fortune--2020-07-31--U.S. pledges $2.1 billion for up to 600 million doses of Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline vaccine

The Trump administration will provide as much as $2.1 billion to Covid-19 vaccine partners Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline Plc, the biggest U.S. investment yet in fast-tracking shots and snapping up supplies.
Part of Operation Warp Speed, the funding will support clinical trials and manufacturing while allowing the U.S. to secure 100 million doses of the shot, if it’s successful, the companies said Friday. The country has an option to receive an additional 500 million doses longer term.
Glaxo shares traded 0.6% higher in London, with Sanofi up 1.3% in Paris.
The deal follows billions of dollars of U.S. commitments to other experimental vaccines—all still needing to show their effectiveness in testing—and may stoke concerns that other countries will be left behind. Vaccines are seen as the key to leading the world out of the pandemic that has killed about 675,000 people in a matter of months.
Sanofi and Glaxo, two of the world’s biggest vaccine makers, signed a similar deal earlier this week with the U.K. government, which has also raced to lock up supplies. The companies are in talks with global organizations and the European Union, and said they plan to provide a significant portion of capacity in 2021 and 2022 to an initiative focused on accelerating development and production worldwide and deploying shots equitably.
Supplies Likely Limited
The challenges and stakes in getting a vaccine to the world are huge.
If any vaccines succeed in the coming months, supplies are likely to be limited, making it difficult to immunize global populations and halt the virus’s spread. The World Health Organization, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance outlined an $18 billion plan in June to roll out shots and secure 2 billion doses by the end of 2021.
Sanofi plans to start a study compressing the early and middle stages of clinical tests in September, followed by a final-stage study by the end of 2020. If the results are positive, the companies can seek U.S. regulatory approval in the first half of 2021, they said Friday. Their vaccine candidate is based on technology Sanofi uses to make influenza vaccine and Glaxo’s adjuvants, which enhance the body’s immune response.
Increased Odds
Sanofi and Glaxo are following a number of other developers in the coronavirus vaccine race. The University of Oxford and partner AstraZeneca Plc, Moderna Inc. and Pfizer Inc. are among the leaders in the sprint to deliver a shot. Pfizer and partner BioNTech SE said Friday that they’ll supply 120 million doses of their vaccine to Japan in the first half of 2021.
The U.S. has sealed agreements with a number of these developers. Pfizer and BioNTech last week reached a $1.95 billion deal to supply their coronavirus vaccine to the government, while Novavax Inc., which has yet to commercialize a medicine or vaccine, earlier this month announced a $1.6 billion deal. The U.S. also pledged as much as $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca.
Operation Warp Speed seeks to telescope a process that typically takes years into just months. The drive is being led by General Gustave Perna, who directs the U.S. Army Materiel Command, and former Glaxo executive Moncef Slaoui.
The program “increases the odds that we will have at least one safe, effective vaccine as soon as the end of this year,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in the statement.


fortune--2020-07-31--4 ways health systems can start to address social disparities

Even as a lowly office grunt , you can do a lot to improve workplace diversity

Our mission to help you navigate the new normal is fueled by subscribers. To enjoy unlimited access to our journalism, subscribe today.
It’s always been a challenge for the health care system that much of what affects a person’s health happens outside the doctor’s office—and beyond the reach of even the most attentive physician.
Those hard-to-manage factors are many, from behavioral ones (a person’s eating, exercise habits) to socially-determined ones (like whether the individual has access to fresh, healthy food, a walkable neighborhood, or a safe home) to matters of mental health. And they can be costly, both in terms of their human toll and in terms of health care dollars that go towards managing chronic disease, which accounts for the vast majority of America’s health care spending.
“As a physician you might have the best hospital set-up, or healthcare set-up, or outpatient practice set-up, but if your patients are facing what seem to be these insurmountable social challenges sometimes it can be paralyzing,” said Kate Mascitti, an infectious disease specialist based in Bethlehem, Penn. with the St. Luke’s University Health Network. “How can I fix this diabetic foot ulcer infection if my patient weighs 400 pounds and they can’t afford their insulin, and they have no one to help care for them at home? It’s challenging.”
How can health systems better care for patients given these challenges and the social disparities that underlie many health problems? Mascitti, along with several other expert panelists speaking at a Fortune virtual event on what it takes to reinvent hospitals offered four starting points.
Measurement
How well do we measure health outside the hospital and the factors (or social determinants of health, as they’ve often called) that drive population health?
“We have an abundance of data. We have no agreement on which data set to use,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “We could start with a small meaningful subset of data and grow it over time to make sure it’s uniform so we’re all looking at the same numbers and interpreting it the same way.”
Mascitti thinks more pointed data measurement on social determinants of health would make addressing them more of a focus for health systems: “Just shining a spotlight on it, making it a measure of quality—then I think people are able to focus on it, do research around it.”
Engaging the broader community
“In order to really improve the health and wellbeing of whole community, you have to engage a range of other actors who don’t necessarily see health as their primary level responsibility,” said Benjamin, who mentioned that includes school boards as well local business, housing, and transportation communities. He points to the number of school-age children who were unable to participate in virtual school this spring—something that experts say is a development and health-bearing issue—because they lack access to broadband internet. Finding solutions requires a partnership across multiple sectors.
To make such partnerships happen, he encourages health care providers to show up as “unanticipated messengers” to meetings and policy-making settings where they may not be expected to influence conversation and make health a focus for the broader community.
“If you really want to deal with lead exposure in kids, you have to show up at zoning hearings, at meetings of the real estate board. You have to show up to places where the law not being enforced,” said Benjamin.
Creative, out-of-the-hospital solutions
To provide free dental care, vision checks and eye glass fittings to kids who needed them, Mascitti’s employer—St. Luke’s University Health Network—sends mobile health vans to schools. During the COVID-19 outbreak as patients missed critical visits to their doctors for fear of catching the coronavirus, the system, like many others, turned to telemedicine. But, inspired by the success of its drive-through COVID testing operation, it also decided to offer drive-through vaccinations to ensure COVID concerns didn’t keep parents from immunizing their children, says Mascitti, who added that thinking more creatively about how to serve the population is key to addressing some of the out-of-the-hospital health challenges.
Building trust by better reflecting the communities serves
As the pandemic has made clear, it’s hard to deliver good, effective, and equal health care when the patient doesn’t trust the provider, the system, or science in general. Whether due to the day’s politics, historical wrongs and inequalities, or just the complicated, non-transparent ways of American health care, distrust in the system is often exacerbated by the fact that providers are often not representative of the populations they’re serving.
“Our nation has been struggling to increase the number of African-American and Hispanic physicians in our society. No matter what we do, the rug keeps getting pulled from under those efforts,” said Benjamin, who added that aside from prioritizing those initiatives, an effort should be made to train all physicians to be more “culturally competent.”
Kyu Rhee, chief health officer for IBM agreed. “This issue of communication and trust, cultural competency is so essential and foundational to everything in health,” he noted, adding that from his own experience as a physician, team members who reflect the community often play an important trust-brokering role.
Adrienne Kennedy, a board member of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), explained the organization was very intentional about representation for that reason.
“We have young people speaking out about the emergence of their own mental health issues. We want to make sure they are culturally competent,” she said. “If they’re going to a Black or brown community, that they are Black or brown themselves with that kind of range of understanding [is important].”
She noted it’s also important to think about community representation when the health care system is devising solutions for populations. “It’s so important to have the lived experience voices involved in the mix,” she said. “What people will offer once they get engaged—this trust factor is so important.”


fortune--2020-08-01--6 new books to read in August

6 new books to read in August

I ’ m a Black Republican , and I agree with AOC on the link between poverty and crime

A former congresswoman’s memoir about her personal experience of misogyny and double-standards in politics, a novel about a deported “Dreamer” who makes his way back to the United States through an arduous and heartbreaking journey, and the one royal biography (of many this summer) to rule them all.
Here are some suggested reads being published in August.
Courtesy of Simon & Schuster
Horse Crazy: The Story of a Woman and a World in Love with an Animal by Sarah Maslin Nir
Available August 4
In the decade she has worked for the New York Times, Sarah Maslin Nir has reported from terrorist hot spots in West Africa to wildfire-ravaged California. And as soon as she files each story, she chooses to do one thing before heading home: search for the horses. In Horse Crazy (Simon & Schuster), Nir scoured the world for people as obsessed as she, and uncovered their why. From the British socialite who smuggled rare Indian horse semen, to the erased legacy of the Black cowboy, Nir examined love for these animals in all its forms.
Courtesy of Grand Central Publishing
She Will Rise: Becoming a Warrior in the Battle for True Equality by Katie Hill
Available August 11
After resigning from her seat in the House of Representatives amid a controversy in which she was the victim of revenge porn, former Congresswoman Katie Hill shares her experience with misogyny and double standards in politics. But Hill says she does not want women to be discouraged from running for and taking positions of power. On the contrary, in She Will Rise (Grand Central Publishing), Hill argues rampant misogyny is all the more reason for women to lead and to work to change the systems that have prevented women from achieving equality for so long.
Courtesy of Waterbrook Press
Available August 11
A recent work mantra that has emerged is don’t work harder, but rather, work better. But given the state of the world right now, it’s hard to get any work done—even for those privileged enough to work from home. Perhaps then, amid all else combined with the overwhelming heat in the dead of summer, podcast host Kendra Adachi’s new work ethic book The Lazy Genius Way (Waterbrook Press) is perfectly timed for release. Adachi basically encourages readers to live at their own pace in order to establish a routine that works well for them—not to mention scheduling in time for rest. The key is to starting small and asking oneself what is working and what isn’t—and to ruthlessly cut out what isn’t.
Courtesy of Dey Street Books
Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand
Available August 11
In the wake of the dramatic departure of two of the most popular figures in the British Royal Family, there are a slew of books being released this summer about the drama brewing in Buckingham Palace. But if you’re going to choose one to read this summer, make it this one from Harper’s Bazaar editor Omid Scobie and Elle correspondent Carolyn Durand, which has already been sitting at the top of the preorder charts for weeks on Amazon in the U.S. and the U.K. Although Finding Freedom (Dey Street Books) is not an officially authorized biography—the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have said they have not participated in the book—excerpts published in The Times infer the book is the most major account told from the popular couple’s perspective after a turbulent two years of relentless and overwhelmingly negative press in the British tabloids.
Courtesy of Simon & Schuster
The New American by Micheline Aharonian Marcom
Available August 18
Inspired in part by interviews with Central American refugees, and told in lyrical prose, Micheline Aharonian Marcom’s novel The New American (Simon & Schuster) tracks the heart-pounding and fictional journey of a dreamer, a term referring to young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, who have lived and gone to school here, and who, in many cases, identify as American. Marcom’s protagonist is a young Guatemalan American college student who is undocumented but was never told this by his parents. He gets deported, but then decides to make the long journey, thousands of miles back home to California.
Courtesy of National Geographic
The Nature of Nature by Dr. Enric Sala
Available August 25
COVID-19 is yet another reminder that conservation is not just a luxury for rich countries or a romantic ideal—it’s necessary for our global survival. The world has been brought to a standstill by a novel virus that was transmitted to humans from animals. Dr. Enric Sala, a National Geographic explorer-in-residence and leader of the Pristine Seas project, makes a case for why protecting nature is our best health insurance, why it makes economic sense, and why it is our moral imperative.


