vox--2020-02-04--Live results for the special election to fill Rep. Elijah Cummings’s seat

The February 4 special primary election to fill the late Rep. Elijah Cummings ’ s congressional seat takes place Tuesday .
A total of 32 candidates are competing in Maryland ’ s Seventh District race : 24 Democrats and eight Republicans .
Cummings won the seat in 1996 and held it until his death in 2019 .
Now , his friends , allies , and family members are battling one another for the position .
The race is an unusual one , and not just because of the number of candidates running .
It presents what could be a once-in-a-generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Cummings held the seat for 24 years — and given that 81 percent of the district ’ s registered voters are Democrats , any Democratic candidate who wins the primary has essentially won the general election as well .
Polls close at 8 pm ET .
Live results , provided in partnership with Decision Desk HQ , are below : There are a few Democratic candidates considered to be the frontrunners , mainly based on their fundraising numbers , field operations , name recognition — or all three .
Cummings ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well known in the district both for being the lawmaker ’ s partner , but also from her stint as the chair of Maryland ’ s Democratic Party .
Kweisi Mfume actually once held the seat ; he left the House in 1996 in order to lead the NAACP .
But there are some fresher faces worth watching as well , including University of Baltimore professor F. Michael Higginbotham , who ’ s running a well-funded campaign thanks to loaning himself more than half a million dollars ; and state lawmakers Del .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ A wrinkle in all this is that Tuesday ’ s contest is a primary for a special election to be held April 28 , the same day the regular primary will be held for November ’ s congressional race .
The filing deadline for April ’ s primary was in January — that is , before the special primary election .
Which means whichever Democrat wins on Tuesday will have to face all 23 candidates they ’ ve just defeated in a second primary in order to keep the seat for the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the district is safely Democratic , Mileah Kromer , director of the Sarah T. Hughes Field Politics Center at Goucher College , told Vox there ’ s no incentive for the candidates who lose Tuesday to suspend their campaigns in the name of party unity .
“ There ’ s not really any indication at this point that the person who wins the special election , that the other people would then drop out and coalesce behind them , ” Kromer said .
So come Wednesday , we should know who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we won ’ t know for sure whether they ’ ll get to stay in Washington for the 117th Congress until April — and given what we know about the current state of the race , it ’ s possible one candidate may win the special election in April and another gets the seat in November .
We know almost nothing about this race Normally at this point in a crowded race — even a close one like the 2020 Democratic primary — we would have some frontrunners .
But in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s really hard to tell who ’ s doing well and who isn ’ t , because there ’ s been no public polling ( other than an unscientific online poll ) .
“ We ’ re all kind of flying blind here , ” Sophia Silbergeld , director at Adeo Advocacy , a Baltimore public affairs firm , told Vox .
To try to get a grasp on who the frontrunners are , experts have looked at campaign finance filings in order to see which candidates have done the best with fundraising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with most quick elections , down-ballot races , and other less publicized contests — the candidates voters are already most familiar with will have an advantage .
“ Name recognition matters , ” Kromer said .
“ It ’ s a big deal right now , especially for the special election , because the runway was just so short.
” Since Cummings ’ s death in October , candidates have had around three months to introduce themselves to voters .
The list of Democrats running is long : As is the list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these is Kimberly Klacik , given she created the viral videos about Baltimore that led President Donald Trump to attack Cummings as a “ brutal bully ” representing a “ disgusting , rat and rodent infested mess.
” Klacik has promised to be “ a stronger voice against socialism and the Squad , ” a group of four female progressive lawmakers , if she were to win .
But again , there ’ s virtually no chance of a Republican winning the seat .
Tuesday ’ s winner will face a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maryland Board of Election officials told Vox that Seventh District voters will be given two ballots on April 28 , one that features both local and federal primary candidates , and another for the special general election .
Officials have not yet worked out which will be presented first , but should the special ballot be presented first , voters may be influenced by seeing the same name twice .
This April election is expected to have high turnout , unlike the special primary election , and the large number of voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday ’ s could change the dynamics of the race — as could any scandals or shifts in momentum that occur between now and then .
It ’ s not impossible , then , that the Seventh District might send one Democrat to Washington for the rest of the year , and a different one next year .

The February 4 special primary election to fill the late Rep. Elijah Cummings’s congressional seat takes place Tuesday. A total of 32 candidates are competing in Maryland’s Seventh District race: 24 Democrats and eight Republicans.
Cummings won the seat in 1996 and held it until his death in 2019. Now, his friends, allies, and family members are battling one another for the position.
The race is an unusual one, and not just because of the number of candidates running. It presents what could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to represent the district in Washington — Cummings held the seat for 24 years — and given that 81 percent of the district’s registered voters are Democrats, any Democratic candidate who wins the primary has essentially won the general election as well.
Polls close at 8 pm ET. Live results, provided in partnership with Decision Desk HQ, are below:
The Democratic primary has been called for Kweisi Mfume. The Republican primary has been called for Kimberly Klacik.
There are a few Democratic candidates considered to be the frontrunners, mainly based on their fundraising numbers, field operations, name recognition — or all three.
Cummings’s widow, Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, is well known in the district both for being the lawmaker’s partner, but also from her stint as the chair of Maryland’s Democratic Party. Kweisi Mfume actually once held the seat; he left the House in 1996 in order to lead the NAACP.
But there are some fresher faces worth watching as well, including University of Baltimore professor F. Michael Higginbotham, who’s running a well-funded campaign thanks to loaning himself more than half a million dollars; and state lawmakers Del. Terri Hill and Sen. Jill Carter.
A wrinkle in all this is that Tuesday’s contest is a primary for a special election to be held April 28, the same day the regular primary will be held for November’s congressional race. The filing deadline for April’s primary was in January — that is, before the special primary election. Which means whichever Democrat wins on Tuesday will have to face all 23 candidates they’ve just defeated in a second primary in order to keep the seat for the full term at stake in November.
And given the district is safely Democratic, Mileah Kromer, director of the Sarah T. Hughes Field Politics Center at Goucher College, told Vox there’s no incentive for the candidates who lose Tuesday to suspend their campaigns in the name of party unity.
“There’s not really any indication at this point that the person who wins the special election, that the other people would then drop out and coalesce behind them,” Kromer said.
So come Wednesday, we should know who will finish out Cummings’s term. But we won’t know for sure whether they’ll get to stay in Washington for the 117th Congress until April — and given what we know about the current state of the race, it’s possible one candidate may win the special election in April and another gets the seat in November.
We know almost nothing about this race
Normally at this point in a crowded race — even a close one like the 2020 Democratic primary — we would have some frontrunners.
But in the Maryland Seventh District race, it’s really hard to tell who’s doing well and who isn’t, because there’s been no public polling (other than an unscientific online poll).
“We’re all kind of flying blind here,” Sophia Silbergeld, director at Adeo Advocacy, a Baltimore public affairs firm, told Vox.
To try to get a grasp on who the frontrunners are, experts have looked at campaign finance filings in order to see which candidates have done the best with fundraising, and have suggested that — as with most quick elections, down-ballot races, and other less publicized contests — the candidates voters are already most familiar with will have an advantage.
“Name recognition matters,” Kromer said. “It’s a big deal right now, especially for the special election, because the runway was just so short.”
Since Cummings’s death in October, candidates have had around three months to introduce themselves to voters. The list of Democrats running is long:
T. Dan Baker
Talmadge Branch
Alicia D. Brown
Anthony Carter, Sr.
Jill Carter
Matko Lee Chullin, III
Jay Fred Cohen
Nathaniel M. Costley, Sr.
Maya Rockeymoore Cummings
Jermyn Davidson
Darryla Gonzalez
Mark Steven Gosnell
Leslie E. Grant
Dan Hiegel
F. Michael Higginbotham
Terri Hill
Jay Jalisi
Paul V. Konka
Kweisi Mfume
Adrian Petrus
Saafir A. Rabb
Charles U. Smith
Harry Spikes
Charles Stokes
As is the list of Republican candidates. Perhaps the most notable of these is Kimberly Klacik, given she created the viral videos about Baltimore that led President Donald Trump to attack Cummings as a “brutal bully” representing a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.” Klacik has promised to be “a stronger voice against socialism and the Squad,” a group of four female progressive lawmakers, if she were to win. But again, there’s virtually no chance of a Republican winning the seat.
Tuesday’s winner will face a new challenge: surviving a second primary. Maryland Board of Election officials told Vox that Seventh District voters will be given two ballots on April 28, one that features both local and federal primary candidates, and another for the special general election. Officials have not yet worked out which will be presented first, but should the special ballot be presented first, voters may be influenced by seeing the same name twice.
This April election is expected to have high turnout, unlike the special primary election, and the large number of voters who come out for this contest but skipped Tuesday’s could change the dynamics of the race — as could any scandals or shifts in momentum that occur between now and then. It’s not impossible, then, that the Seventh District might send one Democrat to Washington for the rest of the year, and a different one next year.


