motherjones--2020-03-27--“Containing the Virus Was Going to Be Antithetical to the Economy”: Joe Biden’s Former Economic Advi

“Containing the Virus Was Going to Be Antithetical to the Economy”: Joe Biden’s Former Economic Adviser on Why This Recession Got So Bad

A couple of weeks ago , as companies began to ask their employees to work remotely amid early coronavirus fears , economist Jared Bernstein had a realization .
“ It occurred to me pretty quickly , although I didn ’ t recognize the magnitude , containing the virus was going to be antithetical to the economy , ” Bernstein tells me .
“ In order to apply what was necessary on the health care front , we ’ d have to put segments of the economy into a deep freeze.
” Few are as attuned to the warning signs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholar of income inequality , he served as the chief economic advisor to Joe Biden back when he was vice president .
During his White House tenure , Bernstein worked on the nearly $ 800 billion economic stimulus and job recovery plan signed into law early in Barack Obama ’ s term as president—without which , Bernstein ’ s research determined , the country would have seen another 3 to 4 million jobs lost during Obama ’ s first months in office .
Bernstein , who also ran the former vice president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , had been heralded by the left as a key counterbalance to more bank-friendly voices in the Obama administration , such as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers .
These days , Bernstein , now a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities , informally offers advice to his former boss , now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president .
The remedies to address this pandemic-driven disaster can ’ t be the same as what was used to jumpstart the economy in past recessions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ go down to Disney World ” after the September 11 terrorist attacks , a tragedy that similarly ground the travel industry to a halt .
“ Needless to say , such advice doesn ’ t work in this case , ” Bernstein says .
“ A lot of the medicine that we usually apply won ’ t have the impact it usually does.
” And Bernstein says correcting that largely falls on the federal government—specifically , the sorts of measures that the Senate orchestrated this week with its $ 2 trillion emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the bill but doesn ’ t understand why the federal government reinvents the wheel every time a crisis like this hits .
He points to the fact that the Senate ’ s stimulus package includes a dedicated watchdog and an accountability panel to oversee $ 500 billion in loans that will be given cities , states and industries hardest hit by the pandemic—an oversight setup similar to what was established to watch over the 2008 bailouts .
“ Why do we have to create this every time we hit these kinds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not hard to see what will happen when the market fails.
” He points to the lack of a robust federal unemployment system—something currently managed , with varying degrees of success , by the states—as well as a lack of paid family and leave .
“ We need to be more prepared , ” he says .
I spoke with Bernstein about the early warning signs of trouble , his take on the Senate bill , and what he ’ s watching for as emergency money finds its way into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks ago , when businesses started to send workers home and close up shop , what were your first thoughts about the potential economic fallout ?
I thought early on that we were in for a lot of trouble .
As every economist knows , the US economy is almost 70 percent consumer spending .
So if you ’ re going to tell even a small portion of the American consumer population that they have to come out of the game for a while , that ’ s going to be a hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that growth in the first half of the year could be somewhere around zero .
If things get as bad as I expect , I now see , of course , that was very wishful thinking .
There ’ s no doubt we ’ re in a recession .
How is this different from the one you tackled during your time in the White House , and others in recent history ?
Well , the easiest way to explain the difference between now and [ other recessions ] is to remember that after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first round of stimulus checks [ after 9/11 ] , the president said , “ Take your rebate check and go in a plane and go down to Disney World , ” which may sound kind of cavalier , but it was understandable advice , given the role of consumer spending on our economy .
Needless to say , such advice doesn ’ t work in this case .
So one difference is that I don ’ t think any of us have ever been—with the exception of a couple days after 9/11—in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be put in a deep freeze in order to deal with a health threat .
It means that a lot of the medicine that we usually apply won ’ t have the impact that it usually does .
The Federal Reserve is a very good example .
You can cut interest rates as low as you want , but you ’ re not going to reschedule a conference or go to a restaurant because interest rates are zero .
Because monetary policy simply can ’ t have the punch that it usually does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important .
We ’ ve talked a ton about the Fed lately , but at the end of the day , it ’ s what Congress is doing .
It ’ s going to make the biggest immediate difference to households and businesses .
And that ’ s why they can not get any further behind this fiscal curve .
We now have a picture of the emergency relief measures Congress and the White House agree on .
Who benefits the most from this stopgap measure ?
Who gets left behind ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion for unemployment insurance .
That was something [ Senate Minority Leader Chuck ] Schumer insisted on getting in there—the next time I see him , I ’ m going to bump elbows with him heartily .
The most important direct beneficiaries are families and small businesses .
Obviously , there are literally millions—I would say at least 20 million middle and low-wage workers who have no paid leave—and even if they ’ re employed , but their workplace is closed , they ’ ve got no income .
I can also tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So these are people who if they lack a paycheck for a couple of weeks in a row , are looking at serious provation , possible eviction .
There are things that some localities are doing , including eviction moratoriums , that can help them—food banks are ramping up , I get that .
But the most important thing to do is get money in their pockets as quickly as possible .
Now , here ’ s the wrinkle that I don ’ t know how much of this is appreciated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you have to have filed a tax return for 2018 or 2019 or get Social Security [ or Medicaid ] .
A lot of the people I ’ m talking about won ’ t have filed a tax return .
That doesn ’ t mean they ’ re ineligible .
In fact , they are eligible thanks to some of the work of the Democrats and my colleagues at the Center on Budget , by the way .
That doesn ’ t mean they ’ re ineligible , it means that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get their check .
And that ’ s going to be a super important thing .
I mean , this is not something that we can fool around with for weeks or months .
These folks needed assistance yesterday .
So we have to make sure those of us who are in the policy community explain to these folks that they have to file , they can do it online , and they can even get assistance from the IRS to do so .
But that ’ s going to be really important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small businesses is very helpful , particularly because while that is a loan—a guaranteed loan , so that the creditors and the lenders will be backstopped by the government—the federal government is forgiving the part of that loan that businesses use to maintain their payrolls .
So I thought that was a smart piece of work .
There are a couple of omissions , in terms of who ’ s not getting help .
One of the most important omissions is fiscal relief for states .
During the last recession , when I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really pretty robust , effective , efficient , quick-acting state fiscal relief program , which we administered by just tweaking up the federal government ’ s contribution to state Medicaid expenditures .
It ’ s called the FMAP [ Federal Medical Assistance Percentage ] .
We ratcheted up the federal contribution , and states could get that money .
And it ’ s not just for Medicaid—it ’ s technically for Medicaid , but these dollars are fungible , so every dollar they don ’ t have to put into Medicaid because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towards unemployment insurance or public workers or a full set of needs .
[ The final relief package , which was still being negotiated at the time of this interview , includes $ 150 billion in fungible relief .
Bernstein tells me that ’ s a welcome change , but still thinks FMAP funds should be in there , as well . ]
There ’ s been a ton of attention on the daily ups and downs of the stock market—particularly from the White House , which seems eager to make them stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if not , what other economic indicators should politicians be looking at instead when planning stimulus ?
I certainly wouldn ’ t pay attention to the ups and downs , especially from the perspective of if you have a big up day like Tuesday—don ’ t think you ’ re out of the woods .
So I would be pretty asymmetric about my assessments .
You know , they say the stock market is not the economy , but it ’ s not not the economy , and I think that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the massive sell off is its impact on people—its impact on 401Ks and our retirement plans .
I was talking to a friend last night who said , “ Well , my retirement is now put off for another year.
” That ’ s a big deal .
And the stock market is one of these forward-looking indicators that suggests how steep and deep this recession is .
But the more structurally important indicator in the financial markets is actually the debt market—the market for treasuries , corporate debt , and things like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fed has been particularly active , because at least initially , it looked like that market was operating pretty smoothly , which is very important .
We already had a supply shock , then we had a demand shock—we certainly didn ’ t need a financial shock on top of that .
The last downturn was a financial shock that set everything off .
In recent days and weeks , we ’ ve had some clogging in the pipes of the credit markets and the Fed has intervened aggressively to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been , at least , moderately successful .
And that ’ s really important .
I mean , we ’ re going to be borrowing our asses off to finance this stimulus and we need a functional Treasury market for that .
Right now , I thought the intervention that the Fed did Monday seems to have helped .
But we ’ ve seen this movie where things look clear for a couple of days , and then they get a little bit shaky again .
The Fed is definitely on the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit markets remain fluid .
In terms of the indicators that I tell politicians to look at : first of all , unemployment claims are very revealing , and we ’ ve already seen them spiking [ to 3.3 million ] .
And that ’ s just after a week .
In the Great Recession , we were tearing our hair out because we lost 2.3 million jobs in the first quarter of 2009 .
So I would look at the claims and basically more broadly , I would look at what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So not just the financial market—not that that ’ s false—but the real stuff has to be incomes and jobs wages .
Those are the indicators I ’ d look at .
The problem is that they ’ re either coincident or kind of lagging , and so you have to try to see around the corner where they ’ re headed .
Lawmakers predict this is only the first in a series of bills lawmakers will try to pass to address this crisis .
What are the longer-term , structural economic remedies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for future disasters like this ?
That ’ s pretty easy to me .
We need a national paid leave program .
We need a much more comprehensive unemployment insurance program with a larger federal role , because we ’ ve got some states that have taken their UI systems apart for ideological reasons—North Carolina ’ s a good example .
We are really bending ourselves into a pretzel if you spend five minutes reading what the Fed is trying to do in order to provide emergency lending to businesses .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did—the government is directly supporting businesses , especially small ones that are much less insulated against these kinds of storms .
But we don ’ t do that structurally because we have this idea that the government can ’ t pick winners .
I ’ ve always thought that was a phony issue , because if you look at our tax code , we pick winners all the time .
It ’ s just sort of an ideological opposition .
There ought to be programs in place that both provide direct lending , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that balance investors and workers interests .
So you could say , “ Well , we do have a lending program like that.
” It ’ s the $ 500 billion slush fund that everybody ’ s all up in arms about that has almost no conditionality .
We had the same problem with the TARP .
We had to do something very quickly for businesses in the economy , and the first day Congress said , “ What is this crap ?
” and they just thought it was nonsense , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points and everybody said “ Well , show me the TARP again.
” And it didn ’ t have ample oversight and so we had to , from whole cloth , create this oversight board , which actually ended up being kind of okay , but we ’ re doing the same thing again .
And finally , the idea that our health care system is both incapable of a surge in demand and that people are having to deal with insurance issues just underscores how important it is that we recognize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a human right , and act accordingly .