fortune--2020-08-01--Trump says he will ban TikTok ‘immediately’

President Donald Trump said he would ban Chinese-owned TikTok from the U.S. following concerns about data collection by the popular music-video app, escalating the administration’s clash with China.
“As far as TikTok is concerned, we’re banning them from the United States,” the president told reporters Friday night. Asked when it would happen, he said: “Soon, immediately. I mean essentially immediately.” He added: “I will sign the document tomorrow.”
Trump said he had the authority to ban the app, owned by ByteDance Ltd., one of China’s biggest tech companies, a move he could make by executive order or under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
“I will sign the document tomorrow,” he said just before Air Force One landed in Washington from a visit to Florida.
Trump’s move could upend a potential bid from Microsoft Corp., which was exploring an acquisition, according to a people familiar with the matter.
Trump shot down that idea Friday.
He said it’s “not the deal that you have been hearing about, that they are going to buy and sell, and this and that. And Microsoft and another one. We’re not an M&A company.”
Microsoft declined to comment.
A ban against TikTok would be the latest move by the administration to curb China’s power in global technology. TikTok has become one of the world’s most popular apps. It has been downloaded more than 2 billion times globally and more than 165 million times in the U.S.
TikTok declined to comment.
The administration’s move came as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which reviews acquisitions of American businesses by overseas investors, was investigating the company. ByteDance in 2017 bought Musical.ly and merged it with TikTok. Musicaly.ly was founded in Shanghai but had a substantial following in the U.S. at the time.
Trump said in early July that he was considering a ban as a way to retaliate against China over its handling of the coronavirus. But the app has also sparked concerns about the massive amount of data collected about Americans.
The company says American user data is stored in servers in the U.S. and Singapore, not China. But TikTok’s terms of service stipulate that the company may share information with its parent, subsidiary or other affiliates. Previous versions of TikTok’s privacy policy warned users it could exchange information with its Chinese businesses, law enforcement agencies and public authorities, if legally required to do so.
The administration had been considering requiring the sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations. The administration was prepared to announce a sale order on Friday, according to three people familiar with the matter. Another person said later that the decision was put on hold, pending further review by Trump.
White House adviser Peter Navarro said earlier in July that a sale of TikTok to an American buyer wouldn’t address the U.S. concerns.
“If TikTok separates as an American company, that doesn’t help us,” Navarro said. “Because it’s going to be worse — we’re going to have to give China billions of dollars for the privilege of having TikTok operate on U.S. soil.”
A Microsoft takeover would have given the software maker a popular consumer app that has won over young people with a steady diet of dance videos, lip-syncing clips and viral memes. The company has dabbled in social-media investments in the past, but hasn’t developed a popular service of its own in the lucrative sector.
TikTok has repeatedly rejected accusations that it feeds user data to China or is beholden to Beijing, even though ByteDance is based there. TikTok now has a U.S.-based chief executive officer and ByteDance has considered making other organizational changes to satisfy U.S. authorities.
“Hundreds of millions of people come to TikTok for entertainment and connection, including our community of creators and artists who are building livelihoods from the platform,” a TikTok spokeswoman said earlier Friday. “We’re motivated by their passion and creativity, and committed to protecting their privacy and safety as we continue working to bring joy to families and meaningful careers to those who create on our platform.”


fortune--2020-08-01--Gen Z is struggling to be productive working from home

Apple pledged $ 25 to iPhone users over battery problems .
Why is it so hard to collect ?

One might assume that Gen Zers, who were born during the internet era, would thrive working from home. Nope.
At 43%, workers aged 18 to 24 are most likely to say their productivity has decreased since they started working remotely. That’s the finding from a Fortune-SurveyMonkey poll of 2,802 U.S. adults between July 17 and 21.
It does make sense: Many of these workers are early in their career, or even just starting their first post-grad job, and still learning the ropes of their new profession. That could be challenging without in-person direction or a company that understands how to properly onboard a remote worker.
Overall, the productivity results for remote working are lackluster. Among remote workers, 29% say they’re less productive, 24% more productive, and 47% equally productive. While some workers are more productive as they cut out workplace distractions and commutes, many others, including parents affected by a lack of child care, are struggling.
These numbers challenge the national narrative that WFH has been a success and is threatening to upend business as usual—and commercial estate in expensive cities—even after the crisis ends.
And that share of more productive workers could be misleadingly high: Many workers are being pushed to be more productive as employers lay off staff en masse, but that could reverse as the economy improves.
At 33%, remote workers aged 25 to 34 are the only age group more likely to say they’ve seen their productivity increase rather than decline (25% say the latter). Millennials are also the age group most likely to say they’d prefer to fully work from home in the fall (48%). Compare that to 18- to 24-year-olds, the group least likely to want to WFH, at 27%.
Among millennials, at least, WFH seems to be more than a phase.
*Methodology: The Fortune-SurveyMonkey poll was conducted among a national sample of 2,802 adults in the U.S. between July 17–21. This survey’s modeled error estimate is plus or minus 3 percentage points. The findings have been weighted for age, race, sex, education, and geography.


fortune--2020-08-01--Apple pledged $25 to iPhone users over battery problems. Why is it so hard to collect?

Our mission to help you navigate the new normal is fueled by subscribers. To enjoy unlimited access to our journalism, subscribe today.
Apple is a world leader in both design and digital payments, but you wouldn’t know it from the clumsy website where millions of iPhone users must go to claim compensation over a battery defect. The website and the process for notifying customers about the iPhone settlement is awkward and ineffective—in short, very un-Apple like. The situation is frustrating many iPhone owners and could also bring new scrutiny of a class action process that critics’ say shortchanges consumers.
The Apple class action in question is over what the tech press has dubbed “battery-gate.” It alleges that Apple manipulated its software in ways that caused the battery of certain iPhones to suddenly drain or make the phone sluggish, prompting some users to desire a new purchase.
Following a wave of lawsuits, Apple agreed to settle the matter earlier this year. The proposed settlement calls for Apple to compensate those who bought an iPhone 6 or 7 or similar devices from that era.
The document says those who qualify “shall be sent Twenty Five U.S. dollars ($25.00) for each iPhone owned,” but notes the actual amount could be more or less based on many people file claims. The deal states Apple shall pay consumers a minimum of $310 million and a maximum of $500 million.
The financial terms are straightforward but, for consumers who want to collect, the process is not. In a poll of my iPhone-owning coworkers, most had not even seen the email announcing the settlement—likely because it went to spam folders. (If you want to search your own email for it, the subject is “Class Action Notice: In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation.”)
And finding the email was just the beginning. Those who do find it are directed to this settlement page, which requires claimants to enter the serial number of the device in question—a tall order given many no longer have the iPhones they bought four or five years earlier.
The page does a have feature to look up the serial number based on your email and home address. But for some, it claimed there was no match.
Meanwhile, one colleague who attempted to submit her banking details on the site encountered a series of errors and had to switch browsers several times. She ultimately elected for a paper check.
All of this raises the question of why this process is so hard. After all, Apple keeps meticulous records of its customers and likely knows very well who purchased the devices with faulty batteries. Why didn’t the settlement call for Apple to email customers directly, which would have avoid the spam filter problem? Or better yet, why didn’t Apple offer to credit the $25 to the credit cards it keeps on file for most customers?
It’s hard not to conclude the process is clumsy because the lawyers designed it to be this way. A spokesperson for Apple declined to comment on the matter, but the recent history of U.S. class action litigation suggests this “battery-gate” suit is another example where the settlement is designed to limit recovery.
Less than 10% of consumers typically get paid
Class action lawsuits are supposed to benefit consumers by letting them sue as a group. This is a more practical option than expecting individuals to sue giant companies like Apple, especially when the money at stake is relatively low. Meanwhile, the threat of class actions can deter companies from behaving badly.
It’s a good idea in theory. But in many cases, the affected consumers—in whose name the lawsuit is brought—receive little or nothing from the legal settlement. A notorious recent example is the credit agency Equifax, which allowed Chinese hackers to steal the data of at least 143 million people in 2017. The ensuing lawsuit initially promised victims would receive $125 each but, when the dust settled, those consumers are more likely to receive $5 or nothing at all—even as the lawyers pocketed around $77 million and the company’s disgraced former CEO retired with $90 million.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of people don’t even try to collect in the first place. A 2019 survey by the Federal Trade Commission surveyed 149 class recent action suits and found the median participation rate was 9%—meaning that in most cases over 90% of people never collect.
In the case of the Apple “batterygate” class action, Laurence King, one of the lead lawyers representing iPhone owners told Fortune that “we believe the claims rate will be in line with similar consumer class actions”—in other words under 10%.
As for the lawyers, the settlement could see them collect $93 million.
In response to criticism over their fees, class action lawyers typically point out—correctly—that they bear the risk of the lawsuit, and often spend millions out of their own pockets to bring the claims. It’s also true that, in the absence of class actions, some companies’ bad actions would go unpunished, and consumers would receive nothing at all.
In the case of Apple, though, it’s hard to see how a payout rate of 10% would be acceptable given how easily the company could notify the affected customers—by email or even on their iPhones. Likewise, the prospect of collecting less than $25 (which would occur if a higher than average number of people file) would also be dissatisfying to many consumers. The battery issue has been a source of frustration for years, as has Apple’s reluctance to be transparent about it.
As for the cost of Apple compensating everyone affected, it would be negligible for a company with nearly $200 billion in cash reserves.
For now, the settlement is yet to be a done deal. It must receive a final sign-off following a so-called “fairness hearing” on December 4. If the number of iPhone owners filing claims proves to be low, or if there are concerns over the class action process, a judge could reject the deal and order the lawyers to come up with a better one.
More personal finance coverage from Fortune:


fortune--2020-08-01--Photo essay: The drive-in sees a resurgence throughout the world

Our mission to help you navigate the new normal is fueled by subscribers. To enjoy unlimited access to our journalism, subscribe today.
As movie theaters, concert venues, museums, and the majority of large event spaces remain mostly closed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, people are turning to a retro solution to continue experiencing arts and entertainment.
Drive-in movie theaters have made a comeback, but that’s not all. People are attending drive-in concerts, watching sporting events via drive-in gatherings, and even going to drive-by art shows. Big retailers like Walmart are buying into the trend; the chain is teaming up with Tribeca Enterprises to turn 160 of its parking lots into drive-in theaters from August to October. And while the drive-in is evocative of the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s, people are taking part in drive-in activities throughout the globe—sometimes using boats and bicycles for similar purposes—as seen in the photos below.
Take a look at how people are getting creative about absorbing their arts and culture in a socially distant group setting.
The opening night of Paris Plages “Le Cinema Sur L’Eau”, a free floating cinema at La Villette on July 18 in Paris, France. Thirty-eight Electric boats were installed on the Quai de Seine in compliance with social distancing rules, with 150 deck chairs on the banks of the canal, to screen the short film “Corona Story” by Victor Mirabel. Kiran Ridley—Getty Images
A woman gives concession snacks to a man sitting in a car as racing fans watch the Austrian Formula One Grand Prix race, the first race of the season, at a drive-in cinema at the Zandvoort circuit in the Netherlands on July 5. ROBIN VAN LONKHUIJSEN—ANP/AFP/Getty Images
L.A. Galaxy fans watch the MLS is Back Tournament game against the Portland Timbers at a drive-in viewing party at the Rose Bowl in California on July 13. Kirby Lee—USA Toay Sports/Reuters
A performer from the Las Vegas Circus performs in front of the car crowd at Porto Alegre in Southern Brazil on June 21. The Brazilian show was closed since March due to the coronavirus pandemic. SILVIO AVILA—AFP/Getty Images
An aerial view shows a packed Tribeca Drive-In, a monthlong temporary drive-in theater in Pasadena, Calif. David McNew—Getty Images
Two women sit in front of their car as they watch the American musical movie “La La Land” at the new DiverAuto drive-in cinema in Bormujos, Spain on July 11. CRISTINA QUICLER—AFP/Getty Images
A bike-in concert in Mantova, Italy on July 12. Concertgoers ride their bicycles to a live show, allowing fans to experience a traditional open-air concert from the comfort of their saddles. Francesco Prandoni—Getty Images
Dancers wearing traditional South Korean clothes perform on stage at a drive-in concert in Seoul on July 17. Chung Sung-Jun—Getty Images


fortune--2020-08-01--Instacart shoppers are battling order-grabbing bots

Lisa Marsh’s job shopping and delivering groceries for Instacart during the past three years has been unforgiving. Company tipping policies cut into earnings while boycotts and other labor strife created confusion, she said.
Then the global pandemic hit, transforming once mundane trips to Los Angeles grocery stores where she lives into a palpable health risk.
In recent weeks, another problem has emerged: bots that snatch the largest, most lucrative orders out of the hands of other shoppers.
Here’s how it works. Instacart pays contract workers to shop for groceries and deliver them to customers. Normally, the shoppers open the Instacart shopping app and, as orders flash by, click on the ones they want to fulfill. But in order to gain an edge, some shoppers are paying software developers who have created bots—in the form of third-party apps—that run alongside the legitimate Instacart app and claim the best orders for clients.
In this way, the app tilts competition between shoppers but is invisible to customers and doesn’t take business away from Instacart either. The cost of the third-party apps ranges from $250 to $600 in cryptocurrency or bank deposits, according to the darkweb research firm, DarkOwl.
When Marsh opens her Instacart shopping app, she sees promising orders disappear before she can act. “No human can click that fast,” she said. “Instacart needs to fix this. These bots are literally taking the food off my kids’ table.”
While bots aren’t a new problem for Instacart, the recent deluge is different because it comes at a time of white-knuckled expansion for the San Francisco-based startup. The company said customer demand for grocery delivery has surged more than 500% during the pandemic, notching growth its investors didn’t expect until 2025. This makes the platform, which hasn’t expanded its team as fast as its revenue, an attractive target for hustlers.
A spokeswoman for Instacart Inc. said the bots affect just a sliver of its more than 500,000 shoppers and that the company has already taken measures to address the issue.
“We take the integrity of the Instacart platform very seriously and have a trust and security team dedicated to monitoring the unauthorized use of the platform which includes all efforts to prevent illicit and fraudulent third-party apps from violating our terms of service,” said Natalia Montalvo, Instacart’s director of shopper engagement and communications.
Instacart said it’s combating bots by cranking up pressure against app makers and banning violators when they find them. The company said it deactivated 150 shoppers found to be misusing the platform and shut down a half dozen sites claiming to sell batches to Instacart shoppers including Instashopper.app, Sushopper, Ninja Hours and Acrobatshopper.
The developers of those apps couldn’t be located for comment.
Instacart also recently introduced new procedures such as prompting shoppers to verify their identity with a selfie and not permitting shoppers to switch devices in the middle of an order. Shoppers using the updated app can also choose to review a single order for 30 seconds before claiming it or passing it to another shopper.
“As a result of these measures, we’ve seen a dramatic reduction in the use of unauthorized third-party apps because of the hard work and dedication by our security and legal teams to protect the shopper experience,” Montalvo said. Instacart also this month enlisted the help of security platform HackerOne to battle bots by offering a bounty program, she said.
But as security experts at Amazon.com Inc. and other sites have discovered, battling rogue apps is a lot like playing whack-a-mole. As soon as a company thwarts one bot program, a new version of it emerges, usually with a new name.
“If Instacart cared—if it was losing money—they could devote resources to make the jobs of these automatic snipers much harder,” Bruce Schneier, a cybersecurity expert, author and lecturer at Harvard University, who said there are ways for companies to detect such bots. “This is a problem that any company that makes money from automation is likely being forced to deal with. Some handle it well. Others don’t.”
In recent months, different Instacart shopper-related apps have come and gone, sometimes using slightly varied titles, such as Ninja Hours, Ninja Shoppers and Ninja Shopper. DarkOwl discovered nearly a dozen active platforms in mid-May advertising openly on YouTube and social media platforms, including Reddit. Digital breadcrumbs linked these sites back to users spanning the U.S., including New York, Savannah, Georgia and Northern California’s wine country, according to DarkOwl. Others linked to an apparent Brazilian app developer syndicate that leans heavily on YouTube ads narrated in Portuguese, the research firm concluded.
The developer of those apps couldn’t be located for comment.
Some of the apps work, others are scams, according to DarkOwl. The Bitcoin wallet linked to the site of Ninja Shoppers indicates its owners have received 76 deposits—about $20,000—including many from Instacart shoppers desperate to jumpstart their stalled shopping careers.
The apps are typically available on websites published by their developers. In the case of Ninja Shoppers, the app is free to download, but users must be ‘’activated in a private group” in order to be granted permission to pay for a user authentication token, according to their website, which is published in English and Portuguese. Once logged-in, the program prompts the user to find Instacart sales available near their location, according to a YouTube video viewed more than 13,000 times since May 9.
Despite Instacart’s efforts to crack down, finding a permanent solution may be difficult. Earlier this month, one man using the Instacart shopping app, who said he’s been using a bot since March, offered to install it on another shopper’s phone for $250, plus a $130 weekly recurring fee, according to screen shots of a conversation in late July seen by Bloomberg. When reached by phone earlier this week, the man spoke first in Portuguese and then in English, confirming to Bloomberg he was selling a bot for those amounts. He declined to answer additional questions after learning that the information would likely be publicized.
Fear of getting deactivated or scammed out of money has stopped some shoppers from spending money on the apps. Others like Santa Cruz-area grandmother Ginger Colgate said she refuses to do so on moral grounds.
“It’s just not right. It’s against the rules,” said Colgate, complaining that her earnings dropped from $1,800 a week to $300 because the bots have siphoned the best work. Colgate said she still sometimes drives to Costco and opens the Instacart app, hoping for work.
“So many times I sit with tears in my eyes in the parking lot just waiting and hoping to get an order,” she said. “I’ve basically given up.”