vox--2020-02-04--Iowa Democratic caucuses: Live results

Iowa Democratic caucuses: Live results

At long last , the Iowa Democratic Party has begun reporting its 2020 caucus results .
After a delay of nearly a day since the caucuses took place , the state party posted results from 62 percent of precincts on Tuesday afternoon .
The delay in the count is highly unusual and has apparently been driven by a combination of technical difficulties and human error .
A poorly performing app for reporting results , a poorly staffed backup phone line for reporting results , and complicated new rules all seem to have played a role in the delay .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not given a timetable for when it will release the results from the remaining 38 percent of precincts .
There are three separate metrics to watch in these results .
The traditional way Iowa Democrats have determined who wins the Iowa caucuses is by state delegate equivalents .
This is essentially taking the final results of the 1,600-plus precinct caucuses — which conclude in allotting county convention delegates to candidates — and weighting them to estimate how many state delegates that would correspond to .
We ’ re displaying that number here as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re interested in understanding the math behind this in further detail , I have a longer explainer at this link .
So in this current count of state delegate equivalents , Pete Buttigieg has a narrow lead , with Bernie Sanders close behind .
Elizabeth Warren is a bit further back for third place , followed by Joe Biden in fourth and Amy Klobuchar in fifth .
( Remember , there are a great deal of precincts remaining to be counted and these results could certainly change . )
Now also , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa Democrats are releasing actual vote totals from the caucuses .
First , they will release the initial vote totals each candidate got at each precinct — added up for a statewide total .
This is the pre-realignment vote total , or Round 1 .
So it turns out that Sanders is in first place with a plurality of first-round votes .
Buttigieg and Warren are in second and third , with Biden and Klobuchar in fourth and fifth .
( And once again , these are not final vote totals and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
After that , at each caucus gathering , supporters of candidates who are viable — above a particular threshold ( 15 percent in most precincts ) — are locked in .
However , supporters of nonviable candidates then have the opportunity to realign and change their votes .
After this , we get the final vote total , displayed below .
As you can see , things changed a bit from the first tally .
Sanders is still in first place , but Buttigieg has gotten a lot closer — he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realignment , while Sanders gained 1.6 percentage points .
Warren gained nearly 2 percentage points as well , but Biden and Klobuchar both lost support .
( And , for the final time , these results are only partial and they will change as more precincts come in . )
So far , it ’ s too early to call a winner for any of these metrics .
What we are seeing is really that the caucuses were quite close .
So far , there are only a few thousand results separating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results so far are obviously most encouraging for Sanders and Buttigieg ( the latter of whom already declared victory before any results were in ) , while they ’ re mediocre for Warren and certainly disappointing for Biden .
But all of this is , of course , subject to change as more results come in .

At long last, the Iowa Democratic Party is reporting its 2020 caucus results.
By late Wednesday evening — and after an initial delay of nearly a day after the caucuses took place — the state party had posted nearly all of the results.
The delay in the count has been highly unusual and was driven by a combination of technical difficulties and human error. A poorly performing app for reporting results, a poorly staffed backup phone line for reporting results, and complicated new rules all seem to have played a role in the delay.
So far, the Iowa Democratic Party has not given a timetable for when it will release the results from the remaining precincts.
There are three separate metrics to watch in these results.
The traditional way Iowa Democrats have determined who wins the Iowa caucuses is by state delegate equivalents. This is essentially taking the final results of the 1,600-plus precinct caucuses — which conclude in allotting county convention delegates to candidates — and weighting them to estimate how many state delegates that would correspond to. We’re displaying that number here as it comes in, and if you’re interested in understanding the math behind this in further detail, I have a longer explainer at this link.
So in this current count of state delegate equivalents, Pete Buttigieg has a narrow lead, with Bernie Sanders close behind. Elizabeth Warren is a bit further back for third place, followed by Joe Biden in fourth and Amy Klobuchar in fifth. (Remember, there are still a number of precincts remaining to be counted and these results could certainly change.)
Now also, this year for the first time, Iowa Democrats are releasing actual vote totals from the caucuses. First, they will release the initial vote totals each candidate got at each precinct — added up for a statewide total. This is the pre-realignment vote total, or Round 1.
So it turns out that Sanders is in first place with a plurality of first-round votes. Buttigieg and Warren are in second and third, with Biden and Klobuchar in fourth and fifth. (And once again, these are not final vote totals and there are many remaining votes to be counted.)
After that, at each caucus gathering, supporters of candidates who are viable — above a particular threshold (15 percent in most precincts) — are locked in. However, supporters of nonviable candidates then have the opportunity to realign and change their votes. After this, we get the final vote total, displayed below.
As you can see, things changed a bit from the first tally. Sanders is still in first place, but Buttigieg has gotten a lot closer — he gained about 4 percentage points after the realignment, while Sanders gained a little more than 1 percentage point. Warren gained slightly more than 2 percentage points, but Biden and Klobuchar both lost support. (And, for the final time, these results are only partial and they will change as more precincts come in.)
So far, it’s too early to call a winner for any of these metrics. What we are seeing is really that the caucuses were quite close. So far, there are only a few thousand results separating the top three candidates. Still, the results so far are obviously most encouraging for Sanders and Buttigieg (the latter of whom already declared victory before any results were in), while they’re mediocre for Warren and certainly disappointing for Biden. But all of this is, of course, subject to change as more results come in.


vox--2020-02-04--Nevada promises its caucuses will go better than Iowa’s

The Nevada Democratic Party promises it ’ ll do better .
The Iowa Democratic Party is saying coding issues in a new app are to blame for the failure to report any official results from the first-in-the-nation caucuses on Monday .
But even beyond the app , there are several ways new rules adopted by the Democratic Party could have created confusion and “ inconsistencies ” in the results .
Party officials are scrambling to avoid a similar fate in the Nevada caucuses , the third early-state contest scheduled for February 22 .
Previously , multiple news outlets reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the faulty app developed by Shadow Inc. , which markets itself as a progressive “ tech infrastructure ” company supporting the Democratic Party .
The state is also operating under the same rule changes — adding in a few more complexities .
In a statement released Tuesday , the Nevada Democratic Party was quick to clarify that it plans to have things go differently .
“ NV Dems can confidently say that what happened in the Iowa caucus last night will not happen in Nevada , ” state Democratic Party Chair William McCurdy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll turn that promise into a reality — beyond vowing not to use the same app — remains unclear .
What ’ s the same — and different — about Nevada ’ s caucuses The Iowa and Nevada caucuses both adopted a new set of rules from the Democratic National Committee , which require state parties to report three sets of numbers out of the caucuses : an initial vote total , a post-viability threshold realignment vote total , and the number of state delegate equivalents .
They both also limited the amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a caucus-goer can change their vote , to just once .
If the candidate a caucus-goer backs isn ’ t deemed “ viable , ” they get just one chance to change their vote .
But the Nevada caucuses will diverge from Iowa in few noteworthy ways .
For one , they are dispensing with the app that caucus captains struggled to use on Monday night .
“ We will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus … and are currently evaluating the best path forward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change is that they ’ re offering four days of early voting — a different process from the so-called “ satellite caucuses ” that Iowa allowed for people who couldn ’ t make it on Monday night .
Early voting will run from Saturday , February 15 , through Tuesday , February 18 .
Early caucus-goers will be able to rank up to four additional candidates in order of preference for automatic realignment should their first choice not clear the 15 percent viability threshold , and those results will be added to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to report official caucus results on time .
As Recode ’ s Sara Morrison writes , there are still many unknowns in the unfolding Iowa debacle , not the least of which is the fact that the Iowa Democratic Party has yet to announce the results .
For example , precincts should have been able to report results over the phone , but many volunteers reported calamitous wait times ; one precinct chair was even hung up on by the Iowa Democratic Party while live on CNN .
Additionally , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa results will be reported : “ The majority of caucus results ” are coming at 5 pm ET on Tuesday , according to an Iowa Democratic Party statement , with the rest coming as the party is able to release them .
It could take weeks or months to determine exactly what went wrong in Iowa .
In any case , Nevada has very little time to make sure its caucuses go more smoothly .