A couple of weeks ago, as companies began to ask their employees to work remotely amid early coronavirus fears, economist Jared Bernstein had a realization. “It occurred to me pretty quickly, although I didn’t recognize the magnitude, containing the virus was going to be antithetical to the economy,” Bernstein tells me. “In order to apply what was necessary on the health care front, we’d have to put segments of the economy into a deep freeze.”
Few are as attuned to the warning signs of economic ruin as Bernstein. A longtime scholar of income inequality, he served as the chief economic advisor to Joe Biden back when he was vice president. During his White House tenure, Bernstein worked on the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus and job recovery plan signed into law early in Barack Obama’s term as president—without which, Bernstein’s research determined, the country would have seen another 3 to 4 million jobs lost during Obama’s first months in office. Bernstein, who also ran the former vice president’s task force on the middle class, had been heralded by the left as a key counterbalance to more bank-friendly voices in the Obama administration, such as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers. These days, Bernstein, now a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, informally offers advice to his former boss, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.
The remedies to address this pandemic-driven disaster can’t be the same as what was used to jumpstart the economy in past recessions. Bernstein recalls President Bush telling families to “go down to Disney World” after the September 11 terrorist attacks, a tragedy that similarly ground the travel industry to a halt. “Needless to say, such advice doesn’t work in this case,” Bernstein says. “A lot of the medicine that we usually apply won’t have the impact it usually does.”
And Bernstein says correcting that largely falls on the federal government—specifically, the sorts of measures that the Senate orchestrated this week with its $2 trillion emergency relief package. Bernstein is overall happy with the bill but doesn’t understand why the federal government reinvents the wheel every time a crisis like this hits. He points to the fact that the Senate’s stimulus package includes a dedicated watchdog and an accountability panel to oversee $500 billion in loans that will be given cities, states and industries hardest hit by the pandemic—an oversight setup similar to what was established to watch over the 2008 bailouts.
“In order to apply what was necessary on the health care front, we’d have to put segments of the economy into a deep freeze.”
“Why do we have to create this every time we hit these kinds of stretches?” Bernstein laments. “It’s not hard to see what will happen when the market fails.” He points to the lack of a robust federal unemployment system—something currently managed, with varying degrees of success, by the states—as well as a lack of paid family and leave. “We need to be more prepared,” he says.
I spoke with Bernstein about the early warning signs of trouble, his take on the Senate bill, and what he’s watching for as emergency money finds its way into consumers’ hands.
A couple of weeks ago, when businesses started to send workers home and close up shop, what were your first thoughts about the potential economic fallout?
I thought early on that we were in for a lot of trouble. As every economist knows, the US economy is almost 70 percent consumer spending. So if you’re going to tell even a small portion of the American consumer population that they have to come out of the game for a while, that’s going to be a hit to growth. My initial thought was that growth in the first half of the year could be somewhere around zero. If things get as bad as I expect, I now see, of course, that was very wishful thinking.
There’s no doubt we’re in a recession. How is this different from the one you tackled during your time in the White House, and others in recent history?
Well, the easiest way to explain the difference between now and [other recessions] is to remember that after Congress and President Bush sent out the first round of stimulus checks [after 9/11], the president said, “Take your rebate check and go in a plane and go down to Disney World,” which may sound kind of cavalier, but it was understandable advice, given the role of consumer spending on our economy. Needless to say, such advice doesn’t work in this case. So one difference is that I don’t think any of us have ever been—with the exception of a couple days after 9/11—in a situation where our economy had to be put in a deep freeze in order to deal with a health threat. It means that a lot of the medicine that we usually apply won’t have the impact that it usually does. The Federal Reserve is a very good example. You can cut interest rates as low as you want, but you’re not going to reschedule a conference or go to a restaurant because interest rates are zero.
Because monetary policy simply can’t have the punch that it usually does, fiscal policy is that much more important. We’ve talked a ton about the Fed lately, but at the end of the day, it’s what Congress is doing. It’s going to make the biggest immediate difference to households and businesses. And that’s why they cannot get any further behind this fiscal curve.
We now have a picture of the emergency relief measures Congress and the White House agree on. Who benefits the most from this stopgap measure? Who gets left behind?
The most important thing is the $250 billion for unemployment insurance. That was something [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer insisted on getting in there—the next time I see him, I’m going to bump elbows with him heartily. The most important direct beneficiaries are families and small businesses. Obviously, there are literally millions—I would say at least 20 million middle and low-wage workers who have no paid leave—and even if they’re employed, but their workplace is closed, they’ve got no income. I can also tell you that they have virtually no savings. So these are people who if they lack a paycheck for a couple of weeks in a row, are looking at serious provation, possible eviction. There are things that some localities are doing, including eviction moratoriums, that can help them—food banks are ramping up, I get that. But the most important thing to do is get money in their pockets as quickly as possible.
Now, here’s the wrinkle that I don’t know how much of this is appreciated. In order to get the rebate check, you have to have filed a tax return for 2018 or 2019 or get Social Security [or Medicaid]. A lot of the people I’m talking about won’t have filed a tax return. That doesn’t mean they’re ineligible. In fact, they are eligible thanks to some of the work of the Democrats and my colleagues at the Center on Budget, by the way. That doesn’t mean they’re ineligible, it means that they have to file a tax return to get their check. And that’s going to be a super important thing. I mean, this is not something that we can fool around with for weeks or months. These folks needed assistance yesterday. So we have to make sure those of us who are in the policy community explain to these folks that they have to file, they can do it online, and they can even get assistance from the IRS to do so. But that’s going to be really important.
I think $350 billion for small businesses is very helpful, particularly because while that is a loan—a guaranteed loan, so that the creditors and the lenders will be backstopped by the government—the federal government is forgiving the part of that loan that businesses use to maintain their payrolls. So I thought that was a smart piece of work.
There are a couple of omissions, in terms of who’s not getting help. One of the most important omissions is fiscal relief for states. During the last recession, when I was in government, we had a really pretty robust, effective, efficient, quick-acting state fiscal relief program, which we administered by just tweaking up the federal government’s contribution to state Medicaid expenditures. It’s called the FMAP [Federal Medical Assistance Percentage]. We ratcheted up the federal contribution, and states could get that money. And it’s not just for Medicaid—it’s technically for Medicaid, but these dollars are fungible, so every dollar they don’t have to put into Medicaid because they get it from the Feds can go towards unemployment insurance or public workers or a full set of needs.
[The final relief package, which was still being negotiated at the time of this interview, includes $150 billion in fungible relief. Bernstein tells me that’s a welcome change, but still thinks FMAP funds should be in there, as well.]
There’s been a ton of attention on the daily ups and downs of the stock market—particularly from the White House, which seems eager to make them stop. Do those daily fluctuations matter? And if not, what other economic indicators should politicians be looking at instead when planning stimulus?
I certainly wouldn’t pay attention to the ups and downs, especially from the perspective of if you have a big up day like Tuesday—don’t think you’re out of the woods. So I would be pretty asymmetric about my assessments. You know, they say the stock market is not the economy, but it’s not not the economy, and I think that’s fair. The important thing about the massive sell off is its impact on people—its impact on 401Ks and our retirement plans. I was talking to a friend last night who said, “Well, my retirement is now put off for another year.” That’s a big deal. And the stock market is one of these forward-looking indicators that suggests how steep and deep this recession is.
“A lot of the medicine that we usually apply won’t have the impact it usually does.”
But the more structurally important indicator in the financial markets is actually the debt market—the market for treasuries, corporate debt, and things like that. And that’s where the Fed has been particularly active, because at least initially, it looked like that market was operating pretty smoothly, which is very important. We already had a supply shock, then we had a demand shock—we certainly didn’t need a financial shock on top of that. The last downturn was a financial shock that set everything off. In recent days and weeks, we’ve had some clogging in the pipes of the credit markets and the Fed has intervened aggressively to try to unclog the plumbing and they’ve been, at least, moderately successful. And that’s really important. I mean, we’re going to be borrowing our asses off to finance this stimulus and we need a functional Treasury market for that. Right now, I thought the intervention that the Fed did Monday seems to have helped. But we’ve seen this movie where things look clear for a couple of days, and then they get a little bit shaky again. The Fed is definitely on the case and committed to trying to make sure credit markets remain fluid.
In terms of the indicators that I tell politicians to look at: first of all, unemployment claims are very revealing, and we’ve already seen them spiking [to 3.3 million]. And that’s just after a week. In the Great Recession, we were tearing our hair out because we lost 2.3 million jobs in the first quarter of 2009. So I would look at the claims and basically more broadly, I would look at what we call “real economy” indicators. So not just the financial market—not that that’s false—but the real stuff has to be incomes and jobs wages. Those are the indicators I’d look at. The problem is that they’re either coincident or kind of lagging, and so you have to try to see around the corner where they’re headed.
Lawmakers predict this is only the first in a series of bills lawmakers will try to pass to address this crisis. What are the longer-term, structural economic remedies you’d recommend to better prepare for future disasters like this?
That’s pretty easy to me. We need a national paid leave program. We need a much more comprehensive unemployment insurance program with a larger federal role, because we’ve got some states that have taken their UI systems apart for ideological reasons—North Carolina’s a good example.
We are really bending ourselves into a pretzel if you spend five minutes reading what the Fed is trying to do in order to provide emergency lending to businesses. If you look at what the UK and Denmark did—the government is directly supporting businesses, especially small ones that are much less insulated against these kinds of storms. But we don’t do that structurally because we have this idea that the government can’t pick winners. I’ve always thought that was a phony issue, because if you look at our tax code, we pick winners all the time. It’s just sort of an ideological opposition.
There ought to be programs in place that both provide direct lending, but conditional on a set of requirements that balance investors and workers interests. So you could say, “Well, we do have a lending program like that.” It’s the $500 billion slush fund that everybody’s all up in arms about that has almost no conditionality. We had the same problem with the TARP. We had to do something very quickly for businesses in the economy, and the first day Congress said, “What is this crap?” and they just thought it was nonsense, and then next day the market fell 800 points and everybody said “Well, show me the TARP again.” And it didn’t have ample oversight and so we had to, from whole cloth, create this oversight board, which actually ended up being kind of okay, but we’re doing the same thing again.
And finally, the idea that our health care system is both incapable of a surge in demand and that people are having to deal with insurance issues just underscores how important it is that we recognize that health care is a public good, a human right, and act accordingly.


