Jill St. John, notes, “Her name was not Wood, but her mother changed it to Lana Wood.” “I don’t even think she believes what she’s saying,” Natalie’s younger daughter, Courtney, says, of her aunt. By now it’s clear that we have entered an interfamilial blood feud. Minutes before the end credits, Natasha, speaking directly to the camera, says, “She’s literally accused my dad of killing my mom, when that’s the farthest thing from the truth.”
Wood’s death was clearly shattering for her young children, and decades of public sleuthing only compounded the tragedy. But it’s possible to sympathize with the family’s unresolved grief—and even to believe in Wagner’s innocence—while feeling unsettled by the film’s unspoken agenda, which gives it the sheen of a “nothing to see here” Hollywood P.R. job. For anyone willing to go down the rabbit hole, there’s an exhaustive body of literature on the other side of the scale: not just Lana’s tell-all but a comprehensive biography of Natalie Wood by Suzanne Finstad, which came out in 2001 and was rereleased this year, with new information about the circumstances of Wood’s death. “People would come to see, as I had, that Natalie Wood’s drowning was not an accident,” Finstad says, of the new evidence, which includes the recollections of Dr. Michael Franco, who was an intern at the L.A. Coroner’s Office at the time, and saw suspicious bruising on Wood’s thighs and shins that suggested that she was pushed. When he pointed them out to the coroner, Franco claims, he was told, “Some things are best left unsaid.” The deckhand, Dennis Davern (who has co-authored his own book), has said that he initially lied to the police and in fact overheard a fight between Wagner and Wood that night, in which Wagner yelled, “Get off my fucking boat!” In 2011, the L.A.P.D. reopened the case after receiving new information, and, as of 2018, Wagner has been named a “person of interest.” Wood’s official cause of death, originally recorded as “accidental drowning,” is now “drowning and other undetermined factors.”
Few things are as intoxicating as a Hollywood mystery; people are still trying to solve the murder of the director William Desmond Taylor, in 1922. As convincing and heartfelt as “Natalie Wood: What Remains Behind” may be, it makes sense only in the context of the last decade of renewed speculation, which the new film is more likely to exacerbate than to quell. It’s a shame that the documentary doesn’t stick more to its ostensible goal: to refocus attention on Wood’s life and work. A film critic or historian, for instance, might have shed more light on Wood’s transitional place in film acting, as a product of the old studio system who, along with James Dean and Marlon Brando, injected movies with an explosive kind of neurosis. (She did great nervous breakdowns, notably in the bathtub scene in “Splendor in the Grass.”) Unlike Dean and Brando, Wood didn’t train in Method acting, but she spent years in Freudian analysis and learned to use her “demons” onscreen. She attempted suicide multiple times and suffered from debilitating phobias instilled by a superstitious and unstable mother, who was told by a fortune-teller that her daughter would die in “dark water”—a detail almost too ominous for a Hollywood screenplay. Her relationship with Nicholas Ray, the much older director of “Rebel Without a Cause,” when she was sixteen, makes her a #MeToo victim decades before the phrase gained notoriety.
The documentary does give glimpses of Wood’s conflicted psyche, as revealed in a 1966 essay that she wrote for Ladies’ Home Journal but never published, titled “Public Property, Private Person.” “How do you separate reality from illusion,” she wrote of her first, failed marriage to Wagner, “when you have been trapped in make-believe all your life?” Her screen legacy now seems trapped in the mystery of her demise, skewing and obscuring what came before. We’ll probably never know how Natalie Wood died—Finstad calls it a “Chekhovian tragedy with no resolution short of a confession”—but her dual existence, as both public property and private person, remains a captivating paradox.


newyorker--2020-05-05--Expert Perspectives on the Coronavirus Pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic is affecting society in countless ways—taking its toll on individual and public health , of course , but also on business , politics , and the trajectory of our culture .
Understanding our new reality means seeing the pandemic ’ s profound consequences from a variety of vantages .
The New Yorker invited experts from six fields , ranging from genetics to science fiction , to provide insight into the pandemic ; together , they offer a holistic understanding of the virus and the disease it causes , and highlight the areas in which we can learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our situation that are entirely new .
The evolutionary geneticist Hendrik Poinar describes how the virus developed .
SARS-CoV-2 is one of a number of infectious diseases that have come from “ animal reservoirs , ” he says , which act as a keep of rapidly mutating RNA chains that have found their way to humans on more than one occasion .