fortune--2020-08-01--I’m a Black Republican, and I agree with AOC on the link between poverty and crime

As a Black Republican and former congressman, I was saddened by the overt, hateful comments reportedly made by a white Republican congressman toward Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Actions like that do wonders to chase minorities from the party of Lincoln.
Yes, I am bothered by the crude and derogatory language used against a woman, regardless of her color. But beyond that, I would also like to support Ocasio-Cortez on the substance of their discourse: poverty and crime.
My background on the topic is noteworthy. As the chairman of the Republican task force on welfare reform, I wrote sections of the 1996 welfare reform act that allowed for the use of debit cards and electronic benefit transfers for welfare recipients. To help our cities, I introduced the Urban Entrepreneurial Opportunities Act, which never passed Congress but from which many components eventually passed into law. I was also chairman of the Republican task force on civil rights, which helped produce the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Ocasio-Cortez is correct that there is a clear connection between poverty and petty crime. There is a simple way for this problem to be corrected: Enforce existing antidiscrimination laws. Civil rights leaders from the 1960s did an excellent job creating a system where companies must employ Blacks and Hispanics at all levels of an organization. If they don’t, they will stop receiving federal funds. This policy was codified in an executive order by former President Richard Nixon, and every president through today has adhered to it.
By helping Black and Hispanic Americans achieve fair employment, petty crime and poverty will go down. People with good paying jobs like supervisors, managers, directors, and vice presidents do not normally engage in theft, drug deals, or gang activity. They live in nice neighborhoods and their children go to and graduate from good schools. This is reality.
We saw George Floyd suffer a horrific death for eight minutes and 46 seconds. But injustice comes in many forms—sometimes more slowly. Employment discrimination harms Black and Hispanic people daily. Congress now has an opportunity to ensure fair employment for Black and Hispanic Americans.
I am hopeful that Ocasio-Cortez and other members of Congress who truly want to help the plight of minorities will help lead the charge for fair employment. Companies and trade associations are powerful, but the educated public holds even more power. And in America, fairness is not too much to ask.
Gary Franks served as the U.S. representative for Connecticut’s 5th District from 1991 to 1997. He was the first Black Republican elected to the House in nearly 60 years, and is New England’s first Black Member of the House. He is host of the podcast We Speak Frankly. Follow him @GaryFranks.


fortune--2020-08-02--Not wasting a crisis: How Ireland’s Ryanair is using the pandemic to power an audacious growth plan

The U.S. and EU ’ s key data-protection deal is dead .
How one of the world ’ s biggest @ @ @ @

Reeling from COVID-19, Europe’s airlines are unveiling a survival strategy centered on shrinking their schedules in the years to come. They are canceling aircraft orders, shrinking schedules, and are beginning to exit airport gates from London to Rome in an industry-wide rush to downsize.
But Ryanair, the region’s ultra-low-fare rebel, views the crisis as a matchless opening for the strongest player. The Irish carrier is using the crisis to snatch business from the weak (its assessment of a broad swath of the competition). Ryanair plans to prosper from its rivals’ retrenchment by pushing the throttle to the max––bolstering its fleet with new 737 MAXSs, grabbing those idle takeoff and landing slots, and most of all, driving the industry’s lowest costs down a big notch.
That’s that flight plan that Ryanair’s CEO Michael O’Leary laid out in a video announcing results for the June quarter (its Q1 2021), followed by a conference call with analysts on July 27. On screen, the famously outspoken O’Leary set a new standard earnings-call-casual, sporting a baggy checked shirt unbuttoned halfway to his waist, and peering over wire rim glasses balanced near the tip of his nose. O’Leary’s presentation came in two basic parts: First, an accounting of the tough measures Ryanair is taking to minimize the sweeping damage from the pandemic, steps that have amazingly lowered its cash burn to zero, and second, his blueprint for making the airline that transports the most passengers around Europe a lot bigger––by Fortune‘s estimates, as much as one-third bigger than pre-COVID a half-decade from now.
Ryanair’s flights, said O’Leary, were virtually all grounded from mid-March to the end of June, dropping the number of passengers carried for the quarter from 42 million to just 500,000. Revenues cratered 99% from 2.2 billion to €128 million ($168 million)*. During the meltdown, O’Leary is launching an extraordinary attack on costs to preserve cash. Total expenses dropped 85%, from just over €2 billion to €313 million ($2.62 billion to $410 million). Those deep reductions held the loss for the quarter to just e185 million. Relative to pre-COVID sales, that’s lowest among the airlines Ryanair’s size (FY 2020 revenues: €8.5 billion or $11 billion) or larger.
But the campaign isn’t mainly stanching the next quarter’s losses. It’s the centerpiece of his broad strategy for the future: Driving the expense base to levels that create an enduring competitive advantage that enables Ryanair to soar in the recovery while rivals remain stuck on the tarmac.
For all his optimism on how Ryanair will thrive post COVID-19, O’Leary foresees a return to normal that’s grindingly slow, both overall and for his airline. He’s now predicting that Ryanair will fly around 40% of last year’s passengers in July, rising to 60% in August, and 70% in September, and remain at that level at least through March of 2021. That trajectory would bring total traffic to just 60 million for FY 2021, down 60% from 149 million in FY 2020 (ended in March of this year). And the outlook’s worsened since May, when O’Leary predicted 75 million passengers for FY 2021, and a return to 80% of the regular schedule starting in October.
O’Leary warns of substantial risks that Ryanair’s numbers won’t reach even those downsized-estimates. “The best we can come up with at the moment is 60 million in passenger traffic assuming there are no other widespread lockdowns as a result of the second wave of COVID-19,” he declared on the conference call. Besides citing the danger posed by new spikes, O’Leary cautioned that European governments are imposing sudden and “arbitrary” restrictions on air travel to other nations on routes that are really safe, and that those “badly managed overreactions” could greatly slow a recovery.
On the call, the 59-year old CEO, who’s headed Ryanair since 1994, bashed the British authorities for recently requiring that all people flying from Spain to the U.K. undergo a 14 day quarantine, quashing traffic between the two countries. “The U.K. government panicked” over an outbreak in Catalonia, he charged, when “they should have controlled arrivals from maybe Catalonia, not on a national basis with no scientific basis.” He also skewered Ireland for requiring that arrivals from the U.K. go into two-week quarantine, while passengers from 15 nations on a “Green List” face no constraints. Both Israel and Morocco, he noted, have been imposing bans or restrictions on short-notice that have pummeled air travel from Europe for brief periods. For O’Leary, the uncertainty around the course of these state-mandated clampdowns––in his view, unjustified by the health risks––means that “even the 60 million will be a challenging figure.”
Ryanair’s edge has always been its big advantage on costs, as shown by its numbers for FY 2020. The Irish carrier spent an average of €31 ($41) to transport a passenger, excluding fuel. According to Ryanair, that’s 26% lower than the figure for number two, budget carrier Wizz Air of Hungary. By contrast, per passenger costs were €87 ($114) for Norwegian Air Shuttle and €101 ($132) for Lufthansa. That edge enables Ryanair to charge average fares of €37 ($48.50) on what in normal times were its 2400 daily flights to 242 airports from Aberdeen to Marrakesh and Lisbon to Tbilisi.
The 149 million customers lured last year by those no-frills bargains made Ryanair Europe’s top-ranking carrier measured in total passengers, beating Luftansa (145 million), IAG, uniting British Airways and Iberia Airlines (118 million), EasyJet (96 million) and Air France KLM (88 million). In revenues, Ryanair at e8.5 billion ranks fifth, and but its €1.13 billion ($1.48 billion) in operating profits equals two-third the number at Lufthansa and 43% at IAG, though the Irish carrier’s sales are less than a quarter of Lufthansa’s and lower than one-third of IAG’s. Ryanair also has the best margins, boasting return-on-sales of 13.3% in FY 2020, almost triple the number for Lufthansa, and 30% above IAG.
A strategy beyond COVID
As O’Leary never tires of proclaiming, it’s the super-low cost base that puts Ryanair first in customers and margins. Driving the expense even lower is the ticket to expanding post-COVID while rivals retreat. That strategy is based on O’Leary’s view of how the industry will evolve post-COVID. He observes that European airlines are already planning reductions in schedules that will last for years, and that the big shrink will continue. A number of carriers have already left the skies, including Flybe serving regional airports in the U.K. and France, Germanwings, a low-cost carrier owned by Lufthansa, Level of Austria, operating budget flights for IAG, and the German operations of SunExpress, a Lufthansa-Turkish Airlines venture that served resort destinations in the Mediterranean.
The big flag carriers are also slashing capacity. Air France KLM is scrapping one-fifth of its flights in 2021, and Al Italia is scuttling short-haul routes to focus on long-range destinations. On the call, O’Leary denounced the €11 billion ($12.9 billion) in state aid being awarded by both France and Germany to Air France and Lufthansa, subsidies that he brands “illegal” and promoting “unfair competition.” At the same time, competitors––including EasyJet and Norwegian––are delaying or canceling orders for new jets, potentially constraining their capacity to grow as as traffic rebounds. As most carriers downsize their operations, an increasing number of takeoff and landing slots will sit idle. Ryanair hopes to fill many of those slots as they become available, enabling it to expand at airports previously at full capacity.
O’Leary reckons that the only way the European carriers can generate business as the crisis ebbs is to offer bargain fares. “We’ll see lots of stimulus from low fares,” he says, “and that’s a good thing, because it will get a lot more people flying who’ve been locked down, and lift the entire market.” The flag carriers will be able to offer those ultra-low prices, he says, because they’re flush with government cash. On the other hand, the independent carriers that are forced to match the steep discounts will close down, following the Flybes and Levels.
To reign as the lowest-cost carrier in skies raining deep discounts, Ryanair needs to downshift its expense base to a plane that’s not just lower, but substantially lower. That’s been his chief quest during the the four month lockdown. The key part of the 85% reduction in Q1 was the shrinkage in labor costs. Since flights fell close to zero, the vast bulk of its 17,000 pilots and cabin crews across Europe went on furlough. Governments provided the workers with unemployment benefits. In Spain, for example, the government replaced a part of lost wages directly. The U.K. topped off reduced payments from the airline. All told, Ryanair lowered its “staff costs” from €272 million ($356 million) in Q1 of 2019 to €69 million ($90 million), a drop of 75%.
On labor, O’Leary harbored two long-term goals: First, keep almost the entire workforce of 17,000 employed, and second, substantially lower pay levels over four years, positioning Ryanair to triumph in the raging fare wars ahead. In exchange for preserving jobs, Ryanair succeeded in securing reductions of 20% from its pilots, by far the highest-earners, and around 10% on average from cabin crews. “We don’t break out the total reduction in the labor cost base,” says Eddie Wilson, CEO of the largest subsidiary of the Ryanair group. “The pilots are the chunkiest part of the total, and they took the biggest reduction.” He does confirm that the overall savings are well over 10%. Wilson adds: “We need to hold on to those people so that we can ramp up quickly and gain market share when the market rebounds.”
Low oil prices should provide a tailwind. “We’ll see an oversupply because of weakening demand,” says O’Leary. “We think oil will be modestly in somewhere around $40 for the next 2 to 3 years.” If flying returns to 2019 levels in that span, Ryanair would lower its jet fuel bill by half, or over €1 billion ($1.31 billion).
Doubling down on the MAX
A cornerstone of O’Leary’s strategy is securing big deliveries of Boeing’s long-delayed 737 MAX. Put simply, O’Leary is counting on a fleet of MAXs to provide the extra seats that Ryanair aims to fill as traffic rebounds and rivals continue to hunker down. “Ryanair will be one of the few airlines that can grow,” he says. “We’re one of the few that has has major deliveries coming in 2020, 2021, and 2022.” Ryanair is a single-aircraft carrier. All of its 470 planes are 737s. That’s a major reason that like fellow 737 denizen Southwest, it’s able to hold maintenance costs so low. Ryanair has 210 MAXs on order. O’Leary’s hope is that Boeing will get final approval from the U.S. authorities to re-launch the MAX in September, and that it Boeing can deliver Ryanair 40 MAXs by Christmas.
The MAX’s long struggle to relaunch hasn’t shaken his faith in the aircraft. “We’re committed supporters of the MAX,” says O’Leary. The MAX, he says, offers 4% more seats than Ryanair’s current 737s, and save 16% in fuel costs––and is hence crucial to driving down costs per passenger. While many airlines are cancelling orders for the MAX. O’Leary is using his position as one of the few buyers to push Boeing for a better deal. Of the 210 on order, about one-third are “options,” meaning that Ryanair can either buy the planes or walk away. That position should gives Ryanair strong leverage in the negotiations.
O’Leary also expects that as rivals retreat, Europe’s airports will be swamped with empty gates. He expects that by next summer, airports will be offering big discounts on rent to fill the unused slots, and that Ryan as just about the only carrier that’s expanding, can secure great deals.”There will be airports that have lost significant capacity who will be engaging in incentives to get someone like Ryanair to deliver them growth where others are cutting back,” he explains. Savings in airport charges that were the biggest expense in Q1 of last year would further bolster his go-low crusade.
For O’Leary, the best-case outlook is that Ryanair returns to its pre-COVID level of 150 million passengers a day sometime in the summer of 2021. But he also predicts that the overall market will remain a lot smaller than last year. Hence, if that scenario plays out, Ryanair will gain a heap of market share. Last year, O’Leary set a goal of reaching 200 million passengers by 2024, a giant increase of 34% over last year. He’s no longer setting a specific number. But by this writer’s estimates, all the factors, lower labor costs, renewed MAX deliveries, and dropping airport rents are falling into place to build the runway. So achieving 200 million is highly doable. If Ryanair gets there, it will lift its current leading market share from 15% to something like 20%, a feat seldom seen in an old-line industry.
In the pandemic economy, few stories are more intriguing than those about nimble players in industries pounded by the pandemic that are laying plans to prosper from the carnage. It’s hard to think of a flight plan that’s more audacious––some would say outrageous––than O’Leary’s, or one that will be more fun to watch.
*All conversions from Euros to dollars are made using the current exchange rate.