motherjones--2020-03-27--Campaigning As We Know It Is Over

Campaigning As We Know It Is Over

In the fall of 1920 , Warren G. Harding won the biggest popular-vote landslide in history without ever holding a rally .
Instead of hitting the trail , the Republican nominee let the campaign come to him .
About once a day , Harding emerged from his home in Marion , Ohio , to address a small crowd of voters and reporters , who wrote up his remarks for their readers across the country .
A multimillion-dollar advertising budget took care of the rest .
Harding ’ s “ front-porch campaign ” was a product of its time—a more dignified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional campaigning was sometimes seen as gauche .
( When Democrat William Jennings Bryan went on tour in 1896 , one critic said he was “ begging for the Presidency as a tramp might beg for a pie.
” ) But a century later , the long-distance campaign is back by default .
The coronavirus has shut down political campaigning—and virtually everything else .
Neither former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , nor Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has held in-person events with voters since before the March 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his rallies for the foreseeable future .
Candidates at all levels across the country are adapting and experimenting on the fly , as they wrestle with how to engage supporters , persuade voters , and raise money when many Americans are stuck inside , sick , or out of work .
Biden greets his grandkids from his front porch ; he ’ s greeting voters from his basement .
“ I ’ m not sure anybody really knows what a completely virtual and online campaign really looks like and anybody who says they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Demissie , a Democratic operative who managed New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker ’ s presidential campaign .
And that ’ s really the only sure thing right now : For the time being , whatever happens is going to have to happen remotely .
When Sanders ’ campaign announced ahead of last Tuesday ’ s primaries in Arizona , Florida , and Illinois that it would not undertake any traditional get-out-the-vote efforts , it was merely codifying what was already happening .
Campaigns have quit door-knocking , petition-gathering , and holding in-person town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re figuring out how to fill the void .
Getting in front of a camera is probably the easiest problem to solve , at least from a technical standpoint .
Trump , of course , can get on TV whenever he wants and has turned his daily briefings on the pandemic into freewheeling campaign-style riffs .
Sanders has invested for years in virtual events ; since going to ground , he ’ s held “ fireside chats ” in front of a wood stove at his Burlington home ; filmed short messages from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key surrogates for a Hollywood Squares–style split-screen conversation on the pandemic .
Biden started off on shakier footing .
At a fundraiser on Sunday ( held via teleconference ) one donor said they were “ concerned ” that “ we see Donald Trump every day with this crisis , ” asking the candidate , “ How do we get more of you and less of him on our airwaves ?
” Campaign aides initially told ABC that his home ’ s low ceilings made it difficult to get good-enough light .
But by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his game room , fully optimized for TV hits and livestreams .
A bigger challenge for candidates is figuring out how to do all the other things that in-person gatherings are designed to accomplish—rallies , for instance , are important organizing efforts , a chance for the campaign to gauge how it ’ s doing , collect information on thousands of voters , sign up volunteers , and forge connections with targeted communities .
“ What we ’ re gon na lose is some of the connection to less-engaged voters—someone who isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more-engaged friend brings them to a campaign event , ” said Zack Malitz , a Texas-based Democratic consultant who ran Beto O ’ Rourke ’ s field program during his 2018 Texas Senate run .
Bringing a friend to go see the Strokes is easy ; getting them to join a campaign call on Zoom is trickier .
That speaks to a broader problem : maintaining the sense of community that binds large volunteer networks together .
Campaigns thrive in social spaces—coffee shops and campaign offices and living rooms ( to say nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a laptop takes effort .
Without retail politics and in-person events , candidates will have to find other ways to reach voters , too .
You might get a lot more phone calls , for one thing .
“ Just because people can ’ t talk face to face doesn ’ t mean they can ’ t talk person to person , ” Malitz said .
Social distancing will put a premium on things like peer-to-peer texting , “ relational organizing ” ( in which supporters mine their lists of friends and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and phone banking .
“ I think some candidates will make a lot more phone calls directly to voters , especially in small down-ballot races , ” Malitz said .
He pointed to field research showing that a one-on-one conversation with a candidate was the most powerful way to persuade a voter—more than an advertisement or speaking with a volunteer .
And with most of the country staying home , the odds of actually reaching someone on the phone have gone way up .
“ So you can see certain campaign operations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls to voters to identify supporters , and then the candidate following up with the undecided voters to have persuasion conversations with them , ” Malitz said .
One area where candidates are struggling to adapt to the new normal of campaigning is fundraising .
J.D .
Scholten , a Democrat running against Rep. Steve King in Iowa ’ s 4th Congressional District , told me he ’ d canceled several big fundraisers ahead of the March 31 quarterly deadline and was squeamish about asking small-dollar donors for money at a time when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Instead , like other candidates , he ’ d used his fundraising list to raise money for local charities . )
“ We ’ re trying to figure out how to do that but also in a very respectful way because there ’ s a lot of people losing their jobs , ” he said .
“ There ’ s a way to do it tastefully and a way to do it poorly.
” Last Thursday , the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign , following in the footsteps of Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ halt all planned fundraisers and instead raise money online and via virtual events .
Sanders does not hold in-person fundraisers , but he recently used his email list to raise $ 2 million for various charities .
This is typically a time in the election cycle when campaigns that have already made it through their primaries might go relatively quiet and concentrate their energy on raising and saving lots of money so they can build out quickly in the months to come .
Now , there ’ s a lot less money coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next few months will even look like .
“ Most campaigns are small businesses , ” Demissie said .
“ And they are gon na feel the crunch in an entirely different way because they ’ re entirely funded by voluntary donations .
Are they gon na be able to hire ?
Are they gon na be able to write any sort of plan based on predicting the future when you can ’ t predict what ’ s gon na happen tomorrow ?
” All of this—the uncertainty , the austerity , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to get more out of less .
“ The people who are gon na solve this problem are gon na be the 23-year-old digital staffer and the 25-year-old fundraising staffer , ” Demissie predicted .
“ This is a time for people who live their life online to shine.
” Biden , Sanders , and Trump are at least starting from a position of near-universal name recognition , with broad coalitions of supporters , volunteers , and donors .
As my colleague Kara Voght reported , the social distancing measures present a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still in the process of introducing themselves to the electorate .
Nowhere is that felt more acutely than the New York City metro area , home to 5 percent of all global coronavirus cases and—unlike other places where the virus has hit hard , such as California , Illinois , and Washington state—a crowded slate of congressional primaries still to come on June 23 .
In the 15th Congressional District in the Bronx , so many Democrats are running to replace the retiring Rep. José Serrano they could field a baseball team .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , City Council member Ritchie Torres , announced he had tested positive for the virus and would be spending two weeks in isolation .
Another candidate , Samelys Lopez , a community organizer who has been endorsed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , told me she was “ basically using our campaign at this moment as a conduit for public service.
” When the month started , Lopez ’ s volunteers were talking to voters at subway stops and door-knocking every day .
She ’ d started looking for a permanent campaign office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ days before Gov .
Andrew Cuomo suspended petition-gathering in the state .
( He ’ s since reduced the number of signatures needed . )
Since then , she and her staff have spent the days since calling up volunteers and voters to check in and focusing on “ mutual aid ” in their neighborhoods .
Right now , her campaign office is her apartment .
A few miles up the road , in the 16th District , Jamaal Bowman , a public school principal from Yonkers who is challenging Democratic Rep. Eliot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a walk with his kids , multitasking his campaign work with child care .
In-person campaigning had shut down early for him too ; the state put another city in the district , New Rochelle , on lockdown a few days earlier .
He knew the writing was on the wall when he ’ d try to talk to voters .
“ I was going up to people and they weren ’ t really comfortable talking , ” he said .
That night , he was logging in to a chat session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the Sunrise Movement , the youth-driven climate action group .
When I spoke with Scholten last week , he was still figuring out what to do next .
He ’ d held his last public event on March 11 after turning in his nominating papers to the Iowa secretary of state and was planning his first virtual town hall .
He ’ d lined up an Iowa epidemiologist and a former US senator from the farm belt , Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota , to answer questions on health and policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such events accessible presents a new set of challenges .
Scholten settled on using Google Hangouts for now— ” Zoom you have to download , and that will probably turn off a lot of people there , ” he said .
Scholten ’ s campaign had previously placed a premium on meeting voters where they are , in intimate town halls held in small farm towns .
He told supporters that if 70 percent of voters either met him personally ; saw his RV , “ Sioux City Sue ” ; or had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mile of their home , he ’ d win .
For now , Iowans can ’ t do any of those things .
But those interactions weren ’ t just his preferred way of reaching voters ; it also shaped his messaging .
“ This is the time farmers are meeting with their bankers , and so I really wanted to get out there and hear what ’ s on the ground , ” he said .
If there was a silver lining , it was a logistical one .
With “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues over the winter , he ’ d run his own car into the ground too .
“ Now is a good time to get it fixed , ” he said .
“ I was gon na make a few phone calls today .
”