The Nevada Democratic Party promises it’ll do better.
The Iowa Democratic Party is saying coding issues in a new app are to blame for the failure to report any official results from the first-in-the-nation caucuses on Monday. But even beyond the app, there are several ways new rules adopted by the Democratic Party could have created confusion and “inconsistencies” in the results.
Party officials are scrambling to avoid a similar fate in the Nevada caucuses, the third early-state contest scheduled for February 22.
Previously, multiple news outlets reported that the Nevada caucuses would also rely on the faulty app developed by Shadow Inc., which markets itself as a progressive “tech infrastructure” company supporting the Democratic Party. The state is also operating under the same rule changes — adding in a few more complexities.
In a statement released Tuesday, the Nevada Democratic Party was quick to clarify that it plans to have things go differently.
“NV Dems can confidently say that what happened in the Iowa caucus last night will not happen in Nevada,” state Democratic Party Chair William McCurdy II said.
Exactly how they’ll turn that promise into a reality — beyond vowing to avoid apps in the caucus process — remains unclear.
What’s the same — and different — about Nevada’s caucuses
The Iowa and Nevada caucuses both adopted a new set of rules from the Democratic National Committee, which require state parties to report three sets of numbers out of the caucuses: an initial vote total, a post-viability threshold realignment vote total, and the number of state delegate equivalents. They both also limited the amount of “realignments,” or times a caucus-goer can change their vote, to just once. If the candidate a caucus-goer backs isn’t deemed “viable,” they get just one chance to change their vote.
But the Nevada caucuses will diverge from Iowa in few noteworthy ways. For one, they are dispensing with the app that caucus captains struggled to use on Monday night.
“We will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus … and are currently evaluating the best path forward,” McCurdy said.
According to Nevada Democratic Party spokeswoman Molly Forgey, a wide range of options — including, potentially, an all-paper system — are under consideration as the state looks to avoid Iowa’s problems. The only certainty, Forgey told The Nevada Independent on Thursday, is that the state won’t be using any apps whatsoever for the February 22 caucuses.
One other major change is that the state is offering four days of early voting — a different process from the so-called “satellite caucuses” that Iowa allowed for people who couldn’t make it on Monday night. Early voting will run from Saturday, February 15, through Tuesday, February 18. Early caucus-goers will be able to rank up to four additional candidates in order of preference for automatic realignment should their first choice not clear the 15 percent viability threshold, and those results will be added to the live caucus results.
Nevada Democrats hope to report official caucus results on time.
As Recode’s Sara Morrison writes, there are still many unknowns in the unfolding Iowa debacle, not the least of which is the fact that the Iowa Democratic Party has yet to announce the results. For example, precincts should have been able to report results over the phone, but many volunteers reported calamitous wait times; one precinct chair was even hung up on by the Iowa Democratic Party while live on CNN.
Additionally, while 99 percent of precincts in Iowa have reported caucus results, the Associated Press has announced that it is “unable to declare a winner” in the caucuses.
Current results from Iowa show former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg leading the field in delegates by a slim margin, with Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in second and third and former Vice President Joe Biden in fourth. However, Sanders leads Buttigieg in raw vote total.
Both Buttigieg and Sanders have declared victory in the caucuses, despite the lack of an official winner.
It could take weeks or months to determine exactly what went wrong in Iowa and figure out how to prevent some of the inconsistencies that popped up in the caucus results.
In any case, Nevada has very little time to make sure its caucuses go more smoothly.


vox--2020-03-30--Your coronavirus grocery questions, answered by experts

In our collective attempt to flatten the curve , grocery shopping has become a minefield .
We are not supposed to leave our homes , and yet we have to keep feeding ourselves ; as a result , what used to be a comforting annoyance now feels dangerous .
Can you touch that cereal box ?
Why is that person standing so close ?
There is a lot of guidance on how to handle the store , and a lot of it is confusing , if not contradictory .
It ’ s okay to get groceries , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ re not supposed to wear a mask if you ’ re healthy , but perhaps you should .
You probably aren ’ t going to get coronavirus from touching the wrong avocado , or at least , scientists say transmission from food is unlikely .
Maybe it ’ s harder to find pasta now , but you shouldn ’ t panic about shortages .
To help us navigate this unsettling new world of grocery shopping — can you reuse your bags ?
why isn ’ t there yeast ?
— we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the safest way to shop inside a grocery store ?
While it may be possible to get sick by touching surfaces with the virus , the main way the virus spreads is thought to be person-to-person contact , according to the CDC .
The big threat here isn ’ t pasta boxes ; it ’ s other people .
So the first thing you want to do is minimize your shopping trips ( or consider delivery ) .
“ If you can get it down to once every week or every two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Anne-Marie Gloster , a lecturer in the nutritional science program at the University of Washington .
And as much as possible , shop at off-peak times , says Joshua Petrie , an assistant research professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan ’ s School of Public Health .
Some stores are limiting the number of shoppers inside at once , or marking every six feet along the checkout line , to show customers how far apart to stand .
This is good .
The emptier , the better .
Which means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone , and — again , if possible — without children , who love touching things .
It ’ s also worth doing some pre-planning before you go , says Gloster , both so you can move quickly once you ’ re in the store , and so you don ’ t forget anything .
This is your big bi-weekly chance .
The No .
1 priority is keeping physical distance from other people .
At the same time , we know the virus can live on surfaces for at least some amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid touching stuff as much as possible .
Gloster “ strongly suggests ” wiping down the handle of your shopping cart with disinfectant wipes ; at this point , many stores have them by the carts .
Consider leaving your phone in your pocket , because your phone is gross .
“ It ’ s truly a spit vector , ” she says , graphically .
We spit on into it , we fondle it , we put it down on stuff , we pick it up and rub it on our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revive the paper list .
Should I wear a mask and gloves to the store , if I can get them ?
Given the current shortages , probably not , Petrie says .
“ They ’ re so much more important for health care workers who are actually treating patients and are at a much higher risk of being infected , ” he says .
The guidance here could change — some experts suggest that more people should be wearing masks in public , leading to DIY efforts , though others worry protective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ You ’ re constantly adjusting it , ” Gloster says of masks , “ and you ’ re literally touching your face while you do that.
” She is , however , fond of using an extra produce bag as a makeshift glove while handling the rest of her produce .
Unless you ’ ve “ been exposed and are displaying symptoms of the virus , ” a CDC spokesperson told Time on March 27 , the agency is not currently recommending wearing gloves or a mask when you venture outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those recommendations couldn ’ t change — just that , as of this writing , the CDC isn ’ t advising it .
Is it okay to bring my own reusable bag , or is it better to just get paper or plastic ones and throw them away ?
Reusable bags are fine — assuming you ’ re diligent about cleaning them .
Under more normal circumstances , once a week would be okay .
Right now , Gloster advises : “ Wash them after you come back , every single time.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , nylon and cotton grocery bags can be machine-washed in cold water and air-dried .
If you have reusable bags that can ’ t be machine washed , you can wipe them down with a disinfecting wipe or an all-purpose spray and a paper towel .
You can refer to the EPA ’ s list of Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 to determine if a cleaning agent meets the agency ’ s criteria for use against the coronavirus .
What about checkout ?
Should I use cash or credit ?
Is self-checkout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option like Apple Pay , that ’ s probably the best , Gloster says .
( Keep your phone in your pocket until then . )
As for cash versus credit ?
“ There ’ s no good answer here , ” Gloster continues .
Paying with plastic often means touching a pin-pad ; cash isn ’ t known for being especially clean .
Self-checkout should reduce contact with a cashier — good for everyone !
— but it requires you to touch surfaces other people are also touching .
However you pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important thing is washing your hands when you ’ re done.