Meike Dittmann , an assistant professor of microbiology , explains how the virus travels inside the body .
Its trek typically starts in the “ naval cavity and the bronchi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common respiratory illnesses .
But the intensity of this coronavirus comes , at least in part , from the body ’ s reaction .
Dittmann explains that the human immune system sometimes “ overshoots ” in response to the virus and makes its first line of defense go “ ballistic.
” “ The havoc actually does not come from the virus itself , ” she explains : the body ’ s response is part of the disease ’ s lethality .
Using history as his lead , Poinar tracks the lifespan of pandemics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originally perceived , he says , as a mysterious miasma .
Then there ’ s a recognition that a highly contagious virus exists .
As the epidemic grows , a “ hunt or search for an explanation ” begins , which is where we find ourselves today .
He explains that , at this point , societies in the throes of outbreaks “ start blaming other populations ” and governments .
The sociologist Gil Eyal complicates this explanation , pointing to a mistrust of experts that has developed in the course of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something irrational about trusting , ” Eyal says , “ but we ’ re not talking about the science the scientists conduct in the laboratory .
.
.
.
we ’ re talking about the uses of science for social , political , and other kinds of purposes.
” During a pandemic , the public ’ s ability to trust institutions—and medical expertise—can be a matter of life and death .
As Charles Duhigg has written , about the divergent responses of Seattle and New York to the coronavirus , “ There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; information brings relief.
” Compared with Washington State , New York moved more slowly to enact public-health policies , instead letting “ politicians ’ voices dominate ” ; as a result , New York had suffered a death rate nearly six times higher than Washington by the second week of April .
Max Brooks , the author of the apocalyptic horror novel “ World War Z ” ( in which a viral outbreak in China leads to a global pandemic ) , hopes that the pandemic spurs the reversal of a trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society based on comfort at the expense of resilience.
” He looks to recent history , when so many resources have been funnelled toward the development of entertaining consumer distractions .
The philosopher Simon Critchley agrees .
“ It ’ s not necessarily good for the ambition of a society to just be about comfort and pleasure—there are higher virtues than that , ” he says .
Brooks argues that we need to be focussed more on building resilience , but Critchley says that what ’ s needed is an even more fundamental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve got used to the idea we can isolate ourselves , ” he says .
But , with the coronavirus crisis showing how interconnected health is in society , subject not only to contagions but to socially determined risks and privileges , “ all of that has kind of melted away , ” he says .
Dr. Martin Blaser , the director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine , at Rutgers University , explains that people will react differently to the new pressures and worries of the pandemic , saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ it ] emphasize [ s ] their underlying personality .
If their underlying personality is anxious , they will be more anxious .
If they are stoical , if they are courageous , maybe they ’ ll be more courageous.
” At the moment , health-care workers and those in other essential jobs have to exercise that courage daily , as they face the virus directly .
“ In the face of something threatening , ” Critchley says , those front-line workers have “ pushed themselves into those stressful , anxiety-inducing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is courageous.
” He adds that , of the many ways that the extended crisis is changing us , a renewed emphasis on community and bravery “ could be our best.
” • Twenty-four hours at the epicenter of the pandemic : nearly fifty New Yorker writers and photographers fanned out to document life in New York City on April 15th .
• Seattle leaders let scientists take the lead in responding to the coronavirus .
New York leaders did not .
• Can survivors help cure the disease and rescue the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about American medicine .
• Can we trace the spread of COVID-19 and protect privacy at the same time ?
• The coronavirus is likely to spread for more than a year before a vaccine is widely available .
• How to practice social distancing , from responding to a sick housemate to the pros and cons of ordering food .
• The long crusade of Dr. Anthony Fauci , the infectious-disease expert pinned between Donald Trump and the American people .
• What to read , watch , cook , and listen @ @ @ @

The coronavirus pandemic is affecting society in countless ways—taking its toll on individual and public health, of course, but also on business, politics, and the trajectory of our culture. Understanding our new reality means seeing the pandemic’s profound consequences from a variety of vantages. The New Yorker invited experts from six fields, ranging from genetics to science fiction, to provide insight into the pandemic; together, they offer a holistic understanding of the virus and the disease it causes, and highlight the areas in which we can learn from history and also the elements of our situation that are entirely new.