In the fall of 1920, Warren G. Harding won the biggest popular-vote landslide in history without ever holding a rally. Instead of hitting the trail, the Republican nominee let the campaign come to him. About once a day, Harding emerged from his home in Marion, Ohio, to address a small crowd of voters and reporters, who wrote up his remarks for their readers across the country. A multimillion-dollar advertising budget took care of the rest. Harding’s “front-porch campaign” was a product of its time—a more dignified manner of politicking in an age when traditional campaigning was sometimes seen as gauche. (When Democrat William Jennings Bryan went on tour in 1896, one critic said he was “begging for the Presidency as a tramp might beg for a pie.”)
But a century later, the long-distance campaign is back by default. The coronavirus has shut down political campaigning—and virtually everything else. Neither former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, nor Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has held in-person events with voters since before the March 10 Michigan primary. President Trump has canceled his rallies for the foreseeable future. Candidates at all levels across the country are adapting and experimenting on the fly, as they wrestle with how to engage supporters, persuade voters, and raise money when many Americans are stuck inside, sick, or out of work. Biden greets his grandkids from his front porch; he’s greeting voters from his basement.
“I’m not sure anybody really knows what a completely virtual and online campaign really looks like and anybody who says they do is lying,” said Addisu Demissie, a Democratic operative who managed New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker’s presidential campaign.
And that’s really the only sure thing right now: For the time being, whatever happens is going to have to happen remotely. When Sanders’ campaign announced ahead of last Tuesday’s primaries in Arizona, Florida, and Illinois that it would not undertake any traditional get-out-the-vote efforts, it was merely codifying what was already happening. Campaigns have quit door-knocking, petition-gathering, and holding in-person town halls and rallies. Now they’re figuring out how to fill the void.
“Most campaigns are small businesses. And they are gonna feel the crunch in an entirely different way because they’re entirely funded by voluntary donations. Are they gonna be able to hire? Are they gonna be able to write any sort of plan based on predicting the future when you can’t predict what’s gonna happen tomorrow?”
Getting in front of a camera is probably the easiest problem to solve, at least from a technical standpoint. Trump, of course, can get on TV whenever he wants and has turned his daily briefings on the pandemic into freewheeling campaign-style riffs. Sanders has invested for years in virtual events; since going to ground, he’s held “fireside chats” in front of a wood stove at his Burlington home; filmed short messages from his back yard; and brought in key surrogates for a Hollywood Squares–style split-screen conversation on the pandemic.
Biden started off on shakier footing. At a fundraiser on Sunday (held via teleconference) one donor said they were “concerned” that “we see Donald Trump every day with this crisis,” asking the candidate, “How do we get more of you and less of him on our airwaves?” Campaign aides initially told ABC that his home’s low ceilings made it difficult to get good-enough light. But by Monday morning he had a studio in his game room, fully optimized for TV hits and livestreams.
A bigger challenge for candidates is figuring out how to do all the other things that in-person gatherings are designed to accomplish—rallies, for instance, are important organizing efforts, a chance for the campaign to gauge how it’s doing, collect information on thousands of voters, sign up volunteers, and forge connections with targeted communities.
“What we’re gonna lose is some of the connection to less-engaged voters—someone who isn’t really following the election but their more-engaged friend brings them to a campaign event,” said Zack Malitz, a Texas-based Democratic consultant who ran Beto O’Rourke’s field program during his 2018 Texas Senate run. Bringing a friend to go see the Strokes is easy; getting them to join a campaign call on Zoom is trickier. That speaks to a broader problem: maintaining the sense of community that binds large volunteer networks together. Campaigns thrive in social spaces—coffee shops and campaign offices and living rooms (to say nothing of front doors). Translating that to a laptop takes effort.
Without retail politics and in-person events, candidates will have to find other ways to reach voters, too. You might get a lot more phone calls, for one thing. “Just because people can’t talk face to face doesn’t mean they can’t talk person to person,” Malitz said. Social distancing will put a premium on things like peer-to-peer texting, “relational organizing” (in which supporters mine their lists of friends and family to spread the good word), and phone banking.
“I think some candidates will make a lot more phone calls directly to voters, especially in small down-ballot races,” Malitz said.
He pointed to field research showing that a one-on-one conversation with a candidate was the most powerful way to persuade a voter—more than an advertisement or speaking with a volunteer. And with most of the country staying home, the odds of actually reaching someone on the phone have gone way up.
“So you can see certain campaign operations that have lots of volunteers making phone calls to voters to identify supporters, and then the candidate following up with the undecided voters to have persuasion conversations with them,” Malitz said.
One area where candidates are struggling to adapt to the new normal of campaigning is fundraising. J.D. Scholten, a Democrat running against Rep. Steve King in Iowa’s 4th Congressional District, told me he’d canceled several big fundraisers ahead of the March 31 quarterly deadline and was squeamish about asking small-dollar donors for money at a time when businesses are shutting down en masse. (Instead, like other candidates, he’d used his fundraising list to raise money for local charities.)
“We’re trying to figure out how to do that but also in a very respectful way because there’s a lot of people losing their jobs,” he said. “There’s a way to do it tastefully and a way to do it poorly.”
Last Thursday, the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign, following in the footsteps of Biden and the DNC, announced they would halt all planned fundraisers and instead raise money online and via virtual events. Sanders does not hold in-person fundraisers, but he recently used his email list to raise $2 million for various charities.
This is typically a time in the election cycle when campaigns that have already made it through their primaries might go relatively quiet and concentrate their energy on raising and saving lots of money so they can build out quickly in the months to come. Now, there’s a lot less money coming in and no sense of what the next few months will even look like.
“Most campaigns are small businesses,” Demissie said. “And they are gonna feel the crunch in an entirely different way because they’re entirely funded by voluntary donations. Are they gonna be able to hire? Are they gonna be able to write any sort of plan based on predicting the future when you can’t predict what’s gonna happen tomorrow?”
All of this—the uncertainty, the austerity, the emphasis on digital work—means that campaigns will have to get more out of less.
“The people who are gonna solve this problem are gonna be the 23-year-old digital staffer and the 25-year-old fundraising staffer,” Demissie predicted. “This is a time for people who live their life online to shine.”
Biden, Sanders, and Trump are at least starting from a position of near-universal name recognition, with broad coalitions of supporters, volunteers, and donors. As my colleague Kara Voght reported, the social distancing measures present a unique challenge to candidates down-ballot who are still in the process of introducing themselves to the electorate.
Nowhere is that felt more acutely than the New York City metro area, home to 5 percent of all global coronavirus cases and—unlike other places where the virus has hit hard, such as California, Illinois, and Washington state—a crowded slate of congressional primaries still to come on June 23.
In the 15th Congressional District in the Bronx, so many Democrats are running to replace the retiring Rep. José Serrano they could field a baseball team. Last week, one of those candidates, City Council member Ritchie Torres, announced he had tested positive for the virus and would be spending two weeks in isolation. Another candidate, Samelys Lopez, a community organizer who has been endorsed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, told me she was “basically using our campaign at this moment as a conduit for public service.”
When the month started, Lopez’s volunteers were talking to voters at subway stops and door-knocking every day. She’d started looking for a permanent campaign office. But Lopez sent her team a few days before Gov. Andrew Cuomo suspended petition-gathering in the state. (He’s since reduced the number of signatures needed.) Since then, she and her staff have spent the days since calling up volunteers and voters to check in and focusing on “mutual aid” in their neighborhoods. Right now, her campaign office is her apartment.
A few miles up the road, in the 16th District, Jamaal Bowman, a public school principal from Yonkers who is challenging Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel in the primary, was going for a walk with his kids, multitasking his campaign work with child care. In-person campaigning had shut down early for him too; the state put another city in the district, New Rochelle, on lockdown a few days earlier. He knew the writing was on the wall when he’d try to talk to voters. “I was going up to people and they weren’t really comfortable talking,” he said. That night, he was logging in to a chat session on Zoom with a dozen or so members of the Sunrise Movement, the youth-driven climate action group.
When I spoke with Scholten last week, he was still figuring out what to do next. He’d held his last public event on March 11 after turning in his nominating papers to the Iowa secretary of state and was planning his first virtual town hall. He’d lined up an Iowa epidemiologist and a former US senator from the farm belt, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, to answer questions on health and policy. In an aging district, making such events accessible presents a new set of challenges. Scholten settled on using Google Hangouts for now—”Zoom you have to download, and that will probably turn off a lot of people there,” he said.
Scholten’s campaign had previously placed a premium on meeting voters where they are, in intimate town halls held in small farm towns. He told supporters that if 70 percent of voters either met him personally; saw his RV, “Sioux City Sue”; or had an opportunity to attend an event within a mile of their home, he’d win. For now, Iowans can’t do any of those things. But those interactions weren’t just his preferred way of reaching voters; it also shaped his messaging. “This is the time farmers are meeting with their bankers, and so I really wanted to get out there and hear what’s on the ground,” he said.
If there was a silver lining, it was a logistical one. With “Sioux City Sue” sidelined with exhaust issues over the winter, he’d run his own car into the ground too.
“Now is a good time to get it fixed,” he said. “I was gonna make a few phone calls today.”