fortune--2020-08-02--The U.S. and EU’s key data-protection deal is dead. How one of the world’s biggest data brokers is a

The U.S. and EU’s key data-protection deal is dead. How one of the world’s biggest data brokers is adapting

Not wasting a crisis : How Ireland ’ s Ryanair is using the pandemic to power an audacious growth plan

Acxiom is one of those American companies that probably knows a lot about you, even if you’ve never heard of it.
The firm is a database marketing company, also known as a data broker—it builds “anonymized” profiles of people and sells them to advertisers, so they can better target their ads.
As such, Acxiom is of intense interest to Europe’s privacy regulators—privacy campaigners in the U.K. filed a complaint in late 2018, alleging that it was breaking the bloc’s tough General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by exploiting people’s personal data without their consent.
The company is also one of many to feel the impact of the recent “Schrems II” ruling by the EU’s top court, the Court of Justice. Citing insufficient privacy protections in the U.S, that decision instantly killed the Privacy Shield data-sharing agreement between the U.S. and the EU, while also casting into doubt the viability of another legal mechanism called standard contractual clauses (SCCs), which is widely used by companies from Facebook to Google as a basis for transferring Europeans’ data to U.S. servers.
Fortune had a chat this week with Acxiom’s Jordan Abbott, to discuss the firm’s take on that ruling and EU privacy regulation in general. Abbott has an interesting job title—chief data ethics officer.
Here’s a transcript of that conversation, lightly edited for clarity.
Fortune: What are the implications for businesses of the Schrems II decision?
Abbott: It is Groundhog Day all over again. We went through this with [Privacy Shield predecessor] Safe Harbor in 2015. When Privacy Shield was announced in 2016, my colleagues and I were skeptical about its long-term prospects. We believed at the time that it had the same sort of infirmities that plagued Safe Harbor. And, indeed, I made a prediction that at some point Privacy Shield would be challenged for many of the same reasons that Safe Harbor was challenged.
The immediate impact on businesses as a result of [the ruling] is that companies that were relying on Privacy Shield for data transfers from the EU to the U.S. now have to rely on an alternate mechanism of transfer, such as standard contractual clauses. Most companies don’t have binding corporate rules [or BCRs; a far more expensive, time-consuming legal mechanism for data transfers within multinationals] that have been approved by data protection authorities.
Fortunately for Acxiom, many of our agreements—if not most—had a belt-and-suspenders approach to data transfers, saying that in the event Privacy Shield is invalidated, transfers would rely on standard contractual clauses.
Even then, companies like Acxiom have to do an assessment to determine whether U.S. [legal protections for] transfers of data are essentially equivalent [to EU protections] to protect European citizens and, if there are issues, what sort of supplementary measures can be put in place to create essentially equivalent adequacy—things like encryption. For us, in addition to reviewing our agreements with our clients and our partners, we’re also doubling down on the necessity of data transfers, and data minimization.
So you are now relying on standard contractual clauses as the legal basis for your EU-to-U.S. transfers?
For data transfers from the U.K. to the U.S., the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office and the U.S. Department of Commerce both said, “Keep doing what you’re doing for the time being,” while they study the decision more.
But for data transfers from the European Economic Area, we got additional guidance from the European Data Protection Board [the umbrella body for the EU’s privacy regulators] last week and it indicated that SCCs are valid, provided a case-by-case assessment is done with respect to the data importation. We’re building our assessments to do so right now.
There are two schools of thought about the Schrems II ruling as regards SCCs: one says no SCCs for data transfers to the U.S. will stand up now, because of U.S. surveillance practices; the other says this will only affect companies, such as Google and Facebook, that fall under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). What’s your take on this, and can Acxiom accurately tell an EU data protection authority or the European Data Protection Board that U.S. intelligence is not snooping on its data?
Acxiom’s current point of view is it’s a little bit of both, that companies will not be able to contract their way out of this issue. It is going to have to be solved by the governments of the affected countries, in this case the U.S. and EU—and to a certain extent, after the Brexit transition, the U.K.
But transfers to other countries could be impacted too. For those, they will need to address [the issue] on a political and government level.
I think for companies that use cloud providers, it would be difficult for them to say that they are not potentially subject to a Section 702 FISA program. But I do believe companies like Acxiom, that principally deal in demographic and lifestyle information that is used for marketing purposes…my hope and expectation is it is a lower area of risk.
Since Acxiom is not an Internet service provider or telecommunications company, we are not on the front lines of the Section 702 surveillance issue. To my knowledge, we haven’t been contacted by the U.S. government about data on EU citizens, at least not since Privacy Shield. The types of data we collect are a separate category that, I think, may be of less interest.
One other note: although we collect demographic and lifestyle information, we use best practices to safeguard the security and confidentiality of the data. Among other things, we are performing an assessment to confirm that our data transfers are encrypted—not just sensitive or special categories of data. Similarly, we are reviewing our data flows to confirm data minimization and that we are limiting what we share to only what is necessary for our clients, while maintaining appropriate transparency, access and control for individuals to review and correct their data.
Some have suggested that a way around the Schrems II ruling is to keep European data in the EU, rather than sending it to the U.S. Is this data-localization approach viable, or a red herring?
All options are being considered at this moment, including data localization or setting up data centers within the EU. However, we fundamentally believe the free flow of information between the EU and the U.S. is critical for both our economies, and indeed the world economy.
To the extent that a U.S. Acxiom associate has access to an EU data center to view data, then data localization would potentially be undermined. We think a better approach is a government solution that adequately protects European citizens while allowing for data transfers to places that facilitate efficient processing and data management.
Do you foresee a Big Tech lobbying push on this front in the U.S.?
I do believe there will be a big push by industry, including Big Tech companies, to advocate for a national privacy law in the U.S. And indeed that has been happening over the last year or so.
Certainly with the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act, it underscores the need for a uniform and predictable approach in the United States that is also interoperable with other countries and other geographies and regions such as the EU.
I also believe that industry is supportive of granting European citizens essentially equivalent rights to those that are afforded to U.S. citizens. The problem that has to be overcome is constitutional and legal.
It deals with a principle called “standing”—the ability for a person to bring a case in court. The U.S. has to figure out a way to solve that problem and allow citizens outside the U.S. to bring claims to redress harm.
Given how the Court of Justice killed Privacy Shield and Safe Harbor for similar reasons, is there any point to the U.S. and EU trying to come up with a third version, while U.S. privacy law remains essentially inadequate?
It’s worthwhile to study the Court of Justice’s decision closely and see if a Privacy Shield 2.0 or Safe Harbor 3.0 is viable. Certainly, the court ruled that the Ombudsman [an office established under Privacy Shield to hear Europeans’ complaints about their data’s treatment in the U.S.] was not sufficiently independent, so perhaps a tribunal that is set up specifically for European citizens could be considered.
And that might be something that is worthwhile, because, back to the central issue, Acxiom and companies like us want to weed out the irresponsible behavior. We want to drive ethical and responsible behavior. We want to handle data in a fair and transparent manner. We think anything the governments can do to facilitate good behavior, while weeding out bad behavior, should be pursued.
But is a third agreement possible or not?
I think it’s worthwhile to at least look at it, study the Schrems II decision, see if there is opportunity to create a sustainable replacement to Privacy Shield, recognizing that the European courts may be skeptical about the chances for success.
I believe trust plays a vital role in building relationships and is essential to doing business in a data-driven economy. Things like SCCs, BCRs, supplementary measures—those all add to building trust and accountability, which is clearly important to European citizen and European data protection authorities.
Acxiom and companies like us want to do what we can to enhance trust and accountability.
Where do things stand with the EU investigation into data brokers and the GDPR?
Before Privacy International filed their complaint, the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office had announced it was going to conduct an assessment of the Acxiom U.K. office in January 2019. We fully cooperated with that assessment. We believe the Privacy International complaint lacked merit and we have been in conversations with the ICO since.
We do not anticipate any sort of enforcement action and we have implemented some of the recommendations that [the ICO] have made to date, and we’re working with the ICO on the remaining issues. We’re hopeful that the matter will be resolved in due course.