The evolutionary geneticist Hendrik Poinar describes how the virus developed. SARS-CoV-2 is one of a number of infectious diseases that have come from “animal reservoirs,” he says, which act as a keep of rapidly mutating RNA chains that have found their way to humans on more than one occasion. Meike Dittmann, an assistant professor of microbiology, explains how the virus travels inside the body. Its trek typically starts in the “naval cavity and the bronchi,” like many viruses that lead to common respiratory illnesses. But the intensity of this coronavirus comes, at least in part, from the body’s reaction. Dittmann explains that the human immune system sometimes “overshoots” in response to the virus and makes its first line of defense go “ballistic.” “The havoc actually does not come from the virus itself,” she explains: the body’s response is part of the disease’s lethality.
Using history as his lead, Poinar tracks the lifespan of pandemics from a societal perspective. They were originally perceived, he says, as a mysterious miasma. Then there’s a recognition that a highly contagious virus exists. As the epidemic grows, a “hunt or search for an explanation” begins, which is where we find ourselves today. He explains that, at this point, societies in the throes of outbreaks “start blaming other populations” and governments.
The sociologist Gil Eyal complicates this explanation, pointing to a mistrust of experts that has developed in the course of the past several decades. “There is something irrational about trusting,” Eyal says, “but we’re not talking about the science the scientists conduct in the laboratory. . . . we’re talking about the uses of science for social, political, and other kinds of purposes.” During a pandemic, the public’s ability to trust institutions—and medical expertise—can be a matter of life and death. As Charles Duhigg has written, about the divergent responses of Seattle and New York to the coronavirus, “There are so many terrifying possibilities in a pandemic; information brings relief.” Compared with Washington State, New York moved more slowly to enact public-health policies, instead letting “politicians’ voices dominate”; as a result, New York had suffered a death rate nearly six times higher than Washington by the second week of April.
Max Brooks, the author of the apocalyptic horror novel “World War Z” (in which a viral outbreak in China leads to a global pandemic), hopes that the pandemic spurs the reversal of a trend that he describes as “engineering a society based on comfort at the expense of resilience.” He looks to recent history, when so many resources have been funnelled toward the development of entertaining consumer distractions. The philosopher Simon Critchley agrees. “It’s not necessarily good for the ambition of a society to just be about comfort and pleasure—there are higher virtues than that,” he says. Brooks argues that we need to be focussed more on building resilience, but Critchley says that what’s needed is an even more fundamental reimagining of society: “We’ve got used to the idea we can isolate ourselves,” he says. But, with the coronavirus crisis showing how interconnected health is in society, subject not only to contagions but to socially determined risks and privileges, “all of that has kind of melted away,” he says. Dr. Martin Blaser, the director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine, at Rutgers University, explains that people will react differently to the new pressures and worries of the pandemic, saying, “When somebody is under stress, [it] emphasize[s] their underlying personality. If their underlying personality is anxious, they will be more anxious. If they are stoical, if they are courageous, maybe they’ll be more courageous.”
At the moment, health-care workers and those in other essential jobs have to exercise that courage daily, as they face the virus directly. “In the face of something threatening,” Critchley says, those front-line workers have “pushed themselves into those stressful, anxiety-inducing, unsafe situations, in a way that is courageous.” He adds that, of the many ways that the extended crisis is changing us, a renewed emphasis on community and bravery “could be our best.”
A Guide to the Coronavirus


newyorker--2020-05-05--The Comforting and Misleading Political Response to Britain’s Coronavirus Disaster

On Sunday , the toll from Britain ’ s outbreak of COVID-19 surpassed twenty-eight thousand deaths .
You don ’ t need a graph , or to argue about the methodological niceties of how governments count their dead , to understand that the United Kingdom has had a terrible encounter with the virus .
Britain has an internationally respected public-health apparatus .
In October , 2016 , the government ran Exercise Cygnus , a simulation of how a global influenza pandemic would overwhelm the nation ’ s health system and ravage the economy .
Last year , Britain ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a mutated-flu outbreak as one of the worst—and most likely—risks facing the country , as well as the possibility of “ an emerging respiratory coronavirus infection ” arriving in the U.K .
The Department of Health continues to describe Britain as “ one of the most prepared countries in the world for pandemics.
” And yet .
In the weeks after December 30th , last year , when Chinese officials first informed the World Health Organization of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan , the U.K. made no striking plans to respond .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Italy , and the British authorities had a chance to see , at relatively close quarters , what COVID-19 could do to a prosperous European society , they dithered .
Countries such as Germany , South Korea , and Singapore , which have responded well to the virus , all appear to have followed a similar playbook of mass testing , contact tracing , and collective vigilance .