motherjones--2020-03-27--How the Coronavirus Brought Chain Mail Back to the Mainstream

Being cooped up at home to slow the spread of coronavirus is forcing a lot of us to grapple with new technologies .
To fight isolation , friends have turned to “ Netflix Party , ” a browser extension that lets people sync their computers to watch movies or TV together .
Offices are using video conferencing tools like Zoom and Google Hangouts to run remote meetings .
Shut-ins are using the same apps to hold virtual happy hours .
Mourners are using them to hold funerals .
But aside from spreading new technologies , the coronavirus has brought back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chain mail .
Chain messages warning that cities will be shut down , saying martial law will be imposed , or promoting hoax preventative measures have spread far and wide in the last several weeks , not just on bulletin boards and social media , but through text messages and emails .
Their original sources are unknown , and the information they pass along is usually misleading or outright wrong—just like the postal nuisance chain mail of old .
For a minute in the 2010s , it seemed like the scourge of chain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmful kind , had been nearly vanquished .
The medium was long past its heyday in the 90s and early 2000s , and the chain messages that still went around were mostly relegated to aging baby boomers , seemingly fated to die when they did .
Even though they ’ re not passed around as much , hobby archivists have preserved our chain mail history , including emails promising fabulous wealth or the potential to avoid injury or death .
On a website that appears to have last been updated in 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 1990s internet before people used colors or images , independent researcher Daniel W. VanArsdale keeps a collection of chain letters going as far back as 1917 , along with papers he ’ s written on related subjects .
Another 90s-looking site indexing chain mail is run by Donald Watrous , a systems programmer at Rutgers University .
“ If you have always dreamed of getting that lucky break , you just got it !
” reads one 1999 example of paper chain mail documented in VanArsdale ’ s collection , purportedly from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you follow these instructions exactly , in good faith , your dreams will come true…in 20 to 60 days , you would receive more cash than you would believe , all in the mail !
” The timing suggests this likely illegal physical chain letter could have been one of the last of its kind .
Even prior to its circulation just before the turn of the millennium , chain messages were already starting to migrate to email , where the barriers to creating and spreading them widely were lower .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s archive opens with ; “ Folks , I called Disney my damn self .
It ’ s no lie .
GET IT DONE !
You all owe me.
” “ If you read below you will see the note from Walt Disney Jr. & Management at Disney World .
Basically if this messages reaches 13,000 people , everyone will receive $ 5,000.00 or a free , all expenses paid , trip to Disney World in anytime during the summer of 1999 , ” it continues .
How does Disney know where to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Via a supposed “ Bill Gates ’ Beta Email Tracking ” system deployed by Disney in partnership with Microsoft that “ tracks everyone to whom this message is forwarded.
” There ’ s no way a medium based on such absurd premises could keep going .
While the internet enabled the easy spread of such messages , it also provided the ability to verify or debunk information by opening a new tab and pressing a few keys .
And they didn ’ t keep going .
While fact-checking doesn ’ t always stem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly indicates—in the case of the simple and obviously outlandish lies of chain emails , it seemed to work .
With the rise of Snopes and other myth-busting sites , email chains mostly faded , consigned to older , less-tech literate generations .
The chain mail that remained and circulated outside the geriatric crowd is usually tongue in cheek , like extremely lewd , and emoji-laden viral texts—irony soaked messages meant to spread a joke , not deceive .
But like any other gross and opportunistic virus chain mail never entirely died , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the messages evolved and kept going on new platforms .
Back in 2013 , John Herrman explained for BuzzFeed News how Facebook helped a new heartwarming strain of chain mail thrive : “ For a casual Facebook user , verifying a post and sharing it are both easier than ever before .
But one of those two things is still significantly easier than the other , and Facebook ’ s rewards system favors the latter.
” Posts with titles like “ THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL LIFE LESSON ” and “ This man found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to health .
You HAVE to read what he wrote ” spread far and fast .
They weren ’ t like older chain mail stories promising the recipient would be murdered or haunted if it wasn ’ t forwarded—a style to which most people had become desensitized .
Like the forms before it , heartwarming chain mail and Facebook posts fell back , and chain messages again mostly went into hibernation .
The most prominent exception was a rash of Facebook posts across the last decade where users seemed to believe that copying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not give Facebook permission… ” would protect their data and constitute a legally binding agreement with the company .
This copypasta—a recirculated and replicated messageboard post roughly equivalent to chain mail—infected Facebook , duping even supposedly tech-savvy millennials .
Another copy pasta from 2016 claimed to be in the name of Dakota Access Pipeline protestors and asked Facebook users to , from the comfort of their own homes , “ check-in at Standing Rock , ND to overwhelm and confuse ” law enforcement trying to surveil protestors through social media and urged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But potentially harmful chain messages have gotten a massive second wind this year , as it became clear that America wouldn ’ t be able to dodge the coronavirus which had been ravaging China , Iran , and Italy .
Almost two weeks ago , when people started realizing the scale of the threat and mobbing grocery stores in response , a hoax message went viral from someone who claimed to be friends of friends with someone at the New York Police Department saying that parts of the city ’ s transportation network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Ben Collins chronicled how other false text messages warning of martial law surged nationwide .
As early as January , even , before it became apparent that the coronavirus would affect the U.S. at scale , copypasta hit the internet from someone claiming to know someone at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , urging tips to combat the coronavirus , including the unsubstantiated advice that frequently drinking water would curb the virus .
That message eventually ended up in my colleague Rebecca Leber ’ s inbox in March , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chain email .
The Facebook permissions and Dakota Access pipeline copypastas show people eager to share chain messages about their fear of real things and that mesh with a desire to make the world a better place .
Coronavirus chain mail has taken advantage of both instincts .
“ It ’ s playing off people ’ s goodwill to share information with loved ones and protect one another , ” says Joan Donovan , director of the Harvard Shorenstein Center ’ s Technology and Social Change Research Project .
This has basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or any other social engineering project designed to exploit human psychology , like phishing or other scams .
Old chain mail threatening supernatural harm or bad luck or promise riches was trying to capitalize on people ’ s sense of fear or opportunity .
If we didn ’ t share the message , we thought there was a chance we might we ’ d be killed by the ghost of a small girl or miss out Bill Gates sharing his fortune .
We may have recognized it was a small chance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given the negligible downside risk .
Or , as Bijan Stephen distills it for The Verge : “ The appeal of chain letters is about control : By forwarding them we allow ourselves to believe that we can command the future .
Or at least ward off the worst.
” That ’ s where we are with the coronavirus .
We don ’ t know a lot about it .
Scientists don ’ t even know that much yet .
People are ready to grasp at anything to feel like might make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to pass on whatever they learn too .
In this ‘ I ’ ll believe anything and spread it ’ phase , sharing the messages can give fleeting hope of gaining some control over a situation that feels uncontrollable .
It ’ s why even CVS ’ s chief medical officer sent coronavirus misinformation to the entire company that came straight out of a Facebook chain copypasta , its why people keep passing around fake information about how drinking water ever 10 or so minutes will help ward off the virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now is just generally out of control .
The premise of a lot of old , dumb chain mail was that if you forwarded it , you ’ d keep yourself or your mom from dying .
The sell for newly mainstream coronavirus chain mail is the same : If it were true , it could literally keep you or your mom from dying .