fortune--2020-08-02--Meet Candace Valenzuela, who could become the first Afro-Latina in Congress

The U.K. has one of the highest COVID-19 death tolls on earth .
What happened ?

Our mission to help you navigate the new normal is fueled by subscribers. To enjoy unlimited access to our journalism, subscribe today.
Last month, Candace Valenzuela won her Democratic primary runoff for Texas’s 24th district. And the potential impact of that victory goes beyond her Dallas-Forth Worth area constituents: If she wins the general election in November, Valenzuela will become the first Afro-Latina in Congress.
It’s a milestone that could be achieved twice over this year. Ritchie Torres, the Democratic candidate from New York’s 15th district, who’s all but certain to head to Congress in the fall, would be the first Afro-Latino to serve in the institution upon his swearing in.
Torres brought attention the significance of his likely election with an op-ed that exposed some outdated rules within Congress. Torres wrote that, based on current restrictions, he would not be allowed to join both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
“We’re all bound to each other. Our fortunes, our futures come together,” Valenzuela says of the connection between Black and Latino communities. The candidate and former school board member, who has also used her campaign to discuss her personal history with homelessness and domestic abuse, spoke to Fortune about her race for office and the perspective she would bring to Congress. This interview has been edited and condensed.
Fortune: You would be the first Afro-Latina in Congress. What does that mean to you?
Candace Valenzuela: It’s 2020. I’m so amazed and honored to have a shot at being a first here, but it’s also far too late in our timeline as a country. It’s a responsibility that I take very seriously.
What perspective is missing in Congress right now without an Afro-Latina voice?
There’s something about being Black and Latino that is very unique in our power structures in the American experience. One of the biggest problems we’ve had in this country is talking about Black and Latino lives, Black and Latino wellbeing as being at odds with each other. Many of us who live as this intersection have no real way to communicate that we’re all bound to each other. Our fortunes, our futures come together. That’s one of the unique perspectives I’m bringing with me.
When we’re talking about that separation—police brutality has been considered separate for a while. I grew up with an African-American father and a Mexican-American mother. [People think] that police brutality is an issue that only affects African-Americans when it definitely affects Latino communities. Or talking about immigration—we have been very focused on talking about Latinos and immigration. But we have Asians involved in this problem, Africans who are involved in this problem, people from the Caribbean who are involved in this problem too. There are not a lot of people speaking for them. Their voices are often drowned out because we have a very binary view of that narrative. Until we start communicating with each other, those folks are going to continue to fall through the cracks.
Ritchie Torres, the Democratic candidate in New York’s 15th Congressional district, has spoken out about how as a member of Congress, he would not be able to join both the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus. What does that restriction say to you?
There’s this old perspective that the wellbeing, the futures of African-Americans and Latinos are siloed and distinct and not bound up with each other. Asking someone to choose one identity or another when they’ve been firmly planted in both their entire lives, when they’ve experienced what it means to be in this country and be Black and Latino, is not great.
Your campaign references your experience with homelessness. Do you know if you would be the first legislator in Congress to have experienced homelessness? What would that mean to you?
I don’t know if I would be. I’ve had time to grapple with a lot during COVID, including talking about homelessness. That is one of the most underrepresented voices in power right now. Folks who have never experienced it or never gotten close to it don’t understand that when that happens, it’s typically not due to some moral failing. It’s due to a terrible accident. When we ended up homeless, we were leaving domestic violence. That happens to a lot of families.
Being in Congress with that information will help me to be more effective at speaking about things that work well. The ways in which HUD helped, the ways in which food stamps helped, the ways in which public education helped cannot be oversold. But there are ways in which these programs fail to reach everyone who needs to be reached. Until you’ve experienced what’s happened at the other end, you may have the best intentions in the world, but you won’t understand how damaging this can be.
You also reference in your ad your family’s history with domestic abuse. Why did you want people to know about that experience?
People need to have a way to understand homelessness. This is just a part of who I am. This is what has informed my policies, this is what has informed why I care about my kids, my teachers, my family. There’s always this disconnected narrative about people who end up in bad positions—that they lack the ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. For my mother, she had served her country in the U.S. Army, had made a great effort to take care of her kids, and we still ended up without a home for a while. It’s critical for me to be able to communicate [that domestic violence contributed to] how that happened.
Domestic violence has been an important topic during coronavirus lockdowns, with the risk of domestic abuse increasing while families are stuck at home. What do you think Congress needs to do to solve that problem?
This has been one of those things that keeps me up at night. Kids not able to have the relief of the school day in otherwise toxic situations—I think about them every single day of this pandemic. It hurts.
We’re going to be fighting hard to have access to mental health care, to health care, to equitable wages, to the American dream. These instances of domestic violence and abuse have a tendency to go up when we deal with greater amounts of inequity or financial strain on working families. That is one way we can better address this issue.
The other one is having options for mental health services, health services, making sure we have equitable wages so when people do need to leave, they’re not bound to a partner because they may not be able to put food on the table. This was something that happened with my family, and it was bad enough that we ended up out on the street. That should not be the only option. Making sure systems are in place to ensure equity for families is going to be one of our best weapons against this violence at home.
Much of your campaign is focused on your record as an educator and school board member. What do you think should happen with schools this year?
School was a home for me. I can’t imagine just how difficult it is for a lot of very poor families right now who are trying to make ends meet without school being in place. It’s horrifying that we are in a position that families are struggling to feed themselves and don’t have a source of stability and learning for their kids. As a mom right now—I’ve been looking forward to enrolling my 5-year-old in kindergarten. What that’s going to look like now is very different than what I pictured when he was born.
From the lens of somebody who served on the school board, the first priority has always been protecting and educating our children. I don’t think it’s possible to protect them in any real way given how little protection we’ve been offered from our state and federal government in Texas. Teachers are asked to solve problems that policymakers in D.C. refuse to address.
After the retirement of your district’s incumbent GOP congressman, you’ll be taking on Republican Beth Van Duyne in November, one of the GOP women who have helped make 2020 a record year for women running for Congressional office. Will anything be different for you about competing against another woman on the other side of the aisle?
Not really. The focus of my candidacy, my run for Congress has been fighting for the working families of Texas’s 24th district. It might change for the GOP and their approach to me. They’re running more women as they understand that more women would like to see themselves in the halls of Congress because we’ve been underrepresented for centuries. But on my end I’m working to represent families and this district.
You’ve also run as a mother. Why did you want to highlight motherhood in your campaign?
We have an incredible underrepresentation of mothers in public office. It shows when we’re talking about policies, and how much it costs to pay for childcare. Women are asked to be caretakers, to keep food on the table, to do so many things for their families and society—but they’re not asked for their voice in the halls of power. It’s crazy to me. As I have been able to do this process, to run for Congress, I wanted to emphasize to other women that I’m there to speak for them and I understand a lot of the things they’re dealing with. I understand how hard it can be to ask for your seat at the table while trying to balance a baby.
When I started this process, I had a 4-month-old and a 3-year-old. Now I have an 18-month-old and a 5-year-old. I’m infinitely aware of how impossible this would be if I didn’t have access to childcare. If I didn’t have my mother-in-law helping right now or the kind of husband I have who’s been able to draft his work hours around my work hours, this whole thing would fall apart. It’s troubling to think about the fact that that’s how easy it is for mothers to not have that voice. It’s a part of who I am, it’s a part of why I fight, and it’s a part of who I’m seeking to represent.
–