” Should I be sanitizing my groceries once they ’ re at my house ?
Probably not .
There ’ s a lot we don ’ t yet know about the coronavirus , but touching infected surfaces “ doesn ’ t seem to be the major way this virus spreads , ” Petrie says .
“ I am not recommending disinfecting your groceries , ” Don Schaffner , a professor of food microbiology at Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Risky or Not ?
, told Vox .
“ This seems like being overly cautious .
We don ’ t know of any cases of Covid-19 transmitted by food , nor of any cases transmitted by food packaging.
” That ’ s pretty much what the FDA is saying , too .
In a statement on March 24 , Frank Yiannas , the FDA ’ s deputy commissioner for food policy and response , noted that “ there is no evidence of human or animal food or food packaging being associated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ I ’ m doing the same things I ’ ve always done in terms of washing my produce , ” says Petrie .
“ I ’ m not wiping down my packaging , or leaving it outside for three days , like I ’ ve seen in some stories.
” While it likely isn ’ t necessary to sanitize your groceries , you do want to wash your hands after handling packages and when you have finished putting items away .
A lot of stores have special hours reserved for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus — elderly people , or people with compromised immune systems .
Are those a good idea ?
Opinions here vary , and there are , again , no simple answers .
In an ideal world , people in high-risk groups would have someone who could do their shopping for them — whether a friend or a delivery service — so they wouldn ’ t have to leave the house at all .
( If you ’ re the one doing that shopping , great !
Follow the steps above . )
Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special shopping hours likely have benefits — assuming they ’ re not so popular that stores actually get busier during those times .
“ But if those people are able to come in when there ’ s fewer people , and they can get help from the staff more easily , then I would think that would be a good thing , ” Petrie says .
There ’ s another benefit , too , Gloster points out : Usually , these special hours are first thing in the morning , which means that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stocked .
If it ’ s especially risky for you to go out at all , then it ’ s important you ’ re actually able to get what you need when you do .
Technically , I “ have groceries ” — I could definitely eat for a few more days — but it would really be better if I had more garlic and something other than beans .
Does that justify shopping ?
No .
“ Put it off , absolutely , as long as you can , ” Gloster says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pulling out all the older stuff you meant to use and never did ( canned pineapple , weird ancient grains , etc . )
This is a great time to experiment , because you have no other choice .
This is not a great time to get food poisoning , so err on the side of caution and toss what ’ s expired .
Is it safer for me to get my groceries delivered , even though there are still people involved in this process ?
Yes .
If you can swing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best option , Petrie says , simply because you ’ re coming into contact with fewer people — and potentially , in the case of contactless delivery , no people at all .
Okay , but is it ethical ?
Am I just asking other people to shoulder the risk for me ?
On the one hand : Yes , to avoid going out , where you might contract coronavirus , you are paying someone else to be out , where they might contract coronavirus .
At the same time , not ordering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by gig workers — means those delivery people don ’ t get paid , as Saru Jayaraman , director of the Food Labor Research Center at UC Berkeley , told Wired .
And by getting delivery , it ’ s possible you ’ re helping cut down on crowds in stores .
One thing you can do is order from companies with better sick-leave policies for delivery workers .
( Some independent contractors in Instacart ’ s fleet planned a strike on March 30 over the company ’ s policies . )
Another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a jerk , as Jason Del Rey outlines at Recode .
Opt for contactless delivery .
Don ’ t dock ratings .
Tip generously .
When does preparation cross over into hoarding ?
According to Petrie , if you ’ ve got more than “ two to three weeks ” worth of food , you ’ re entering hoarding territory .
( If you would like to watch other people hoard , it is a robust sub-genre on TikTok . )
Ethical considerations aside , that ’ s just not necessary : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of food .
I keep hearing there ’ s plenty of food , so why does it feel like grocery stores are suddenly out of everything ?
First of all , says Yossi Sheffi , a professor of engineering systems at MIT and the director of the MIT Center for Transportation , they ’ re not really out of everything — stores , for the most part , are still pretty well-stocked .
“ If you go in the morning , you ’ ll see stores that are full of stuff , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that some of that stuff is selling out very , very quickly , and it takes suppliers time to respond to the change in demand .
And the demand is changing , explains Sunil Chopra , a professor of Operations Management at Northwestern .
Consider the parable of toilet paper .
Generally , toilet paper consumption is extremely consistent , and because everyone knows how much is selling every week , supply chains don ’ t need a lot of spare inventory sitting around — why would they ?
The demand is always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t .
Suddenly , everyone panics , and that manifests in the mass buying of toilet paper , which leads to a shortage , which leads to more panic , and the cycle repeats .
However , “ just because people have more toilet paper at home doesn ’ t mean they ’ re going to use more toilet paper .
Your toilet paper consumption stays basically the same.
” It ’ s an artificial shortage , and it should stabilize — he doesn ’ t see the mania for toilet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products for which you will see the biggest shortages are products where normal consumption is pretty stable , ” Chopra says .
An efficient supply chain won ’ t have lots of extra — if people consistently buy 100 jars of peanut butter a week , then that ’ s what they ’ ll make .
But the thing about peanut butter is that , unlike toilet paper , if you have more of it , you ’ re likely to eat more of it .
“ There will be some products where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , “ and peanut butter will be one of those products.
” In those cases — foods where the increased demand is real — we should expect the shortages to go on slightly longer , until consumption dies down , or supply chains adapt .
We ’ re already starting to see that happening , as food and supplies that would have once gone to restaurants , stadiums , and universities get redirected to grocery stores or sold straight to consumers .
Are there any specific foods , or types of food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to get ?
Potentially .
To continue with peanut butter : It ’ s also possible , explains Alex Scott , an assistant professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University , that in some cases , demand could stay high , and manufacturers might decide not to ramp up production .
It ’ s expensive to drastically increase capacity , and it may only make sense if they expect the current , quarantine-level demand to go on for years .
But if they don ’ t expect that — if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school and stop eating so much peanut butter at home , let ’ s say — then it ’ s likely not worth it .
He anticipates that there indeed may be certain items that do stay hard to get until life goes back to something like normal .
If a particular region producing a particular product were hit particularly hard by the virus , that could also temporarily cause problems .
While we might see that an item is more scarce than usual , he ’ s not predicting bare shelves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the supply chain may be if workers themselves start to get sick .
“ If the illnesses surge , ” the New York Times reports , “ there could be a slowdown in production and distribution.
” Even that , though , would likely happen in waves , Chopra says , stressing that policymakers need to prioritize the health and safety of front-line food workers — always , and especially now .
Everyone recommends getting groceries delivered , except slots are always full .
Will capacity ever be added ?
Probably someday ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hire 300,000 more shoppers over the next three months to meet drastically increased demand ; Amazon announced it was hiring 100,000 more people for warehouse and delivery jobs ; and the New York-based delivery service FreshDirect is both hiring and adding delivery slots .
Still , Scott doesn ’ t see it happening overnight .
“ You can ’ t ramp that up in a couple of days , ” he says .
“ It ’ s a longer-term thing .
You ’ ve got to buy the trucks , you ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve got to get them in your systems .
Of course , you can add incrementally week to week to week , but to really scale ?
I ’ d think it would be a matter of months , ” he says .
Unlike the rush on toilet paper , though , Scott suggests the demand for delivery could be here to stay .
“ I think you ’ ll see long-term changes in behavior from this , ” he says .
Some number of people are trying these services for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Obviously , we don ’ t know the future , but I don ’ t see delivery and e-commerce going down .
”