Each nation that has failed is more likely to have its own particular story of what went wrong .
We are unhappy in our own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious misstep by Boris Johnson ’ s government was its hesitation to implement a national lockdown to slow the spread of the virus .
During February and the early part of March , Johnson and his Cabinet embraced and then abandoned the concept of herd immunity .
On March 13th , Graham Medley , of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , who is the government ’ s chief modeller of the pandemic , told the BBC that in an ideal world there would be “ a nice big epidemic ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ What we are going to have to try and do , ideally , is .
.
.
manage this acquisition of herd immunity and minimize the exposure of people who are vulnerable , ” he said .
Ministers quickly denied that this was the strategy , because it entailed the risk of two hundred and fifty thousand deaths , but Johnson did not switch to stringent quarantine measures until March 23rd .
There was a directionless , ten-day period in which the virus was able to circulate more or less freely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead .
Johnson joked about shaking people ’ s hands .
Thousands of people became infected and later died .
The reasons behind this drift are complex and contested .
Since the start of the crisis , Britain ’ s politicians have sworn that they were following “ the science , ” even when it was clear that they were latching onto concepts , such as herd immunity and behavioral fatigue ( in which people would supposedly tire of social-distancing measures ) , because they liked the sound of them .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies , a revolving panel of some twenty experts , and its various specialist subcommittees , also appears to have given advice that was politically viable rather than aimed solely at saving lives .
But Britain ’ s slow lockdown offers only a partial explanation for what has followed .
Germany shut down one day earlier but has had around a quarter of the deaths from COVID-19 , among a larger and older population .
On March 12th , the U.K. gave up on testing for the coronavirus outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Health Service ’ s half a million front-line health-care workers , only two thousand had been tested .
( More than a hundred have now died . )
In late March , Jenny Harries , the deputy chief medical officer for England , told reporters that large-scale testing and tracing—as was being practiced successfully in South Korea and Singapore—was not suitable for the U.K. “ There comes a point in a pandemic where that is not an appropriate intervention , ” she said .
There has been a curious mixture of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire response to COVID-19 .
Officials have maintained that the country has “ a perfectly adequate supply ” of personal protective equipment , but this has never been the case .
Last week , the Royal College of Physicians reported that about a third of doctors performing “ aerosol-generating procedures ” did not always have access to either visors or surgical gowns .
On May 3rd , a survey of sixteen thousand doctors found that forty-eight per cent had bought or obtained pieces of P.P.E .
outside official channels .
Among the wider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent of people believe that the lockdown should continue .
This is sometimes taken as approval of the government ’ s handling of the crisis .
But it is unclear how much support for the lockdown derives from fear .
During March , the number of patients coming to emergency rooms across England fell by twenty-nine per cent .
The number of people who were treated for suspected heart attacks fell by half .
As in other countries , the death toll from COVID-19 has been mapped onto existing inequalities .
Residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Wales have died from the disease at more than twice the rate of those who live in the wealthiest .
Once age and geography have been taken into consideration , patients with Pakistani or black African heritage who have been treated for COVID-19 have died at roughly three times the rate of white patients .
While the N.H.S .
has not been overwhelmed by the outbreak , in April the country ’ s care-home system reported three thousand and ninety-six deaths in the space of seven days .
After the 2008 financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care in England fell by about fifteen per cent and has still not recovered .
“ We only knew about the first case because there was a sign on the door saying not to go in without a mask on , ” an elder-care assistant told the Manchester Evening News last week , about an outbreak in her facility .
When she started a recent shift , there were two masks for six carers .
The other four wore towels on their faces .
“ We have to lie to families and tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceful .
We can ’ t tell the truth because it will break their hearts even more , ” another nurse told the newspaper .
“ They have temperatures which create hallucinations , they are extremely agitated .
They see people , animals , they try to grab out.
” Johnson ’ s government has done its utmost to frame the coronavirus like any other political challenge .
Since the election of Tony Blair ’ s media-savvy New Labour administration , in the late nineties , there has been a sort of manual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an insuperable problem .
One technique is to invent objective-sounding “ tests ” for awkward decisions .
In 1997 , Blair ’ s chancellor , Gordon Brown , devised “ five tests ” for joining Europe ’ s single currency , which Britain somehow never quite passed .
Another approach is to declare a bold , eye-catching target and make that the story .