fortune--2020-08-02--How each NFL stadium is planning on handling fans

Our mission to help you navigate the new normal is fueled by subscribers. To enjoy unlimited access to our journalism, subscribe today.
With the coronavirus pandemic recently topping 150,000 deaths in the United States and no immediate end in sight, the future of nonessential entertainment events like sports remains uncertain. While the NBA restart appears to be off to a smooth start with zero players testing positive for COVID-19 in the league’s Disney World bubble, the MLB’s venture back into playing is going far differently.
That’s leading some to wonder what will happen with the NFL, the next sports league scheduled to resume on Sept. 10. Unlike the NBA and MLB, the NFL has not instituted a ban on fans attending the games, though the league is still finalizing COVID-19 protocols. As of now, NFL policy allows for fans to attend games if the team’s local jurisdiction allows it, but they must wear masks and may have to sign waiver forms.
Mention of local jurisdiction is key because with the pandemic affecting different parts of the country in varying levels, teams around the league will almost certainly have distinct approaches to fans by the time to season begins.
Here’s a look at what every team has planned for fans so far.
NFC West
San Francisco 49ers—The team emailed season ticket holders warning them to expect reduced capacity games at the 49ers Levi’s Stadium in 2020. According to a 2020 FAQ page on the team’s official website, “capacity will be determined by governmental regulation.”
Seattle Seahawks—Discussions are ongoing behind closed doors, but it appears likely that seating capacity will be reduced at CenturyLink Field. According to Tacoma News Tribune reporter Gregg Bell, “that plan could involve leaving entire rows or every other seat empty, and decisions on which season-ticket holders would get which games as part of amended packages.”
Los Angeles Rams—The newly constructed Sofi Stadium will operate at limited or no capacity in 2020, the Rams announced. Season tickets will also not be made available.
Arizona Cardinals—The team said there was a “very low” likelihood that State Farm Stadium will be at capacity during the 2020-21 season. “We are developing contingency plans for the different scenarios and potential stadium seating configurations,” the team said.
NFC North
Green Bay Packers—Plans for the season are still being finalized, and season ticket holders will have the option to “opt in” or “opt out” on the chance to reserve tickets. Packers CEO Mark Murphy recently said he expects no more than 10,000 to 12,000 fans at the storied Lambeau Field, which holds more than 80,000 people.
Minnesota Vikings—In a letter to season ticket holders, the Vikings said: “We can acknowledge at this time that if we are allowed to play in front of fans, games will be at a significantly reduced capacity and include a different in-stadium experience.” Season ticket holders have an option to opt out of their 2020 plan.
Chicago Bears—Season ticket packages for 2020 have been scrapped, and the Bears said that if authorities allow Solider Field to welcome fans this season, seating capacity will be reduced to allow for social distancing.
Detroit Lions—The Lions told season ticket holders that the team is “anticipating a reduced seating capacity, with socially distanced seating,” at Ford Field. “Capacity restrictions have not yet been determined by government officials,” the letter added.
NFC East
Philadelphia Eagles—City officials earlier this month said that while the city of Philadelphia currently prohibits outdoor events involving more than 50 people—including at Lincoln Financial Field—”this is a fluid situation, and this policy is under constant review.”
Dallas Cowboys—The Cowboys recently canceled season tickets for the 2020 season, instead planning to offer a “limited number” of single-game tickets to season ticket holders first, should they opt in for them. AT&T Stadium has one of the largest capacities in the NFL, at over 100,000 fans, meaning there may be more space for social distancing.
New York Giants—MetLife Stadium is one of the few venues so far to get an outright ban of fans during the 2020 season. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy issued an executive order saying events at the arena wouldn’t welcome fans “until further notice.”
Washington Football Team—While exact capacity remains unclear for the newly renamed Washington Football Team, it told season ticket holders they can defer to the 2021 season or get a full refund, hinting at the possibility of no fans.
NFC South
New Orleans Saints—”The cancellation of the preseason will allow the Saints organization additional lead-up time to prepare and provide proper safety protocols for the restart of the NFL season,” the Saints said. The team is offering season ticket holders the opportunity to defer seats or receive a full refund.
Atlanta Falcons—The Falcons told season ticket holders that Mercedes-Benz Stadium will officially welcome somewhere between 10,000 to 20,000 fans during the 2020-21 season.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers—Raymond James Stadium will have a limited capacity for the 2020 season, the Bucs told season ticket holders, meaning not all will be able to attend games during the 2020 season. An exact capacity number has yet to be determined.
Carolina Panthers—The team is still working out its capacity plans, but it will range anywhere from 20,000 fans to no fans at all. Season ticket holders have been informed and have the opportunity to defer or refund.
AFC North
Baltimore Ravens—The Ravens will allow no more than 14,000 fans at M&T Bank Stadium in 2020. The possibility still remains that no fans will be welcomed at all, depending on the status of the virus. Season tickets can be deferred.
Pittsburgh Steelers—The team has started canceling and refunding single-game ticket purchases for 2020. “We will be making adjustments to our seating configuration at Heinz Field this year to allow for social distancing,” Burt Lauten, Steelers director of communications, said in a statement. “We are working through scenarios for limited-capacity plans to provide options for our season ticket holders to attend games this year.”
Cleveland Browns—A Browns spokesperson said the situation is “fluid,” as the team would like to welcome fans to FirstEnergy Stadium while also knowing it needs to abide to local mandates. The Browns gave season ticket holders the option of opting out for the 2020 season.
Cincinnati Bengals—Approval pending, the team expects attendance to be “greatly reduced.” Seating will be rearranged, and tailgating is prohibited. Season ticket holders have the option to opt out for the season.
AFC West
Kansas City Chiefs—Arrowhead Stadium, known for its immense volume, will be a lot quieter this year as fan capacity will be reduced. The team said individual tickets will likely only be available “for the first few games of the regular season,” after which season ticket holders would take over.
Denver Broncos—In a letter to season ticket holders, the Broncos said: “The game day experience this season at Empower Field at Mile High will look and feel very different.” An official capacity for fans has yet to be determined by officials.
Las Vegas Raiders—The recently relocated Las Vegas Raiders (formerly of Oakland) will likely not welcome fans to its newly constructed Allegiant Stadium. “It’s no definite, but it’s 90% no,” Vic Tafur, Raiders beat writer for the The Athletic, said, adding that team owner Mark Davis’ plan is to “have an inaugural season 2.0 next year and do the ribbon-cutting in 2021. He said if fans can’t go, he won’t go.”
Los Angeles Chargers—The Chargers share a stadium with the Rams. It will will operate at limited or no capacity.
AFC East
New England Patriots—The Patriots recently announced Gillette Stadium is expected to operate at about 20% of its total capacity (it usually holds about 66,000 fans). “Tickets will be arranged in blocks of 10 seats or less, and the first eight rows of stadium seats will not be used,” the Patriots said.
Buffalo Bills—Though New York state said professional sports teams would not be able to host fans during the ongoing pandemic, the Bills recently told season ticket holders that it was “still in the process of planning for the possibility of a limited amount of spectators being able to attend games for the 2020 season.” For now, all season ticket memberships are deferred until next season.
New York Jets—The Jets share MetLife Stadium with the Giants. Neither will host any fans whatsoever during the 2020 season.
Miami Dolphins—South Florida has been particularly hit badly by the pandemic. As a result, the Dolphins will not let fans attend training camp practices at Hard Rock Stadium. The team is still hopeful that a limited number of fans may be able to attend regular season games.
AFC South
Houston Texans—Houston, also hard hit by the pandemic, has not yet announced any seating restrictions, but gave season ticket holders to option to defer to next season at no cost. Those who still do attend can still use this year’s tickets, though their seats may change due to social distancing measures.
Tennessee Titans—The Titans expect to play at Nissan Stadium in Nashville with reduced capacity, writing on its website that the exact percentage will be determined at a later date.
Indianapolis Colts—Owner Jim Irsay penned a letter to fans saying that the team would welcome fans at reduced capacity in compliance with CDC guidelines for social distancing. He added that food and beverage vendors will minimize person-to-person contact, and tarps will be placed over the first eight rows closest to field for increased distancing and safety.
Jacksonville Jaguars—The Jaguars expect reduced capacity at TIAA Bank Field and refunded all season tickets. Those holders can apply those credits to season ticket purchases for 2021. The team said it was working with Ticketmaster to develop a new seating chart that allows for six feet of social distancing.


fortune--2020-08-02--The U.K. has one of the highest COVID-19 death tolls on earth. What happened?