In our collective attempt to flatten the curve, grocery shopping has become a minefield. We are not supposed to leave our homes, yet we have to keep feeding ourselves; as a result, what used to be a comforting annoyance now feels dangerous. Can you touch that cereal box? Why is that person standing so close?
There is a lot of guidance on how to handle the store, and a lot of it is confusing, if not contradictory. It’s okay to get groceries, we’re told, but not too often. You probably aren’t going to get coronavirus from touching the wrong avocado, or at least, scientists say transmission from food is unlikely. Maybe it’s harder to find pasta now, but you shouldn’t panic about shortages.
To help us navigate this unsettling new world of grocery shopping — Can you reuse your bags? Why isn’t there yeast? — we turned to the experts.
What is the safest way to shop in a grocery store?
While it may be possible to get sick by touching surfaces with the virus, the main way the virus spreads is thought to be person-to-person contact, according to the CDC. The big threat here isn’t pasta boxes; it’s other people.
So the first thing you want to do is minimize your shopping trips (or consider delivery). “If you can get it down to once every week or every two weeks, that’s great,” says Anne-Marie Gloster, a lecturer in the nutritional science program at the University of Washington. And as much as possible, shop at off-peak times, says Joshua Petrie, an assistant research professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health. Some stores are limiting the number of shoppers inside at once, or marking every 6 feet along the checkout line, to show customers how far apart to stand. This is good. The emptier, the better.
Which means that, if you can: Go alone, and — again, if possible — without children, who love touching things. It’s also worth doing some planning before you go, says Gloster, both so you can move quickly once you’re in the store and so you don’t forget anything. This is your big biweekly chance.
The No. 1 priority is keeping physical distance from other people. At the same time, we know the virus can live on surfaces for at least some amount of time, so you do want to avoid touching stuff as much as possible. Gloster “strongly suggests” wiping down the handle of your shopping cart with disinfectant wipes; at this point, many stores have them by the carts.
Consider leaving your phone in your pocket, because your phone is gross. “It’s truly a spit vector,” she says. We spit on it, we fondle it, we put it down on stuff, we pick it up and rub it on our faces. Now is the time to revive the paper list.
Should I wear a mask to the store?
Yes. Given the current shortages, surgical masks and N95 respirators should be reserved for medical workers, but as of April 3, the CDC “recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.”
This represents a major change in the country’s approach to fighting the spread of the coronavirus. Until now, the CDC had been advising healthy people not to wear masks unless they were showing symptoms or had reason to believe they’d been exposed. But — as many other experts have been pointing out for weeks — one problem with that guidance is that there’s no way to know who has it. As many as a quarter of coronavirus cases are asymptomatic, CDC director Robert Redfield said in the week leading up to the new guidance, and even people who do eventually get sick can transmit the virus before showing any symptoms.
The logic here is pretty straightforward: Since coronavirus mostly spreads when germ-containing droplets make their way into a person’s mouth, nose, or eyes, it makes sense to try to limit how many droplets are floating around in crowded spaces.
The big caveat is that, as noted, traditional medical masks still should go to medical professionals first. While a cloth mask isn’t as good as a medical one, it still offers some protection. Widespread face coverings don’t mean we’ll be able to ease up on other recommendations like social distancing and frequent hand-washing; cloth masks just offer one more layer of protection. If you want to make your own, here’s how.
While we’re talking about protective gear, gloves — which have the potential to carry the virus more or less the same way hands do — are still mostly not recommended for grocery shopping. It’s more important to wash your hands after your trip and avoid touching your face.
Is it okay to bring my own reusable bag, or is it better to just get paper or plastic ones and throw them away?
Reusable bags are fine — assuming you’re diligent about cleaning them. Under more normal circumstances, once a week would be okay. Right now, Gloster advises: “Wash them after you come back, every single time.” (Some experts, however, have expressed less concern about washing bags after each use.)
As cleaning expert Jolie Kerr wrote for Vox, nylon and cotton grocery bags can be machine-washed in cold water and air-dried. If you have reusable bags that can’t be machine-washed, you can wipe them down with a disinfecting wipe or an all-purpose spray and a paper towel. You can refer to the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of disinfectants for use against the SARS-CoV-2 virus to determine if a cleaning agent meets the agency’s criteria for use against the coronavirus.
What about checkout? Should I use cash or credit? Is self-checkout safer?
If you have a contactless option like Apple Pay, that’s probably the best, Gloster says. (Keep your phone in your pocket until then.)
As for cash versus credit? “There’s no good answer here,” Gloster continues. Paying with plastic often means touching a pin pad; cash isn’t known for being especially clean. Self-checkout should reduce contact with a cashier — good for everyone! — but it requires you to touch surfaces other people are also touching.
However you pay, Petrie says, “the most important thing is washing your hands when you’re done.”
Should I be sanitizing my groceries once they’re at my house?
Probably not. There’s a lot we don’t yet know about the coronavirus, but touching infected surfaces “doesn’t seem to be the major way this virus spreads,” Petrie says.
“I am not recommending disinfecting your groceries,” Don Schaffner, a professor of food microbiology at Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences and host of the podcasts Food Safety Talk and Risky or Not?, told Vox. “This seems like being overly cautious. We don’t know of any cases of Covid-19 transmitted by food, nor of any cases transmitted by food packaging.”
That’s pretty much what the FDA is saying, too. In a statement on March 24, Frank Yiannas, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for food policy and response, noted that “there is no evidence of human or animal food or food packaging being associated with transmission of the coronavirus that causes Covid-19.”
“I’m doing the same things I’ve always done in terms of washing my produce,” says Petrie. “I’m not wiping down my packaging, or leaving it outside for three days, like I’ve seen in some stories.”
While it likely isn’t necessary to sanitize your groceries, you do want to wash your hands after handling packages and when you have finished putting items away.
A lot of stores have special hours reserved for people likely to be more vulnerable to the virus — older people, or people with compromised immune systems. Are those a good idea?
Opinions here vary, and there are, again, no simple answers. In an ideal world, people in high-risk groups would have someone who could do their shopping for them — whether a friend or a delivery service — so they wouldn’t have to leave the house at all. (If you’re the one doing that shopping, great! Follow the steps above.)
Given the world that exists, though, special shopping hours likely have benefits, assuming they’re not so popular that stores actually get busier during those times.
“But if those people are able to come in when there’s fewer people, and they can get help from the staff more easily, then I would think that would be a good thing,” Petrie says.
There’s another benefit, too, Gloster points out: Usually, these special hours are first thing in the morning, which means that the shelves are likely to be fully stocked. If it’s especially risky for you to go out at all, then it’s important you’re actually able to get what you need when you do.
Technically, I “have groceries” — I could definitely eat for a few more days — but it would really be better if I had more garlic and something other than beans. Does that justify shopping?
No. “Put it off, absolutely, as long as you can,” Gloster says. She recommends digging through your cabinets and pulling out all the older stuff you meant to use and never did (canned pineapple, weird ancient grains, etc.).
This is a great time to experiment, because you have no other choice. This is not a great time to get food poisoning, so err on the side of caution and toss what’s expired.
Is it safer for me to get my groceries delivered, even though there are still people involved in this process?
Yes. If you can swing it financially, it may be your best option, Petrie says, simply because you’re coming into contact with fewer people — and potentially, in the case of contactless delivery, no people at all.
Okay, but is it ethical? Am I just asking other people to shoulder the risk for me?
On the one hand: Yes, to avoid going out, where you might contract coronavirus, you are paying someone else to be out, where they might contract coronavirus.
At the same time, not ordering groceries — many of which are delivered by gig workers — means those delivery people don’t get paid, as Saru Jayaraman, director of the Food Labor Research Center at UC Berkeley, told Wired. And by getting delivery, it’s possible you’re helping cut down on crowds in stores.
One thing you can do is order from companies with better sick-leave policies for delivery workers. (Some independent contractors in Instacart’s fleet planned a strike on March 30 over the company’s policies.)
Another thing you can do: not be a jerk, as Jason Del Rey outlines at Recode. Opt for contactless delivery. Don’t dock ratings. Tip generously.
When does preparation cross over into hoarding?
According to Petrie, if you’ve got more than “two to three weeks” worth of food, you’re entering hoarding territory. (If you would like to watch other people hoard, it is a robust subgenre on TikTok.) Ethical considerations aside, that’s just not necessary: The country is not about to run out of food.
I keep hearing there’s plenty of food, so why does it feel like grocery stores are suddenly out of everything?
First of all, says Yossi Sheffi, a professor of engineering systems at MIT and the director of the MIT Center for Transportation, they’re not really out of everything — stores, for the most part, are still pretty well-stocked. “If you go in the morning, you’ll see stores that are full of stuff,” he says. It’s just that some of that stuff is selling out very, very quickly, and it takes suppliers time to respond to the change in demand.
And the demand is changing, explains Sunil Chopra, a professor of operations management at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. Consider the parable of toilet paper. Generally, toilet paper consumption is extremely consistent, and because everyone knows how much is selling every week, supply chains don’t need a lot of spare inventory sitting around — why would they? The demand is always the same.
Except now, it isn’t. Suddenly, everyone panics, and that manifests in the mass buying of toilet paper, which leads to a shortage, which leads to more panic, and the cycle repeats. However, “just because people have more toilet paper at home doesn’t mean they’re going to use more toilet paper. Your toilet paper consumption stays basically the same.” It’s an artificial shortage, and it should stabilize — he doesn’t see the mania for toilet paper lasting too long. Suppliers, however, aren’t sure yet when rolls will be plentiful again.
“The products for which you will see the biggest shortages are products where normal consumption is pretty stable,” Chopra says. An efficient supply chain won’t have lots of extra — if people consistently buy 100 jars of peanut butter a week, then that’s what they’ll make.
But the thing about peanut butter is that, unlike toilet paper, if you have more of it, you’re likely to eat more of it. “There will be some products where consumption actually goes up,” he says, “and peanut butter will be one of those products.” In those cases — foods where the increased demand is real — we should expect the shortages to go on slightly longer, until consumption dies down or supply chains adapt. We’re already starting to see that happening, as food and supplies that would have once gone to restaurants, stadiums, and universities get redirected to grocery stores or sold straight to consumers.
Are there any specific foods, or types of food, that are going to be especially hard to get?
Potentially. To continue with peanut butter: It’s also possible, explains Alex Scott, an assistant professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, that in some cases, demand could stay high, and manufacturers might decide not to ramp up production. It’s expensive to drastically increase capacity, and it may only make sense if they expect the current, quarantine-level demand to go on for years. But if they don’t expect that — if they expect kids will go back to school and stop eating so much peanut butter at home, let’s say — then it’s likely not worth it. He anticipates that there indeed may be certain items that stay hard to get until life goes back to something like normal.
If a particular region producing a particular product were hit particularly hard by the virus, that could also temporarily cause problems. While we might see that an item is more scarce than usual, he’s not predicting bare shelves.
The biggest risk to the health of the supply chain may be if workers start to get sick. “If the illnesses surge,” the New York Times reports, “there could be a slowdown in production and distribution.” Even that, though, would likely happen in waves, Chopra says, stressing that policymakers need to prioritize the health and safety of front-line food workers — always, and especially now.
Everyone recommends getting groceries delivered, except slots are always full. Will capacity ever be added?
Probably someday? Last week, Instacart announced plans to hire 300,000 more shoppers over the next three months to meet drastically increased demand; Amazon announced it was hiring 100,000 more people for warehouse and delivery jobs; and the New York-based delivery service FreshDirect is both hiring and adding delivery slots.
Still, Scott doesn’t see it happening overnight. “You can’t ramp that up in a couple of days,” he says. “It’s a longer-term thing. You’ve got to buy the trucks, you’ve got to hire the drivers, you’ve got to get them in your systems. Of course, you can add incrementally week to week to week, but to really scale? I’d think it would be a matter of months,” he says.
Unlike the rush on toilet paper, though, Scott suggests the demand for delivery could be here to stay. “I think you’ll see long-term changes in behavior from this,” he says. Some number of people are trying these services for the first time, and liking them. “Obviously, we don’t know the future, but I don’t see delivery and e-commerce going down.”
We want to hear from you
What questions do you have about the coronavirus pandemic and the surrounding news? Let us know in the form below, and we might answer your question in an upcoming article, podcast episode, or video. (You can also access the Google form here.)