Being cooped up at home to slow the spread of coronavirus is forcing a lot of us to grapple with new technologies. To fight isolation, friends have turned to “Netflix Party,” a browser extension that lets people sync their computers to watch movies or TV together. Offices are using video conferencing tools like Zoom and Google Hangouts to run remote meetings. Shut-ins are using the same apps to hold virtual happy hours. Mourners are using them to hold funerals. But aside from spreading new technologies, the coronavirus has brought back at least one nearly forgotten one: chain mail.
Harmful chain messages have gotten a massive second wind.
Chain messages warning that cities will be shut down, saying martial law will be imposed, or promoting hoax preventative measures have spread far and wide in the last several weeks, not just on bulletin boards and social media, but through text messages and emails. Their original sources are unknown, and the information they pass along is usually misleading or outright wrong—just like the postal nuisance chain mail of old.
For a minute in the 2010s, it seemed like the scourge of chain mail, or at least most the harmful kind, had been nearly vanquished. The medium was long past its heyday in the 90s and early 2000s, and the chain messages that still went around were mostly relegated to aging baby boomers, seemingly fated to die when they did.
Even though they’re not passed around as much, hobby archivists have preserved our chain mail history, including emails promising fabulous wealth or the potential to avoid injury or death. On a website that appears to have last been updated in 2019, but looks like it’s from a 1990s internet before people used colors or images, independent researcher Daniel W. VanArsdale keeps a collection of chain letters going as far back as 1917, along with papers he’s written on related subjects. Another 90s-looking site indexing chain mail is run by Donald Watrous, a systems programmer at Rutgers University.
“If you have always dreamed of getting that lucky break, you just got it!” reads one 1999 example of paper chain mail documented in VanArsdale’s collection, purportedly from a person named David Rhodes. “If you follow these instructions exactly, in good faith, your dreams will come true…in 20 to 60 days, you would receive more cash than you would believe, all in the mail!”
The timing suggests this likely illegal physical chain letter could have been one of the last of its kind. Even prior to its circulation just before the turn of the millennium, chain messages were already starting to migrate to email, where the barriers to creating and spreading them widely were lower. An outlandish 1998 email one in Watrous’s archive opens with; “Folks, I called Disney my damn self. It’s no lie. GET IT DONE! You all owe me.”
Chain mail threatening supernatural harm or bad luck was capitalized on people’s sense of fear.
“If you read below you will see the note from Walt Disney Jr. & Management at Disney World. Basically if this messages reaches 13,000 people, everyone will receive $5,000.00 or a free, all expenses paid, trip to Disney World in anytime during the summer of 1999,” it continues. How does Disney know where to distribute the money and park visits? Via a supposed “Bill Gates’ Beta Email Tracking” system deployed by Disney in partnership with Microsoft that “tracks everyone to whom this message is forwarded.”
There’s no way a medium based on such absurd premises could keep going. While the internet enabled the easy spread of such messages, it also provided the ability to verify or debunk information by opening a new tab and pressing a few keys. And they didn’t keep going. While fact-checking doesn’t always stem the spread of misinformation—as our current era clearly indicates—in the case of the simple and obviously outlandish lies of chain emails, it seemed to work. With the rise of Snopes and other myth-busting sites, email chains mostly faded, consigned to older, less-tech literate generations. The chain mail that remained and circulated outside the geriatric crowd is usually tongue in cheek, like extremely lewd, and emoji-laden viral texts—irony soaked messages meant to spread a joke, not deceive.
But like any other gross and opportunistic virus chain mail never entirely died, and such texts were only one way the messages evolved and kept going on new platforms. Back in 2013, John Herrman explained for BuzzFeed News how Facebook helped a new heartwarming strain of chain mail thrive: “For a casual Facebook user, verifying a post and sharing it are both easier than ever before. But one of those two things is still significantly easier than the other, and Facebook’s rewards system favors the latter.”
Posts with titles like “THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL LIFE LESSON” and “This man found a dying dog and nursed it back to health. You HAVE to read what he wrote” spread far and fast. They weren’t like older chain mail stories promising the recipient would be murdered or haunted if it wasn’t forwarded—a style to which most people had become desensitized.
“By forwarding them we allow ourselves to believe that we can command the future.”
Like the forms before it, heartwarming chain mail and Facebook posts fell back, and chain messages again mostly went into hibernation. The most prominent exception was a rash of Facebook posts across the last decade where users seemed to believe that copying and pasting texts beginning with “I do not give Facebook permission…” would protect their data and constitute a legally binding agreement with the company. This copypasta—a recirculated and replicated messageboard post roughly equivalent to chain mail—infected Facebook, duping even supposedly tech-savvy millennials. Another copy pasta from 2016 claimed to be in the name of Dakota Access Pipeline protestors and asked Facebook users to, from the comfort of their own homes, “check-in at Standing Rock, ND to overwhelm and confuse” law enforcement trying to surveil protestors through social media and urged people to pass the message on.
But potentially harmful chain messages have gotten a massive second wind this year, as it became clear that America wouldn’t be able to dodge the coronavirus which had been ravaging China, Iran, and Italy. Almost two weeks ago, when people started realizing the scale of the threat and mobbing grocery stores in response, a hoax message went viral from someone who claimed to be friends of friends with someone at the New York Police Department saying that parts of the city’s transportation network would be “shutting down.” NBC’s Ben Collins chronicled how other false text messages warning of martial law surged nationwide. As early as January, even, before it became apparent that the coronavirus would affect the U.S. at scale, copypasta hit the internet from someone claiming to know someone at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, urging tips to combat the coronavirus, including the unsubstantiated advice that frequently drinking water would curb the virus. That message eventually ended up in my colleague Rebecca Leber’s inbox in March, suggesting that it later circulated widely as a chain email.
The Facebook permissions and Dakota Access pipeline copypastas show people eager to share chain messages about their fear of real things and that mesh with a desire to make the world a better place. Coronavirus chain mail has taken advantage of both instincts. “It’s playing off people’s goodwill to share information with loved ones and protect one another,” says Joan Donovan, director of the Harvard Shorenstein Center’s Technology and Social Change Research Project.
“It’s playing off people’s goodwill to share information.”
This has basically always been the formula for chain mail, or any other social engineering project designed to exploit human psychology, like phishing or other scams. Old chain mail threatening supernatural harm or bad luck or promise riches was trying to capitalize on people’s sense of fear or opportunity. If we didn’t share the message, we thought there was a chance we might we’d be killed by the ghost of a small girl or miss out Bill Gates sharing his fortune. We may have recognized it was a small chance, but forwarding the message was worth it, given the negligible downside risk. Or, as Bijan Stephen distills it for The Verge: “The appeal of chain letters is about control: By forwarding them we allow ourselves to believe that we can command the future. Or at least ward off the worst.”
That’s where we are with the coronavirus. We don’t know a lot about it. Scientists don’t even know that much yet. People are ready to grasp at anything to feel like might make them safer, and they’re willing to pass on whatever they learn too. In this ‘I’ll believe anything and spread it’ phase, sharing the messages can give fleeting hope of gaining some control over a situation that feels uncontrollable.
It’s why even CVS’s chief medical officer sent coronavirus misinformation to the entire company that came straight out of a Facebook chain copypasta, its why people keep passing around fake information about how drinking water ever 10 or so minutes will help ward off the virus. and it’s why viral misinformation right now is just generally out of control.
The premise of a lot of old, dumb chain mail was that if you forwarded it, you’d keep yourself or your mom from dying. The sell for newly mainstream coronavirus chain mail is the same: If it were true, it could literally keep you or your mom from dying.


motherjones--2020-03-27--Beyond Narcissism, Trump’s Other Personality Flaws Are Putting Americans at Risk