On Thursday, British prime minister Boris Johnson made a maskless appearance in front of reporters, elbow-bumping with police officers while touting the country’s “massive success” in reducing the death toll of COVID-19.
The “massive success” declaration landed with a hollow thud. Hours later, the Johnson government ordered the surprise lockdown in the North of England to curb spikes in and around the Greater Manchester area. More than 4 million citizens were banned from holding indoor gatherings with neighbors. It comes as the British economy has plunged into what is expected to be the worst recession in 300 years.
The country is still on high alert. With more than 46,000 dead, the U.K. has so far endured a disproportionately high death toll compared to neighboring countries. The U.K.’s own statistics body has confirmed that England alone had the highest numbers of excess deaths of any European nation. Meanwhile, as of July 31, the John Hopkins’ Mortality Analyses puts the U.K. at third in the world in both per-capita, and absolute deaths—where it trails only the U.S. and Brazil. Not good company.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Johnson himself repeatedly claimed throughout the early weeks of the pandemic that the U.K. was better prepared than most, citing the beloved National Health Service and world-leading medical research institutions as calls for calm.
It proved misleading. From scientists to health care workers to regular Britons, the overwhelming conclusion today is that the country effectively sleepwalked into a pandemic. It’s not hard to see how. The populace was burnt out and divided by Brexit. The government too was almost certainly distracted, overconfident, and underprepared.
An Ambulance crosses Westminster Bridge on March 25, 2020 in London, England. Alex Davidson—Getty Images
“As we all know, the history-making event of 2020 for the U.K. was supposed to be Brexit,” says Tae-Yeoun Keum, an expert in political thought and symbolism at Oxford University.
But, she added, the history teachers of future generations may one day teach the lessons of pandemic-era Britain by noting that it was being run by a government with a singular purpose and little else—to get the U.K. out of the European Union.
“Not,” she said, “for the purposes of handling a once-in-a-century global pandemic.”
“Washing our hands and singing Happy Birthday.”
The turning point in the U.K.’s management of the pandemic occurred in early March.
As the virus engulfed Europe, cases began to rise in the U.K. But the government’s approach quickly diverged from the rest of the region. The prime minister and his advisors opted for moderate measures to halt the virus. Deep down, they appeared to fear the British public wouldn’t tolerate the restrictive lockdown measures being enforced in continental Europe.
The government briefly flirted with the “herd immunity” approach, then abandoned it. Johnson, meanwhile, delayed announcing a lockdown plan even as numbers rose.
It was companies, the public, and even iconic British institutions like the Premier Football League and the Royal Family that stepped out ahead of government advice: cancelling events and sending students and employees home before they were ordered to do so.
The country eventually buckled, and went into lockdown on March 24. The result: the economy stayed shut for longer than most other European countries. But by then the damage was done.
A sign in the window of a Lush store in Liverpool offers a free hand wash service ahead of the U.K.’s late March lockdown. Peter Byrne—PA Images/Getty Images
“I felt like, as a country, the U.K. wasn’t taking it seriously when the numbers were low,” says David Gilani, an employee in the student experience office at London’s Middlesex University, which closed down ahead of government orders. “Obviously once the numbers were higher, we were taking it more seriously—but by that point, it was too late.”
While other European countries were rushing to enforce stricter and stricter lockdowns, he says, “the U.K. was just washing our hands and singing Happy Birthday.”
Sure enough, Neil Ferguson, a scientific advisor to the government who also leads the infectious outbreak modeling group at Imperial University, admitted that locking the country down one week earlier could have cut the death toll by half. Still, he ultimately defended the government’s actions.
‘It turned out to not be the best by a long shot’
Once the death toll soared in April, there was a new concern: could the country’s national health care system, after enduring years of funding cuts, truly cope with a wave of COVID-19 cases?
It was quickly revealed frontline medical workers were doing battle with a fatal shortage of protective equipment. Adding to the problem, wide-scale testing at the start was way behind schedule. By April, health secretary Matt Hancock, facing a testing record that trailed rival nations, blamed the U.K.’s record on a small diagnostics industry, and pledged to build one “at scale.”
NHS staff holds a wreath as a part of a silent protest over shortages of protective equipment in hospitals outside the gates of the prime minister’s residence in London during the weekly ‘Clap for our Carers’ applause for the NHS and key workers, on May 28, 2020. Wiktor Szymanowicz—Barcroft Media/Getty Images
Meanwhile, the toll of the virus was hitting the country’s essential workers, from healthcare workers to transit drivers, as well as Black and Asian Britons, disproportionately hard. A government study found that Black men, for example, were more than four times more likely to die from COVID-19 than white men, largely due to socio-economic factors.
The missteps loomed larger for a government that had lost its standing with the British people over a Brexit negotiation that had spun on for years and accomplished so little.
The U.K. has long prided itself on the world-beating class of its public institutions, says David Edgerton, a historian and author of The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A 20th Century History. But those institutions have “turned out not to be the best by a long shot, and that’s very politically significant,” he says. “It is turning into a pretty general crisis of the British state.”
“Boris is brilliant at distracting the country”
The low point came on March 27. That’s when the British government informed the public that Johnson had tested positive for coronavirus. He was rushed into intensive care at a London hospital, and for a month, the prime minister was largely out of public sight.
Johnson’s illness left a gaping power vacuum at the top of the government—because Britain does not have a deputy prime minister, the daily press conferences rotated between the cabinet members, with little clarity about who in government actually had the final word.
While the illness rallied public sympathy around the prime minister, his absence exposed a leadership void in his own cabinet. It also made clear how much the country had become reliant on Johnson’s great talents: using humor, and a preference for grandiose, patriotic symbolism, to speak to the hearts of the public—while glossing over any real detail of an emergency plan.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson makes a statement outside 10 Downing Street in London on April 27, as he returned to work after recovering from coronavirus. Stefan Rousseau—PA Images via Getty Images
Much of that approach is wrapped up in Johnson’s singular communication style: casual, catchy, loose on the details, and often dismissive. He frequently frames his critics’ concerns—whether over Brexit negotiations, or the pandemic—as over-reactions. Throughout the lead-up to the lockdown, for example, he frequently re-framed the call to “flatten the curve” as an effort to “squash the sombrero.” It was a jarring joke that stood out amid updates on rising death tolls.
“Boris is brilliant at kind of distracting the country,” says Emily Foyle, a senior critical care nurse in England’s southwest. “To make jokes, make light of things, redirect things—that’s his political strategy.”
“I don’t know what ‘stay alert’ means”
After resuming public life after his recovery, Johnson set out to map out how the country would emerge from lockdown.
That resulted in a much-mocked televised address to switch the country from the clear directive of “stay at home” to the commandment “stay alert.”
Johnson has frequently employed catchphrases, including when he swung to a majority government in December on the catchy pledge to “Get Brexit Done.” But this time, the message confounded.
Government advertisement boards advise the public to “stay alert” to the symptoms of COVID-19 in Birmingham, England on June 2, 2020. Credit: Mike Kemp—In Pictures via Getty Images. Mike Kemp—In PIctures/Getty Images
“I don’t know what ‘stay alert’ means,” retorted Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, adding that she had learned of the change from the newspapers. Sturgeon ordered Scots to ignore Johnson, and continue to stay home. Like Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland chose to set its own pace, revealing that throughout the staggered reopening, Johnson frequently spoke for England alone.
Though regional divisions have dogged nearly every country during the pandemic, those divisions in the U.K. exist between nations with their own distinct identities—and echo the ways the Brexit vote had carved up the country into differing visions for the futures: England, for example, voted to leave the EU. Scotland voted to stay.
When Johnson’s government did opt for detail, it was too detailed. The U.K.’s reopening plan, for example, produced darkly comedic levels of confusion: from the rules for seeing family members one at a time, to restrictions on loud conversations in pubs.
Throughout, Johnson’s appeal to the wisdom of “British common sense” was a defining theme, Oxford’s Keum says, in a way that was frequently evoked in relation to Brexit.
“The story advanced by the Brexit campaign has in many ways been a story of British exceptionalism on the one hand, and a story of validating the world views of the mythical everyman on the other,” she says.
“Both these stories have resurfaced in some form in the government’s pandemic response. Only this time, the ideas informing the government’s response about what people want to hear appears to have been misjudged.”
An “audit of the nation”
Weighing the U.K.’s response to the pandemic back in mid-June, Raj Bhopal, an emeritus professor of public health at Edinburgh University, noted that the retrospectoscope is “a wonderful instrument—but it was never invented.”
In a pandemic, hindsight is always 20:20, and no government on earth has come off perfectly from a crisis that has frequently presented no good choices—only bad ones.
But to abandon hindsight entirely would be a dangerous exercise, as countries face the prospect of social distancing measures and lockdowns that will last for months, even years, making learning from past choices a crucial exercise.
And though statistical differences do exist in how countries collect data, Johnson has consistently misrepresented the country’s high death toll as a statistical misunderstanding, flogging a message of patriotic “success” despite evidence to the contrary. The efforts harken back to an unwillingness to compromise, or to level honestly with the British public, that has become all-too-familiar in the years of Brexit-era purgatory, as an uncertain and badly divided public has attempted to feel its way towards a clearer political future.
A member of the clinical staff wears personal protective equipment (PPE) as she cares for a patient at the Intensive Care unit at Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, on May 5, 2020. NEIL HALL—POOL/AFP/Getty Images
It’s a worrying picture that has implications not just for public trust and safety, but for the strength of the bond between the union of nations at Britain’s core—and for the country’s larger standing in the world.
“I think it’s made very clear the deficiencies of the British state, the British administration, the welfare state, the capacity for the rational political discourse of the elite,” said Edgerton. “It really shows the reality of Britain’s place in the world. After both Brexit and COVID-19, no informed person, no semi-informed person, could maintain that Britain is one of the leading countries in the world.”
The current moment is ripe for an “audit of the nation,” he warned. “It’s wake up time.”