vox--2020-03-30--World leaders who denied the coronavirus’s danger made us all less safe

Share All sharing options for : World leaders who denied the coronavirus ’ s danger made us all less safe Millions of people out of work .
Nationwide lockdowns keeping billions at home .
Health care systems on the brink of collapse .
And millions — plural — at risk of dying .
These are the consequences not only of the coronavirus outbreak but also what happens when world leaders deny its severity .
Their actions , or rather inactions , have made the pandemic worse and all of us less safe .
From the United States to China to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions early on in the outbreak minimized the global health crisis .
They wasted precious time fighting reality , not the disease .
And the results have been deadly .
“ Denial results in a delayed response , ” which usually leads to an exponential growth of infections , said Thomas Bollyky , a global health expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank .
“ Countries that were slow to respond have , so far , paid the price.
” China ’ s effort to suppress information about the virus when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread around the world .
And as Covid-19 spread , so did the denialism .
Last week alone , Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador encouraged his people to eat out at restaurants , US President Donald Trump insisted most of America could start going back to work by Easter , and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro downplayed the coronavirus as “ a little cold.
” Those leaders stand in stark contrast to their counterparts in places like South Korea and Germany who confronted the outbreak head-on , were honest with their publics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their examples show that the added pain on multiple continents — the lack of tests , crowded hospitals , widespread fear , and mounting death tolls — wasn ’ t necessary .
It was , in some ways , a choice .
The coronavirus may currently be the world ’ s top threat , but a very close second is the political leader who doesn ’ t see it that way .
But why have so many leaders across the world responded like this ?
As Jeremy Shiffman , a health policy expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ You can ’ t clearly associate the denialism with a regime type or even a political ideology.
” So what explains it ?
Experts I spoke to suggested leaders might respond with denial for several reasons : concerns about harming their political fortunes or their nation ’ s public image ; fear of harming the economy ; individual leaders ’ agendas ; and belief that an outbreak won ’ t really be as bad as it sounds .
Whatever the reason , though , it ’ s now clear just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to handling a pandemic .
As Vox ’ s Julia Belluz has written , China first announced the outbreak of a mysterious pneumonia on December 31 .
In the announcement , Chinese officials said that most of the patients had been to a food market in Wuhan ; that there was “ no clear evidence ” of human-to-human transmission ; and that the earliest case had shown symptoms only recently — on December 12 .
It turns out that pretty much none of what Chinese officials said in that first announcement was true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets worse .
It ’ s not just that Chinese authorities got the details wrong .
They were actively trying to suppress information about the burgeoning outbreak from both their own citizens and global public health experts .
And they did so on the express orders of Chinese President Xi Jinping .
In the meantime , China let millions of people travel in and out of Wuhan , allowing the virus to spread .
One recent study found that if China had acted to lock down Wuhan just three weeks earlier , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 95 percent , thus “ significantly limiting the geographical spread of the disease.
” The Chinese government is authoritarian , which helps explain its crackdown on embarrassing information from the start .
But another important reason , experts say , is that China wants to be perceived as a stable world power .
That ’ s hard to accomplish when new diseases keep originating in the country , like SARS did in 2003 .
To safeguard its global prestige , then , Xi and his underlings worked to keep news of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were definitely public image reasons why China did what it did , ” Amanda Glassman , a health expert at the Center for Global Development , told me .
But while China may have been the first country to prioritize politics over public health in this pandemic , it wouldn ’ t be the last .
Spain , and particularly Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez , had a tough choice to make .
It was only in January that he formed a minority left-wing government , giving him a tenuous hold on power and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most historically weak leaders .
Any move that might anger the population , especially his left-wing base , could see him lose control .
That led him to a fateful decision , experts say .
Earlier this month , even as confirmed cases of coronavirus rose in Spain , Sánchez allowed thousands to attend soccer games and even permitted a 120,000-strong feminist rally in Madrid to proceed .
The Spanish capital has now become the epicenter of the country ’ s outbreak , the world ’ s fourth largest .
Some experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people to congregate almost surely spurred a larger outbreak in the country , while others insisted it was too early to tell .
But now that the country is on lockdown until mid-April , some who attended the rally said it was a bad idea .
“ I regret going , ” said Ellen Hietsch , an American expat living in Madrid , fearing the demonstration may have accelerated the spread .
“ I ’ ve felt anxiety ever since that I could be a carrier of the disease.
” Political aspirations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from accepting the crisis his nation faces .
“ In my particular case , ” the 65-year-old leader said during a national address on Tuesday , “ with my history as an athlete , if I were infected by the virus , I wouldn ’ t need to worry .
I wouldn ’ t feel anything or , if very affected , it would be like a little flu or a little cold.
” Only a few days later , he falsely asserted that Brazilians , somehow , are immune to the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brazil had nearly 3,000 confirmed cases . )
Bolsonaro ’ s denials are especially shocking as several of his close aides contracted the disease and , for a moment , it looked like he had it , too .
Experts say the Brazilian leader ’ s denial partly stems from his more general reluctance to accept scientific evidence , as seen in his dismissal of climate change .
But there ’ s also a clear political reason , they add : He ’ d like to gain more power for himself at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ He ’ s trying to advance authoritarian solutions to the problem , ” Paulo Sotero , a Brazil expert at the Wilson Center think tank in Washington , told me .
He ’ s openly fighting with governors who want to do more to stem the crisis , which some claim gives Bolsonaro an excuse to say they can ’ t be trusted to handle the situation correctly .
Instead , Bolsonaro — who has shown an affinity for Brazil ’ s past as a military dictatorship — wants to dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the presidency .
“ He ’ s seeking confrontation to adopt and impose control , ” Sotero said .
“ He has very little attachment to democratic principles.
” The irony here is that his actions may have actually had the reverse effect : There are now editorials in major Brazilian newspapers calling for him to resign , and his poll numbers are declining .
His resignation is unlikely to happen , which means the coronavirus struggle in Brazil won ’ t just be a fight for public health .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Brazil ’ s democracy .
Putting those cases together , it ’ s clear that the main political projects of Xi , Sánchez , and Bolsonaro clashed with taking necessary action against the coronavirus .
That caused significant delays , hurting thousands in their countries and elsewhere .
But politics is only part of the answer to the epidemic of denialism .
There are widespread fears of a coronavirus-induced global recession or even a depression .
That ’ s especially problematic for leaders who have built their entire brand on boosting their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what might happen if millions are suddenly out of work .
Which is why some of them — from Mexico to Italy to the United States — prioritize economic growth over the measures required to curb a rise in infections .
Take Mexican President Obrador , known by his nickname AMLO .
In speech after speech , he tells Mexicans they shouldn ’ t fear Covid-19 .
Despite warnings from global health officials , he continues to hold political rallies , kiss supporters , and request that Mexicans go out shopping to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy during a global slowdown .
“ Live life as usual , ” he said in a video posted to Facebook on March 22 , showing him outside at a restaurant .
“ If you ’ re able and have the means to do so , continue taking your family out to eat … because that strengthens the economy.
” That ’ s not to say the economy isn ’ t in urgent need .
Petróleos Mexicanos , the country ’ s state-owned oil company , is deeply in debt and in crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The country ’ s economy contracted by 0.5 percent in the fourth quarter of last year , and many indicators point to a years-long slump .
As the world confronts the possibility of a pandemic-induced recession , it ’ s not unreasonable for AMLO to want to boost the economy .
But his slow response , including a lack of widespread testing and provision of additional protective gear for medical professionals , has made Mexico less safe — thereby likely dooming its economy in the long run .
“ You need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how many might die before the economy ’ s health , ” Alejandro Macías , who served as the Mexican government ’ s “ czar ” for the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak , told me last week .
Trump has a similar mindset to AMLO ’ s .
After months of minimizing the problem , saying America had it under control , he eventually listened to medical experts who said the country needed to impose social distancing measures to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
But after only a few weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go back to normal .
Trump said he wanted businesses open and people back to work by Easter , April 12 .
“ What a great timeline that would be , ” he said during a Fox News town hall this week .
That went against the advice of experts who said the US needed to keep socially distancing for more weeks , perhaps even months .
But Trump continued to insist that the “ cure ” — shutting down the economy temporarily — can ’ t be worse than the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon , be open for business , ” Trump said last week .
“ Very soon .
A lot sooner than three or four months that somebody was suggesting .
A lot sooner .
We can not let the cure be worse than the problem itself.
” Now , however , Trump has reversed course once again , listening to his experts who said he should keep social distancing measures in place .
He ’ s now extended the guidelines until April 30 .
Trump isn ’ t entirely off base to want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though .
Numbers from last week showed unemployment claims jumped to 3.3 million , which shattered the previous record of 700,000 in a single week .
There is no looming economic disaster in America ; the disaster is already here .
Still , that ’ s not the entire picture .
The debate isn ’ t “ open for business ” versus “ closed for business , ” but rather short-term pain versus long-term gain .
Indeed , an economics paper released this week showed governments that take precautionary measures in a health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We find that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively do not perform worse and , if anything , grow faster after the pandemic is over , ” the authors write .
“ Our findings thus indicate that [ non-pharmaceutical interventions ] not only lower mortality ; they also mitigate the adverse economic consequences of a pandemic.
” The reason , according to Ashish Jha , director of the Harvard Global Health Institute , is that leaders need to take aggressive measures early on when the crisis doesn ’ t look so bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if left unaddressed , it ’ s really late in the game , and the stuff you have to do is so much worse , ” Jha told me .
It ’ s for these and other reasons that everyone I spoke to said that the leaders in denial need to get out of their heads and listen to the medical experts at a time like this .
The experts are the ones who know what to do and aren ’ t burdened with the political responsibilities and calculations of world leaders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not just political futures that are at stake , it ’ s people ’ s lives .
“ It ’ s in their political interest to address the pandemic , ” says Johns Hopkins ’ s Shiffman , “ but it ’ s also the right thing to do.
” The coronavirus doesn ’ t fit into many leaders ’ agendas Seminal work by political scientists Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones shows the importance of political agendas , and the impact they have on a leader ’ s time in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader brings with him or her a new way of viewing the world .
Anything that falls outside of that view tends to take a back seat to the leaders ’ main concerns , regardless of how important that back-seat issue may prove to be .
“ It ’ s not like epidemiology is at the forefront of any political leader ’ s knowledge , ” said Baumgartner , now at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill .
This is less of a partisan or ideological issue and more of a personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political leaning , explains one ’ s action in times of crisis .
Indeed , Georgetown Law ’ s global health and politics expert Matthew Kavanagh gave me the example of how Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush , both Republicans , handled the HIV/AIDS crisis .
Reagan didn ’ t want anything to do with it , Kavanagh said , since during his time it was seen as a problem primarily affecting gay men — not a key concern for the conservative president or his explicitly anti-gay-rights Moral Majority backers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to power on the back of his “ compassionate conservatism ” push .
“ Compassionate means you care about people and the policies you enunciate help people , ” he told the Catalyst magazine in 2018 .
When he announced a major , well-funded program to combat the epidemic on the African continent in 2002 , he told a Rose Garden audience that “ the global devastation of HIV/AIDS staggers the imagination and shocks the conscience.
” He saw it as his duty , as president of the United States , to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and remains , one of the greatest global health initiatives in history .
It proved so successful that pundits continue to note how popular Bush actually is in Africa .
All told , despite coming from the same political party , each politician had different priorities , which in turn led them to prioritize in vastly different ways .
In the case of the Covid-19 pandemic , world leaders such as Trump and Bolsonaro who denied the disease ’ s severity had their attention broadly tuned to gaining political power or growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense , is normal .
“ Countries have political and economic incentives to underplay what ’ s happening ” during an outbreak , the Council on Foreign Relations ’ Bollyky told me .
But in another sense , combating the virus forcefully — risking other aspects of their time in power — would counter certain leaders ’ agendas and biases .
“ Politicians need to fit what ’ s happening into their line of thinking , ” Kavanagh said .
“ There ’ s a narrative that every leader and politician is constructing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ govern .
It ’ s very hard to shake them out of that , even when a crisis confronts them.
” For Trump , that narrative was that he had single-handedly Made America Great Again .
The notion that with the coronavirus pandemic America might be facing a challenge unlike any it had faced in recent history — and , even worse , that it might not be prepared to handle it — ran counter to that narrative .
If Trump has already made America great , surely it would be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s failure to see beyond the mythology he ’ d created around his presidency led to a sense of overconfidence when it came to the coronavirus response early on — a deadly miscalculation .
It ’ s important to remember that the coronavirus isn ’ t the first big pandemic scare the world has faced in recent years .
In 2003 , there was SARS .
In 2009 , there was the H1N1 influenza .
In 2012 , there was MERS .
In 2014 , there was Ebola .
And in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these diseases spread around the world and killed thousands .
But they didn ’ t produce the large-scale disruption that Covid-19 has in 2020 .
Instead , they were mostly contained to specific regions , like MERS was in the Middle East .
It ’ s therefore not terribly surprising that some leaders and their populations might not have taken the novel coronavirus scourge seriously .
“ I ’ m sympathetic to the fact that some leaders looked at this situation and thought , ‘ We ’ ll be the one lucky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Harvard ’ s Jha , “ but that ’ s not how the world works.
” The other diseases were incredibly dangerous , but what makes Covid-19 so problematic is that it can take a long time for symptoms to show up .
That means people can transmit it to one another even when they ’ re not showing symptoms .
People who are infected can also be completely asymptomatic yet still transmit the virus .
All of that means the novel coronavirus is a lot more dangerous than those previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Markus notes , SARS and MERS ( both of which are coronaviruses ) together killed fewer people overall than this virus did in less than two months .
But in the early days of the outbreak , much of this information about the disease was not well known — in part because , as discussed above , Chinese officials actively covered up critical details about the virus .
A world leader seeing an outbreak in a specific region of China might understandably assume it would play out the same way previous coronavirus outbreaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on like closing borders and instituting stay-at-home orders .
“ These are unprecedented steps that are called for , and so there would be a desire to engage in wishful thinking that it ’ s not as bad as the experts are saying , ” UNC ’ s Baumgartner said .
And , interestingly , it seems that the leaders who didn ’ t engage in wishful thinking were , for the most part , in countries that had experience with previous disease outbreaks .
South Korea was familiar with SARS and Saudi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got much worse , they took the necessary actions — like closing borders early and testing often — to slow the spread .
That ’ s the kind of rapid , aggressive action that is still needed now .
Denialism will only make it worse .