Throughout the coronavirus crisis , critics of Donald Trump have repeatedly referenced his profound and outrageous narcissism .
It was partly this pathology that led Trump to downplay the threat and resist widespread testing for weeks .
An honest acknowledgement of the mounting problem and a rising number of positive tests would inconvenience his reelection prospects .
For a narcissist , the most immediate personal need is the most important one .
So Trump viewed the burgeoning crisis as a threat to him , not the nation , and he took the steps he usually does in so many circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he knew better than the experts , and relied on bluster and BS .
He did all that instead of adopting early measures that could have slowed the transmission of the virus .
But beyond the narcissism , two other fundamental elements of Trump ’ s character are likely shaping his response : his obsession with revenge and his sense of fatalism .
And both are exceedingly dangerous for the American public .
Trump has long acknowledged his love affair with revenge .
Before Trump ran for president , he often gave speeches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the top of that list was his devotion to retribution .
In 2011 , he told the National Achievers Congress in Sydney , Australia , that there were several lessons not taught in business school that successful people must know .
And one of those lessons was this : “ Get even with people .
If they screw you , screw them back 10 times as hard .
I really believe that.
” In a 2012 speech , he offered another version of this : One of the things you should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somebody hits you , you ’ ve got to hit ’ em back five times harder than they ever thought possible .
You ’ ve got to get even .
Get even .
And the reason , the reason you do , is so important…The reason you do , you have to do it , because if they do that to you , you have to leave a telltale sign that they just can ’ t take advantage of you .
It ’ s not so much for the person , which does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honest with you , I ’ ve done it many times .
But other people watch and you know they say , “ Well , let ’ s leave Trump alone , ” or “ Let ’ s leave this one , ” or “ Doris , let ’ s leave her alone .
They fight too hard.
” I say it , and it ’ s so important .
You have to , you have to hit back .
You have to hit back .
In a 2007 speech , he noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s called ‘ Get Even.
’ Get even .
This isn ’ t your typical business speech .
Get even .
What this is is a real business speech .
You know in all fairness to Wharton , I love ’ em , but they teach you some stuff that ’ s a lot of bullshit .
When you ’ re in business , you get even with people that screw you .
And you screw them 15 times harder.
” Revenge .
It ’ s often on Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fixated on smiting his enemies , real or imagined .
In an undated video , he once declared , “ I really believe in trashing your enemies.
” And he has proudly tweeted about his embrace of revenge , quoting Alfred Hitchcock on the subject ( “ Revenge is sweet and not fattening ” ) and declaring , “ ‘ Always get even .
When you are in business , you need to get even with people who screw you.
’ – Think Big.
” During the coronavirus pandemic , Trump has employed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foes in the media and the political world .
He has exploded at reporters who have dared pose tough questions about his response .
He even lashed out at a journalist who tossed him a softball .
Trump posted a nasty tweet about Mitt Romney , the only Republican senator who voted to convict Trump at his impeachment trial , when Romney tested negative for the coronavirus .
More disturbing , Trump has applied his get-even rule to his dealings with governors confronting the crisis .
After Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be more successful if the Trump administration stuck to the science and told the truth , ” Trump struck back .
While visiting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , he huffed , “ I told Mike [ Pence ] not to be complimentary of that governor because that governor is a snake .
So Mike may be happy with him but I ’ m not , OK ?
” That was Trump getting even .
And when Gov .
Andrew Cuomo of New York noted that the federal government only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed 30,000 , Trump responded with a threat .
He told Fox , “ It ’ s a two-way street , they have to treat us well also.
” Here Trump was suggesting that complaints from Cuomo would be met with vengeance , presumably the withholding of assistance .
( It was Trump ’ s pursuit of revenge that partly landed him in the Ukraine scandal that led to his impeachment .
When Trump pressured the new Ukrainian president for bogus investigations , he was looking for information that would allow him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without good reason , had secretly intervened in the 2016 election to thwart him . )
The revenge-is-sweet wrath of Trump should not be a factor in how the federal government handles the coronavirus .
But with a thin-skinned , can-never-rise-above-it president who is always bent on revenge at the helm , the government ’ s actions could well be influenced and hindered by this psychological addiction of his .
As Trump openly threatened , if he is not treated kindly by those dealing with the horrific nightmare underway , he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember , per Trump ’ s own top rule for success , you have to screw them more than they screwed you .
Over the years , Trump has also exhibited a troubling fatalism .
This has primarily been in regard to the possibility of nuclear war .
In a 1990 interview with Playboy , he was asked to describe his “ longer-term views of the future.
” Trump replied , “ I think of the future , but I refuse to paint it .
Anything can happen .
But I often think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he thought nuclear war was inevitable : “ I believe the greatest of all stupidities is people ’ s believing it will never happen…What bullshit.
” In other interviews , Trump has indicated nuclear war was likely to occur .
On one occasion , he noted that because of this he preferred to “ really live very much for the present.
” In a 2004 interview—again with Playboy—Trump was asked , “ Do you think Trump Tower and your other buildings will bear your name a hundred years from now ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ No , I don ’ t think so…I don ’ t think any building will be here—and unless we have some very smart people ruling it , the world will not be the same place in a hundred years .
The weapons are too powerful , too strong.
” The odds are , Trump was saying , that the world would be destroyed .
That ’ s Trump on the subject of nuclear war not a global pandemic .
These remarks , though , do suggest Trump nurtures an overall sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he views the crisis at hand ?
In recent days , he has blithely talked about soon encouraging people to return to work and normal life , even though public health experts say this will lead to a greater spread of the virus and tens of thousands additional deaths .
Trump , however , has raised this troubling notion with a que-sera-sera attitude , insisting this course of action would be best to rescue the collapsing economy .
His message has been a fatalistic one : Hey , we just have to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can start working and shopping again .
If you believe the world won ’ t survive another 100 years , that could well make sense .
Trump asserts he is a “ wartime president.
” But an effective commander in chief at war needs to possess certain qualities .
He must be able to put national interests ahead of his own .
He must unite a nation and transcend political rivalries .
He must motivate the citizenry and inspire bravery , resilience , and hope .
A narcissist fixated on revenge who holds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future is not the man for the job .
Trump does not have the necessary psychological tools for this mission .
To the extent this nation survives the coronavirus attack , it will be because governors , mayors , other local officials , and courageous first responders and front-line health care workers beat back the virus and save those American lives they can .
Trump can not be the wartime president Americans require at this horrific moment .
He ’ s not that kind of human being .

Throughout the coronavirus crisis, critics of Donald Trump have repeatedly referenced his profound and outrageous narcissism. It was partly this pathology that led Trump to downplay the threat and resist widespread testing for weeks. An honest acknowledgement of the mounting problem and a rising number of positive tests would inconvenience his reelection prospects. For a narcissist, the most immediate personal need is the most important one. So Trump viewed the burgeoning crisis as a threat to him, not the nation, and he took the steps he usually does in so many circumstances: He denied the threat, claimed he knew better than the experts, and relied on bluster and BS. He did all that instead of adopting early measures that could have slowed the transmission of the virus.
But beyond the narcissism, two other fundamental elements of Trump’s character are likely shaping his response: his obsession with revenge and his sense of fatalism. And both are exceedingly dangerous for the American public.
Trump has long acknowledged his love affair with revenge. Before Trump ran for president, he often gave speeches sharing the supposed secrets to his success. At the top of that list was his devotion to retribution. In 2011, he told the National Achievers Congress in Sydney, Australia, that there were several lessons not taught in business school that successful people must know. And one of those lessons was this: “Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe that.”
In a 2012 speech, he offered another version of this:
One of the things you should do in terms of success: If somebody hits you, you’ve got to hit ’em back five times harder than they ever thought possible. You’ve got to get even. Get even. And the reason, the reason you do, is so important…The reason you do, you have to do it, because if they do that to you, you have to leave a telltale sign that they just can’t take advantage of you. It’s not so much for the person, which does make you feel good, to be honest with you, I’ve done it many times. But other people watch and you know they say, “Well, let’s leave Trump alone,” or “Let’s leave this one,” or “Doris, let’s leave her alone. They fight too hard.” I say it, and it’s so important. You have to, you have to hit back. You have to hit back.
In a 2007 speech, he noted his first rule of business: “It’s called ‘Get Even.’ Get even. This isn’t your typical business speech. Get even. What this is is a real business speech. You know in all fairness to Wharton, I love ’em, but they teach you some stuff that’s a lot of bullshit. When you’re in business, you get even with people that screw you. And you screw them 15 times harder.”
Revenge. It’s often on Trump’s mind. He appears to be constantly fixated on smiting his enemies, real or imagined. In an undated video, he once declared, “I really believe in trashing your enemies.” And he has proudly tweeted about his embrace of revenge, quoting Alfred Hitchcock on the subject (“Revenge is sweet and not fattening”) and declaring, “‘Always get even. When you are in business, you need to get even with people who screw you.’ – Think Big.”
“Revenge is sweet and not fattening.” – Alfred Hitchcock — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2014
“Always get even. When you are in business, you need to get even with people who screw you.” – Think Big — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2013
During the coronavirus pandemic, Trump has employed his bully pulpit to slam his perceived foes in the media and the political world. He has exploded at reporters who have dared pose tough questions about his response. He even lashed out at a journalist who tossed him a softball. Trump posted a nasty tweet about Mitt Romney, the only Republican senator who voted to convict Trump at his impeachment trial, when Romney tested negative for the coronavirus.
More disturbing, Trump has applied his get-even rule to his dealings with governors confronting the crisis. After Washington Gov. Jay Inslee in late February said, “Our work would be more successful if the Trump administration stuck to the science and told the truth,” Trump struck back. While visiting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, he huffed, “I told Mike [Pence] not to be complimentary of that governor because that governor is a snake. So Mike may be happy with him but I’m not, OK?” That was Trump getting even. And when Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York noted that the federal government only sent his state 400 ventilators when it needed 30,000, Trump responded with a threat. He told Fox, “It’s a two-way street, they have to treat us well also.” Here Trump was suggesting that complaints from Cuomo would be met with vengeance, presumably the withholding of assistance. (It was Trump’s pursuit of revenge that partly landed him in the Ukraine scandal that led to his impeachment. When Trump pressured the new Ukrainian president for bogus investigations, he was looking for information that would allow him to retaliate against Ukrainian officials whom he believed, without good reason, had secretly intervened in the 2016 election to thwart him.)
The revenge-is-sweet wrath of Trump should not be a factor in how the federal government handles the coronavirus. But with a thin-skinned, can-never-rise-above-it president who is always bent on revenge at the helm, the government’s actions could well be influenced and hindered by this psychological addiction of his. As Trump openly threatened, if he is not treated kindly by those dealing with the horrific nightmare underway, he will hit back by withholding federal assistance. Remember, per Trump’s own top rule for success, you have to screw them more than they screwed you.
Over the years, Trump has also exhibited a troubling fatalism. This has primarily been in regard to the possibility of nuclear war. In a 1990 interview with Playboy, he was asked to describe his “longer-term views of the future.” Trump replied, “I think of the future, but I refuse to paint it. Anything can happen. But I often think of nuclear war.” He then explained that he thought nuclear war was inevitable: “I believe the greatest of all stupidities is people’s believing it will never happen…What bullshit.” In other interviews, Trump has indicated nuclear war was likely to occur. On one occasion, he noted that because of this he preferred to “really live very much for the present.”
In a 2004 interview—again with Playboy—Trump was asked, “Do you think Trump Tower and your other buildings will bear your name a hundred years from now?” Trump’s answer was chilling: “No, I don’t think so…I don’t think any building will be here—and unless we have some very smart people ruling it, the world will not be the same place in a hundred years. The weapons are too powerful, too strong.” The odds are, Trump was saying, that the world would be destroyed.
That’s Trump on the subject of nuclear war not a global pandemic. These remarks, though, do suggest Trump nurtures an overall sense of doom. And might that influence how he views the crisis at hand? In recent days, he has blithely talked about soon encouraging people to return to work and normal life, even though public health experts say this will lead to a greater spread of the virus and tens of thousands additional deaths. Trump, however, has raised this troubling notion with a que-sera-sera attitude, insisting this course of action would be best to rescue the collapsing economy. His message has been a fatalistic one: Hey, we just have to accept this tremendous amount of death so we can start working and shopping again. If you believe the world won’t survive another 100 years, that could well make sense.
Trump asserts he is a “wartime president.” But an effective commander in chief at war needs to possess certain qualities. He must be able to put national interests ahead of his own. He must unite a nation and transcend political rivalries. He must motivate the citizenry and inspire bravery, resilience, and hope. A narcissist fixated on revenge who holds a dark and apocalyptic view of the future is not the man for the job. Trump does not have the necessary psychological tools for this mission. To the extent this nation survives the coronavirus attack, it will be because governors, mayors, other local officials, and courageous first responders and front-line health care workers beat back the virus and save those American lives they can. Trump cannot be the wartime president Americans require at this horrific moment. He’s not that kind of human being.