In 2010 , David Cameron promised that he would reduce the number of migrants coming to the U.K. to fewer than a hundred thousand per year , something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inclination to achieve .
On April 16th , Johnson ’ s Foreign Secretary , Dominic Raab , duly set out the five tests for easing the lockdown , at least one of which—avoiding a second wave of infections that swamps the N.H.S.—seems like a hopeful guess , at best .
Last week , the British media feverishly covered the race to perform a hundred thousand coronavirus tests per day by the end of April , the distracting goal set by Matt Hancock , the Health Secretary .
( The target was met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mail on April 30th . )
When outlets have investigated the government ’ s poor handling of the pandemic , they have been accused of bias and misreading the public mood .
Last weekend , the Culture Secretary , Oliver Dowden , complained to the BBC about its reporting on the shortage of P.P.E .

On Sunday, the toll from Britain’s outbreak of COVID-19 surpassed twenty-eight thousand deaths. You don’t need a graph, or to argue about the methodological niceties of how governments count their dead, to understand that the United Kingdom has had a terrible encounter with the virus. Britain has an internationally respected public-health apparatus. In October, 2016, the government ran Exercise Cygnus, a simulation of how a global influenza pandemic would overwhelm the nation’s health system and ravage the economy. Last year, Britain’s National Security Risk Assessment highlighted the risk of a mutated-flu outbreak as one of the worst—and most likely—risks facing the country, as well as the possibility of “an emerging respiratory coronavirus infection” arriving in the U.K. The Department of Health continues to describe Britain as “one of the most prepared countries in the world for pandemics.” And yet. In the weeks after December 30th, last year, when Chinese officials first informed the World Health Organization of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan, the U.K. made no striking plans to respond. Even as the virus tore through Northern Italy, and the British authorities had a chance to see, at relatively close quarters, what COVID-19 could do to a prosperous European society, they dithered. Countries such as Germany, South Korea, and Singapore, which have responded well to the virus, all appear to have followed a similar playbook of mass testing, contact tracing, and collective vigilance. Each nation that has failed is more likely to have its own particular story of what went wrong. We are unhappy in our own way.
In Britain, the most obvious misstep by Boris Johnson’s government was its hesitation to implement a national lockdown to slow the spread of the virus. During February and the early part of March, Johnson and his Cabinet embraced and then abandoned the concept of herd immunity. On March 13th, Graham Medley, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who is the government’s chief modeller of the pandemic, told the BBC that in an ideal world there would be “a nice big epidemic” among the healthy part of the population. “What we are going to have to try and do, ideally, is . . . manage this acquisition of herd immunity and minimize the exposure of people who are vulnerable,” he said. Ministers quickly denied that this was the strategy, because it entailed the risk of two hundred and fifty thousand deaths, but Johnson did not switch to stringent quarantine measures until March 23rd. There was a directionless, ten-day period in which the virus was able to circulate more or less freely. Soccer matches and horse-racing festivals went ahead. Johnson joked about shaking people’s hands. Thousands of people became infected and later died. The reasons behind this drift are complex and contested. Since the start of the crisis, Britain’s politicians have sworn that they were following “the science,” even when it was clear that they were latching onto concepts, such as herd immunity and behavioral fatigue (in which people would supposedly tire of social-distancing measures), because they liked the sound of them. At the same time, the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, a revolving panel of some twenty experts, and its various specialist subcommittees, also appears to have given advice that was politically viable rather than aimed solely at saving lives.
But Britain’s slow lockdown offers only a partial explanation for what has followed. Germany shut down one day earlier but has had around a quarter of the deaths from COVID-19, among a larger and older population. On March 12th, the U.K. gave up on testing for the coronavirus outside hospitals. By April 1st, of the National Health Service’s half a million front-line health-care workers, only two thousand had been tested. (More than a hundred have now died.) In late March, Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer for England, told reporters that large-scale testing and tracing—as was being practiced successfully in South Korea and Singapore—was not suitable for the U.K. “There comes a point in a pandemic where that is not an appropriate intervention,” she said.
There has been a curious mixture of superiority and fatalism about Britain’s entire response to COVID-19. Officials have maintained that the country has “a perfectly adequate supply” of personal protective equipment, but this has never been the case. Last week, the Royal College of Physicians reported that about a third of doctors performing “aerosol-generating procedures” did not always have access to either visors or surgical gowns. On May 3rd, a survey of sixteen thousand doctors found that forty-eight per cent had bought or obtained pieces of P.P.E. outside official channels. Among the wider population, polls show that around eighty per cent of people believe that the lockdown should continue. This is sometimes taken as approval of the government’s handling of the crisis. But it is unclear how much support for the lockdown derives from fear. During March, the number of patients coming to emergency rooms across England fell by twenty-nine per cent. The number of people who were treated for suspected heart attacks fell by half.