Share All sharing options for: World leaders who denied the coronavirus’s danger made us all less safe
Millions of people out of work. Nationwide lockdowns keeping billions at home. Health care systems on the brink of collapse. And millions — plural — at risk of dying.
These are the consequences not only of the coronavirus outbreak but also what happens when world leaders deny its severity. Their actions, or rather inactions, have made the pandemic worse and all of us less safe.
From the United States to China to Iran to Italy, politicians facing life-or-death decisions early on in the outbreak minimized the global health crisis. They wasted precious time fighting reality, not the disease. And the results have been deadly.
“Denial results in a delayed response,” which usually leads to an exponential growth of infections, said Thomas Bollyky, a global health expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank. “Countries that were slow to respond have, so far, paid the price.”
China’s effort to suppress information about the virus when it first emerged helped it escape and spread around the world. And as Covid-19 spread, so did the denialism.
Last week alone, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador encouraged his people to eat out at restaurants, US President Donald Trump insisted most of America could start going back to work by Easter, and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro downplayed the coronavirus as “a little cold.”
Those leaders stand in stark contrast to their counterparts in places like South Korea and Germany who confronted the outbreak head-on, were honest with their publics, and saved lives as a result.
Their examples show that the added pain on multiple continents — the lack of tests, crowded hospitals, widespread fear, and mounting death tolls — wasn’t necessary. It was, in some ways, a choice. The coronavirus may currently be the world’s top threat, but a very close second is the political leader who doesn’t see it that way.
But why have so many leaders across the world responded like this? As Jeremy Shiffman, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, told me, “You can’t clearly associate the denialism with a regime type or even a political ideology.”
So what explains it? Experts I spoke to suggested leaders might respond with denial for several reasons: concerns about harming their political fortunes or their nation’s public image; fear of harming the economy; individual leaders’ agendas; and belief that an outbreak won’t really be as bad as it sounds.
Whatever the reason, though, it’s now clear just how dangerous denial can be when it comes to handling a pandemic.
Politicians prioritize politics
As Vox’s Julia Belluz has written, China first announced the outbreak of a mysterious pneumonia on December 31. In the announcement, Chinese officials said that most of the patients had been to a food market in Wuhan; that there was “no clear evidence” of human-to-human transmission; and that the earliest case had shown symptoms only recently — on December 12.
It turns out that pretty much none of what Chinese officials said in that first announcement was true. As Belluz explains:
A study published on January 24 in The Lancet showed that in the first days China acknowledged the outbreak, by January 2, more than a third of patients had no connection with the Wuhan food market, including the outbreak’s index (or first) case. What’s more, that person became ill on December 1, nearly two weeks earlier than Wuhan health authorities had said of the first case.
But it gets worse. It’s not just that Chinese authorities got the details wrong. They were actively trying to suppress information about the burgeoning outbreak from both their own citizens and global public health experts. And they did so on the express orders of Chinese President Xi Jinping.
In the meantime, China let millions of people travel in and out of Wuhan, allowing the virus to spread. One recent study found that if China had acted to lock down Wuhan just three weeks earlier, it would have reduced the number of cases by 95 percent, thus “significantly limiting the geographical spread of the disease.”
The Chinese government is authoritarian, which helps explain its crackdown on embarrassing information from the start. But another important reason, experts say, is that China wants to be perceived as a stable world power. That’s hard to accomplish when new diseases keep originating in the country, like SARS did in 2003. To safeguard its global prestige, then, Xi and his underlings worked to keep news of the brewing crisis under wraps.
“There were definitely public image reasons why China did what it did,” Amanda Glassman, a health expert at the Center for Global Development, told me.
But while China may have been the first country to prioritize politics over public health in this pandemic, it wouldn’t be the last. Spain, and particularly Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, had a tough choice to make. It was only in January that he formed a minority left-wing government, giving him a tenuous hold on power and making him one of the nation’s most historically weak leaders. Any move that might anger the population, especially his left-wing base, could see him lose control.
That led him to a fateful decision, experts say. Earlier this month, even as confirmed cases of coronavirus rose in Spain, Sánchez allowed thousands to attend soccer games and even permitted a 120,000-strong feminist rally in Madrid to proceed. The Spanish capital has now become the epicenter of the country’s outbreak, the world’s fourth largest.
Some experts I spoke to said that allowing so many people to congregate almost surely spurred a larger outbreak in the country, while others insisted it was too early to tell. But now that the country is on lockdown until mid-April, some who attended the rally said it was a bad idea.
“I regret going,” said Ellen Hietsch, an American expat living in Madrid, fearing the demonstration may have accelerated the spread. “I’ve felt anxiety ever since that I could be a carrier of the disease.”
Political aspirations have also kept Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro from accepting the crisis his nation faces.
“In my particular case,” the 65-year-old leader said during a national address on Tuesday, “with my history as an athlete, if I were infected by the virus, I wouldn’t need to worry. I wouldn’t feel anything or, if very affected, it would be like a little flu or a little cold.” Only a few days later, he falsely asserted that Brazilians, somehow, are immune to the disease. (As of March 27, Brazil had nearly 3,000 confirmed cases.)
Bolsonaro’s denials are especially shocking as several of his close aides contracted the disease and, for a moment, it looked like he had it, too. Experts say the Brazilian leader’s denial partly stems from his more general reluctance to accept scientific evidence, as seen in his dismissal of climate change. But there’s also a clear political reason, they add: He’d like to gain more power for himself at the expense of the country’s democracy.
“He’s trying to advance authoritarian solutions to the problem,” Paulo Sotero, a Brazil expert at the Wilson Center think tank in Washington, told me. He’s openly fighting with governors who want to do more to stem the crisis, which some claim gives Bolsonaro an excuse to say they can’t be trusted to handle the situation correctly.
Instead, Bolsonaro — who has shown an affinity for Brazil’s past as a military dictatorship — wants to dismiss these regional leaders and concentrate more power in the presidency. “He’s seeking confrontation to adopt and impose control,” Sotero said. “He has very little attachment to democratic principles.”
The irony here is that his actions may have actually had the reverse effect: There are now editorials in major Brazilian newspapers calling for him to resign, and his poll numbers are declining.
His resignation is unlikely to happen, which means the coronavirus struggle in Brazil won’t just be a fight for public health. It’ll be a fight for the future of Brazil’s democracy.
Putting those cases together, it’s clear that the main political projects of Xi, Sánchez, and Bolsonaro clashed with taking necessary action against the coronavirus. That caused significant delays, hurting thousands in their countries and elsewhere.
But politics is only part of the answer to the epidemic of denialism.
Choosing economic growth over public health
There are widespread fears of a coronavirus-induced global recession or even a depression. That’s especially problematic for leaders who have built their entire brand on boosting their nation’s economy or who worry about what might happen if millions are suddenly out of work. Which is why some of them — from Mexico to Italy to the United States — prioritize economic growth over the measures required to curb a rise in infections.
Take Mexican President Obrador, known by his nickname AMLO. In speech after speech, he tells Mexicans they shouldn’t fear Covid-19. Despite warnings from global health officials, he continues to hold political rallies, kiss supporters, and request that Mexicans go out shopping to prop up the country’s sputtering economy during a global slowdown.
“Live life as usual,” he said in a video posted to Facebook on March 22, showing him outside at a restaurant. “If you’re able and have the means to do so, continue taking your family out to eat … because that strengthens the economy.”
That’s not to say the economy isn’t in urgent need. Petróleos Mexicanos, the country’s state-owned oil company, is deeply in debt and in crisis, especially as global oil prices plummet. The country’s economy contracted by 0.5 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, and many indicators point to a years-long slump. As the world confronts the possibility of a pandemic-induced recession, it’s not unreasonable for AMLO to want to boost the economy.