motherjones--2020-03-26--We’re Tracking How Every State Is Responding to the Coronavirus

This article was last updated on March 27 .
As of March 17 , coronavirus cases have been officially reported in all 50 states .
State governments ’ responses to the pandemic have rolled out at different speeds and on a range of scales .
While all states have declared a state of emergency and nearly all have closed schools , limits on public gatherings and non-essential businesses are not universal .
These maps , built with data from the National Governor ’ s Association , American Enterprise Institute , and Mother Jones ‘ own research , track actions taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of the coronavirus .
We will update these maps as new data becomes available .
All 50 states , Puerto Rico , and Washington , DC , have declared a state of emergency .
Declaring a state of emergency means different things in different states .
For example , California ’ s emergency declaration includes provisions to prevent price gouging and allow out-of-state health care workers to work in the state , while Idaho ’ s declaration gives the governor flexibility to expedite the purchase of emergency supplies .
More than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home… Stay-at-home orders vary : Georgia ’ s is for the medically fragile only ; Oklahoma ’ s is for vulnerable populations only and puts a 10-person limit on gatherings for all others ; Pennsylvania ’ s is for 8 counties ; Nebraska ’ s limits apply to seven counties ; Florida has issued stay-at-home guidance for people over 65 years old .
Several states have asked residents to stay at home and minimize non-essential movement outside , while some states have tried to encourage social distancing with limits on the maximum size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Puerto Rico have postponed their upcoming primary elections , mostly to June .
Alaska , Wyoming and Hawaii are still going forward with primaries scheduled for April 4 , but have said they ’ re closely monitoring the situation .
Many states have required non-essential businesses to close .
States define non-essential businesses differently .
In Missouri , only casinos have been asked to shut down .
In Florida , gyms have been asked to shut down .
In Arizona and Oklahoma , non-essential businesses are closed only in counties with coronavirus cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many states prohibit workers to come into work at a non-essential business , encouraging telecommuting .
A majority of states have put limits on restaurants and bars More than half of all states have ordered restaurants and bars to end in-dining services .
Takeout and delivery services are still allowed .
A few states have asked residents to postpone elective surgeries .
States including Ohio and Texas have seized the opportunity to classify abortions as elective procedures .
A majority of states have restricted out-of-state travel for state employees .
Many states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and international work-related travel .
Some states have waived fees for coronavirus testing .

This article was last updated on March 27.
As of March 17, coronavirus cases have been officially reported in all 50 states. State governments’ responses to the pandemic have rolled out at different speeds and on a range of scales. While all states have declared a state of emergency and nearly all have closed schools, limits on public gatherings and non-essential businesses are not universal. These maps, built with data from the National Governor’s Association, American Enterprise Institute, and Mother Jones‘ own research, track actions taken at the state level to address the spread of the coronavirus.
We will update these maps as new data becomes available.
All 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, have declared a state of emergency.
Declaring a state of emergency means different things in different states. For example, California’s emergency declaration includes provisions to prevent price gouging and allow out-of-state health care workers to work in the state, while Idaho’s declaration gives the governor flexibility to expedite the purchase of emergency supplies.
More than a dozen states have told residents to stay home…
Stay-at-home orders vary: Georgia’s is for the medically fragile only; Oklahoma’s is for vulnerable populations only and puts a 10-person limit on gatherings for all others; Pennsylvania’s is for 8 counties; Nebraska’s limits apply to seven counties; Florida has issued stay-at-home guidance for people over 65 years old.
…but limits on social gatherings vary widely.
Several states have asked residents to stay at home and minimize non-essential movement outside, while some states have tried to encourage social distancing with limits on the maximum size of public gatherings.
Most states have closed schools
Nine states have postponed primary elections.
Nine states and Puerto Rico have postponed their upcoming primary elections, mostly to June. Alaska, Wyoming and Hawaii are still going forward with primaries scheduled for April 4, but have said they’re closely monitoring the situation.
Many states have required non-essential businesses to close.
States define non-essential businesses differently. In Missouri, only casinos have been asked to shut down. In Florida, gyms have been asked to shut down. In Arizona and Oklahoma, non-essential businesses are closed only in counties with coronavirus cases. In addition to closing non-essential businesses, many states prohibit workers to come into work at a non-essential business, encouraging telecommuting.
A majority of states have put limits on restaurants and bars
More than half of all states have ordered restaurants and bars to end in-dining services. Takeout and delivery services are still allowed.
A few states have asked residents to postpone elective surgeries.
States including Ohio and Texas have seized the opportunity to classify abortions as elective procedures.
A majority of states have restricted out-of-state travel for state employees.
Many states have asked state employees to restrict domestic and international work-related travel.
Some states have waived fees for coronavirus testing.


motherjones--2020-03-26--New Research Suggests the Coronavirus Probably Won’t Vanish in Warm Weather

A new report out yesterday from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ( ECDC ) —the EU ’ s equivalent of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—suggests that the coronavirus pandemic probably won ’ t just disappear in the summer months .
The report notes that other strains of coronaviruses , which cause about 10-15 percent of common colds , peak between December and April .
They mostly go away in the summer because humidity suppresses respiratory immune defense mechanisms , which means the viruses don ’ t lead to the debilitating respiratory symptoms from which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the research does not show that the same is true of the novel coronavirus that ’ s creating this pandemic .
[ B ] ased on preliminary analyses of the COVID-19 outbreak in China and other countries , high reproductive numbers were observed not only in dry and cold districts but also in tropical districts with high absolute humidity , such as in Guangxi and Singapore .
There is no evidence to date that SARS-CoV-2 will display a marked winter seasonality , such as other human coronaviruses in the northern hemisphere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures such as isolation of infected individuals , workplace distancing , and school closures .
This research flies in the face of the claims coming out of the Trump administration .
At President Trump ’ s Fox News coronavirus town hall on Tuesday , he sent the message that the coronavirus will abate in the spring months , saying it ’ s possible to have the country “ open by Easter.
” Later in the town hall , Deborah Birx , the response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force , made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : [ U ] ntil we get through this current pandemic , if it has seasonality , which we hope and believe it could , if it gets through this current season , it will be in everybody ’ s best interest to do as the President has recommended , our work on vaccines , our work on additional therapeutics and really getting to both pre and post prophylaxis .
So that the healthcare providers can get a shot potentially that will protect them , we would call it pre-exposure prophylaxis .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prepare us for the next season .
So we ’ re focused today on what we need today and to get through this current epidemic , and then we ’ re also getting prepared in case it comes back in the fall or in case it comes back in the fall of 2021 when we ’ d have a vaccine .
Anthony S. Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , shot back at President Trump ’ s “ Easter ” statement in an interview with CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ ve got to be realistic and you ’ ve got to understand that you don ’ t make the timeline , the virus makes the timeline , ” said Fauci .

A new report out yesterday from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)—the EU’s equivalent of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—suggests that the coronavirus pandemic probably won’t just disappear in the summer months.
The report notes that other strains of coronaviruses, which cause about 10-15 percent of common colds, peak between December and April. They mostly go away in the summer because humidity suppresses respiratory immune defense mechanisms, which means the viruses don’t lead to the debilitating respiratory symptoms from which people are dying.
But so far, the research does not show that the same is true of the novel coronavirus that’s creating this pandemic.
[B]ased on preliminary analyses of the COVID-19 outbreak in China and other countries, high reproductive numbers were observed not only in dry and cold districts but also in tropical districts with high absolute humidity, such as in Guangxi and Singapore. There is no evidence to date that SARS-CoV-2 will display a marked winter seasonality, such as other human coronaviruses in the northern hemisphere, which emphasises the importance of implementing intervention measures such as isolation of infected individuals, workplace distancing, and school closures.
This research flies in the face of the claims coming out of the Trump administration. At President Trump’s Fox News coronavirus town hall on Tuesday, he sent the message that the coronavirus will abate in the spring months, saying it’s possible to have the country “open by Easter.”
Trump can't seem to stop talking about his fantasy timeline for the coronavirus—even if it means contradicting his own administration. pic.twitter.com/LK12Dl0EWg — Mother Jones (@MotherJones) March 26, 2020
Later in the town hall, Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, made assumptions that this coronavirus will be seasonal:
[U]ntil we get through this current pandemic, if it has seasonality, which we hope and believe it could, if it gets through this current season, it will be in everybody’s best interest to do as the President has recommended, our work on vaccines, our work on additional therapeutics and really getting to both pre and post prophylaxis. So that the healthcare providers can get a shot potentially that will protect them, we would call it pre-exposure prophylaxis. All of those things are being worked on to prepare us for the next season. So we’re focused today on what we need today and to get through this current epidemic, and then we’re also getting prepared in case it comes back in the fall or in case it comes back in the fall of 2021 when we’d have a vaccine.
Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, shot back at President Trump’s “Easter” statement in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo yesterday.
“You’ve got to be realistic and you’ve got to understand that you don’t make the timeline, the virus makes the timeline,” said Fauci.