As in other countries, the death toll from COVID-19 has been mapped onto existing inequalities. Residents of the most deprived communities in England and Wales have died from the disease at more than twice the rate of those who live in the wealthiest. Once age and geography have been taken into consideration, patients with Pakistani or black African heritage who have been treated for COVID-19 have died at roughly three times the rate of white patients. While the N.H.S. has not been overwhelmed by the outbreak, in April the country’s care-home system reported three thousand and ninety-six deaths in the space of seven days. After the 2008 financial crisis, public funding for adult social care in England fell by about fifteen per cent and has still not recovered. “We only knew about the first case because there was a sign on the door saying not to go in without a mask on,” an elder-care assistant told the Manchester Evening News last week, about an outbreak in her facility. When she started a recent shift, there were two masks for six carers. The other four wore towels on their faces. “We have to lie to families and tell them they were settled, comfortable and peaceful. We can’t tell the truth because it will break their hearts even more,” another nurse told the newspaper. “They have temperatures which create hallucinations, they are extremely agitated. They see people, animals, they try to grab out.”
Johnson’s government has done its utmost to frame the coronavirus like any other political challenge. Since the election of Tony Blair’s media-savvy New Labour administration, in the late nineties, there has been a sort of manual that British politicians have followed when faced with an insuperable problem. One technique is to invent objective-sounding “tests” for awkward decisions. In 1997, Blair’s chancellor, Gordon Brown, devised “five tests” for joining Europe’s single currency, which Britain somehow never quite passed. Another approach is to declare a bold, eye-catching target and make that the story. In 2010, David Cameron promised that he would reduce the number of migrants coming to the U.K. to fewer than a hundred thousand per year, something that he had neither the means nor the inclination to achieve. On April 16th, Johnson’s Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, duly set out the five tests for easing the lockdown, at least one of which—avoiding a second wave of infections that swamps the N.H.S.—seems like a hopeful guess, at best. Last week, the British media feverishly covered the race to perform a hundred thousand coronavirus tests per day by the end of April, the distracting goal set by Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary. (The target was met by putting some fifty thousand tests in the mail on April 30th.) When outlets have investigated the government’s poor handling of the pandemic, they have been accused of bias and misreading the public mood. Last weekend, the Culture Secretary, Oliver Dowden, complained to the BBC about its reporting on the shortage of P.P.E.
At the center of it all, inevitably, has been the figure of Johnson. The Prime Minister made light of the virus, caught the virus, became dangerously ill with COVID-19, was admitted to intensive care, recovered after seven days in the hospital, moved to his countryside retreat to recuperate, and last week celebrated the birth of a son, Wilfred, who is his fifth or sixth child. Johnson is a remarkable politician. He wills himself to the center of things with a determination that, on occasion, even he must find alarming. For a few days last month, Britain’s experience of the coronavirus was his own. “Make no mistake, the health of Boris Johnson is the health of the body politic and, by extension, the health of the nation itself,” Allison Pearson, a columnist in the right-wing Daily Telegraph, wrote on April 7th. In the column, Pearson quoted some lines from William Blake’s “Jerusalem.”
Now that he is on the mend, however, Johnson’s illness is a distraction from those who were failed and have died. Last weekend, as questions continued to mount about his government’s response and the death toll fell, but only slowly, Johnson gave an interview to the Sun on Sunday about his time in the I.C.U. “It was a tough old moment,” he said. “I won’t deny it.” He is congenitally unable to make it not about him. The same is true, almost by definition, of the royal family. Prince Charles contracted the coronavirus; the Queen addressed the nation about it. Britain remains a deferential place, rich in language and symbols to fall back on during times of crisis. The nation’s slow, calamitous experience of the pandemic has been narrated with the ceaseless language of war and sacrifice. The seventy-fifth anniversary of V-E Day, the Allied victory in Europe during the Second World War, falls this weekend. Listening to the Queen, celebrating Johnson’s baby, singing “Jerusalem”; everything is reassuring because it is so familiar. It is also a way of ignoring mistakes that can never be put right.
A Guide to the Coronavirus