But his slow response, including a lack of widespread testing and provision of additional protective gear for medical professionals, has made Mexico less safe — thereby likely dooming its economy in the long run. “You need to prioritize people’s health and worry about how many might die before the economy’s health,” Alejandro Macías, who served as the Mexican government’s “czar” for the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak, told me last week.
Trump has a similar mindset to AMLO’s. After months of minimizing the problem, saying America had it under control, he eventually listened to medical experts who said the country needed to impose social distancing measures to slow the spread of the coronavirus. But after only a few weeks of that, the president wanted everything to go back to normal.
Trump said he wanted businesses open and people back to work by Easter, April 12. “What a great timeline that would be,” he said during a Fox News town hall this week. That went against the advice of experts who said the US needed to keep socially distancing for more weeks, perhaps even months.
But Trump continued to insist that the “cure” — shutting down the economy temporarily — can’t be worse than the disease. “America will again, and soon, be open for business,” Trump said last week. “Very soon. A lot sooner than three or four months that somebody was suggesting. A lot sooner. We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.”
Now, however, Trump has reversed course once again, listening to his experts who said he should keep social distancing measures in place. He’s now extended the guidelines until April 30.
Trump isn’t entirely off base to want the country open for business again, though. Numbers from last week showed unemployment claims jumped to 3.3 million, which shattered the previous record of 700,000 in a single week. There is no looming economic disaster in America; the disaster is already here.
Related 9 charts showing what coronavirus is doing to the economy
Still, that’s not the entire picture. The debate isn’t “open for business” versus “closed for business,” but rather short-term pain versus long-term gain. Indeed, an economics paper released this week showed governments that take precautionary measures in a health crisis actually do better overall.
“We find that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively do not perform worse and, if anything, grow faster after the pandemic is over,” the authors write. “Our findings thus indicate that [non-pharmaceutical interventions] not only lower mortality; they also mitigate the adverse economic consequences of a pandemic.”
The reason, according to Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, is that leaders need to take aggressive measures early on when the crisis doesn’t look so bad. “But when it gets bad if left unaddressed, it’s really late in the game, and the stuff you have to do is so much worse,” Jha told me.
It’s for these and other reasons that everyone I spoke to said that the leaders in denial need to get out of their heads and listen to the medical experts at a time like this. The experts are the ones who know what to do and aren’t burdened with the political responsibilities and calculations of world leaders.
But if the denialism continues, it’s not just political futures that are at stake, it’s people’s lives. “It’s in their political interest to address the pandemic,” says Johns Hopkins’s Shiffman, “but it’s also the right thing to do.”
The coronavirus doesn’t fit into many leaders’ agendas
Seminal work by political scientists Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones shows the importance of political agendas, and the impact they have on a leader’s time in power.
Simply put, a new political leader brings with him or her a new way of viewing the world. Anything that falls outside of that view tends to take a back seat to the leaders’ main concerns, regardless of how important that back-seat issue may prove to be.
“It’s not like epidemiology is at the forefront of any political leader’s knowledge,” said Baumgartner, now at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
This is less of a partisan or ideological issue and more of a personal issue. The individual, more than the political leaning, explains one’s action in times of crisis.
Indeed, Georgetown Law’s global health and politics expert Matthew Kavanagh gave me the example of how Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, both Republicans, handled the HIV/AIDS crisis.
Reagan didn’t want anything to do with it, Kavanagh said, since during his time it was seen as a problem primarily affecting gay men — not a key concern for the conservative president or his explicitly anti-gay-rights Moral Majority backers.
Bush, by contrast, came to power on the back of his “compassionate conservatism” push. “Compassionate means you care about people and the policies you enunciate help people,” he told the Catalyst magazine in 2018.
When he announced a major, well-funded program to combat the epidemic on the African continent in 2002, he told a Rose Garden audience that “the global devastation of HIV/AIDS staggers the imagination and shocks the conscience.”
He saw it as his duty, as president of the United States, to help solve the problem. The program was, and remains, one of the greatest global health initiatives in history. It proved so successful that pundits continue to note how popular Bush actually is in Africa.
All told, despite coming from the same political party, each politician had different priorities, which in turn led them to prioritize in vastly different ways.
In the case of the Covid-19 pandemic, world leaders such as Trump and Bolsonaro who denied the disease’s severity had their attention broadly tuned to gaining political power or growing their economy. That, in one sense, is normal. “Countries have political and economic incentives to underplay what’s happening” during an outbreak, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Bollyky told me.
But in another sense, combating the virus forcefully — risking other aspects of their time in power — would counter certain leaders’ agendas and biases. “Politicians need to fit what’s happening into their line of thinking,” Kavanagh said. “There’s a narrative that every leader and politician is constructing about who they are and how they govern. It’s very hard to shake them out of that, even when a crisis confronts them.”
For Trump, that narrative was that he had single-handedly Made America Great Again. The notion that with the coronavirus pandemic America might be facing a challenge unlike any it had faced in recent history — and, even worse, that it might not be prepared to handle it — ran counter to that narrative. If Trump has already made America great, surely it would be able to handle a few hundred sick people.
Trump’s failure to see beyond the mythology he’d created around his presidency led to a sense of overconfidence when it came to the coronavirus response early on — a deadly miscalculation.
“The boy who cried wolf” syndrome
It’s important to remember that the coronavirus isn’t the first big pandemic scare the world has faced in recent years.
In 2003, there was SARS. In 2009, there was the H1N1 influenza. In 2012, there was MERS. In 2014, there was Ebola. And in 2015, there was Zika. Each of these diseases spread around the world and killed thousands. But they didn’t produce the large-scale disruption that Covid-19 has in 2020. Instead, they were mostly contained to specific regions, like MERS was in the Middle East.
It’s therefore not terribly surprising that some leaders and their populations might not have taken the novel coronavirus scourge seriously. “I’m sympathetic to the fact that some leaders looked at this situation and thought, ‘We’ll be the one lucky country that this passes by,’” said Harvard’s Jha, “but that’s not how the world works.”
The other diseases were incredibly dangerous, but what makes Covid-19 so problematic is that it can take a long time for symptoms to show up. That means people can transmit it to one another even when they’re not showing symptoms. People who are infected can also be completely asymptomatic yet still transmit the virus.
All of that means the novel coronavirus is a lot more dangerous than those previous outbreaks. As Vox’s Daniel Markus notes, SARS and MERS (both of which are coronaviruses) together killed fewer people overall than this virus did in less than two months.
But in the early days of the outbreak, much of this information about the disease was not well known — in part because, as discussed above, Chinese officials actively covered up critical details about the virus.
A world leader seeing an outbreak in a specific region of China might understandably assume it would play out the same way previous coronavirus outbreaks have and not take drastic steps early on like closing borders and instituting stay-at-home orders.
“These are unprecedented steps that are called for, and so there would be a desire to engage in wishful thinking that it’s not as bad as the experts are saying,” UNC’s Baumgartner said.
And, interestingly, it seems that the leaders who didn’t engage in wishful thinking were, for the most part, in countries that had experience with previous disease outbreaks. South Korea was familiar with SARS and Saudi Arabia remembered MERS. Before the outbreak got much worse, they took the necessary actions — like closing borders early and testing often — to slow the spread.
That’s the kind of rapid, aggressive action that is still needed now. Denialism will only make it worse.