vox--2020-03-18--Idaho’s legislature hasn’t addressed the coronavirus. But it has passed 2 anti-trans bills this week

Idaho’s legislature hasn’t addressed the coronavirus. But it has passed 2 anti-trans bills this week.

As of Tuesday morning , Idaho Gov .
Brad Little had declared a state of emergency in the state over the coronavirus outbreak .
Some school districts have closed .
But the state legislature hadn ’ t yet taken action to mitigate the effects of the pandemic .
It has , though , passed two anti-transgender bills .
Monday evening , the state Senate passed a bill banning gender changes on birth certificates issued in the state .
The bill had already passed the state House of Representatives and will now head to Little ’ s desk for either a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of three anti-trans proposals under consideration in the state , including a ban on allowing trans girls to compete in girls ’ sports passed Monday and a proposal to make treating trans youth for gender dysphoria a felony that is under consideration in the legislature .
“ Boys are boys and girls are girls , ” Republican state Sen. Lee Heider said Monday .
“ No doctor , no judge , no Department of Health and Welfare is going to change that reality.
” Five former Idaho state attorneys general recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certificate bill and the trans girl sports ban to avoid lengthy and costly legal battles in federal courts — particularly given that a measure similar to the new birth certificate bill has already been declared unconstitutional .
In 2018 , a federal court ruled that Idaho ’ s then-ban on birth certificate gender changes was unconstitutional , ordering that the state create a process to do so containing no “ onerous burdens.
” The state Department of Health and Welfare soon adopted rules to facilitate that process .
The new bill attempts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ biological basis ” for sex markers on birth certificates , citing a government need for accurate record-keeping .
But the courts aren ’ t likely to accept this distinction .
Because the state allows changes for other data fields on birth certificates , the court is likely to take a close look at equal protection implications of the potential new law because of the way it singles out transgender people but not others .
Lambda Legal , the LGBTQ legal group that won its lawsuit challenging the original ban , has promised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill — and the state attorney general ’ s office has made it clear it isn ’ t confident it could successfully defend the new legislation .
The bill “ appears to try to thread the rapidly shrinking constitutional eye of a needle , ” Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane recently wrote in an opinion .
“ This office can not determine at this point whether that eye can be threaded with [ the bill ] , but notes that based on the existent case law it will likely require the State to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court.
” Beyond the fact that signing the bill would task the attorney general ’ s office with fighting a case it feels it might lose , legal experts estimate it could cost the state $ 1 million to defend the bill if Little signs it into law .
That ’ s a cost Republican lawmakers in the state appear ready to pay .
“ I think we all understand what the costs and what the risks are in making the decision to go forward , ” said Republican state Sen. Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether Idaho Republicans ’ gamble will pay off , or if voters will look back on these last few days of the state legislative calendar as a missed opportunity to mitigate a pandemic in the state .
Fighting the culture war in the age of coronavirus The Idaho anti-trans bills are part of a larger conservative effort to use trans people and their needs as an electoral wedge issue .
Their assumption is that working-class voters will turn on any Democrats defending trans people at the ballot box this fall — and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Republicans in the past , albeit one that has grown much less effective over time .
For instance , in 2016 and again in 2018 , conservative-led states attempted to enact discriminatory “ bathroom bills , ” assuming it would turn into a winning issue , but as of today , not a single state has a bathroom bill on the books , and efforts to ban trans athletes and puberty blockers for trans kids have failed everywhere outside of Idaho .
Despite this , anti-trans sentiment appears to still be strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up views on conservative news sites for months , and it appears Republican legislators in multiple states are trying to ride the wave of this sentiment through legislative action , such as by focusing on banning puberty blockers for trans kids , as I explained in late January : This trend has long been evident in Idaho , which was one of the last states to have a birth certificate gender change ban on its books before it was overturned in court two years ago .
While a state passing legislation that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best of times , Idaho lawmakers ’ focus on this issue — again , it has passed two anti-trans bills in two days — amid the coronavirus pandemic is a matter of concern .
Although the state only has a handful of coronavirus cases so far , Idahoans are still allowed to congregate in bars and restaurants without restrictions , something at odds with guidelines from both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the White House .
In a time when people are concerned for their own health , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees a growing number of confirmed coronavirus cases , the state ’ s focus on further marginalizing a tiny community with little political power comes across as increasingly petty and small .
Correction : An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the views of Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden , whose office has indicated the two Idaho bills may face legal challenges .
Wasden has not recommended vetoes of the bills .

While much of the US is entrenched in coronavirus developments, transgender people have had their eye on the governor’s mansion in Idaho. The state legislature had passed two anti-trans bills in recent weeks and the LGBTQ community waited anxiously to see if Gov. Brad Little would sign the bills or veto them.
Late Monday evening, the governor signed both bills into law.
After already passing the state House, the state Senate passed a bill in mid-March banning gender changes on birth certificates issued in the state. The bill was one of three anti-trans proposals under consideration in the state, including a ban on allowing trans girls to compete in girls’ sports, which also passed and was signed by the governor. A third proposal to make treating trans youth for gender dysphoria a felony was also under consideration in the legislature but was killed in committee.
“Boys are boys and girls are girls,” Republican state Sen. Lee Heider said in March. “No doctor, no judge, no Department of Health and Welfare is going to change that reality.”
After Little signed the bill, ACLU attorney Chase Strangio signaled on Twitter a potential lawsuit could be on the horizon.
BREAKING (BAD) NEWS: Governor Little has signed HB500 and HB509. Devastating. Targeting trans people. Hurting trans people. Why???
We will see you in court. — Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) March 31, 2020
Five former Idaho state attorneys general had recommended that the governor veto both the birth certificate bill and the trans girl sports ban to avoid lengthy and costly legal battles in federal courts — particularly given that a measure similar to the new birth certificate bill has already been declared unconstitutional.
In 2018, a federal court ruled that Idaho’s then-ban on birth certificate gender changes was unconstitutional, ordering that the state create a process to do so containing no “onerous burdens.” The state Department of Health and Welfare soon adopted rules to facilitate that process.
The new law, however, attempts to skirt the federal ruling by establishing a “biological basis” for sex markers on birth certificates, citing a government need for accurate record-keeping. But the courts aren’t likely to accept this distinction. Because the state allows changes for other data fields on birth certificates, the court is likely to take a close look at equal protection implications of the new law because of the way it singles out transgender people but not others.
Lambda Legal, the LGBTQ legal group that won its lawsuit challenging the original ban, has promised to sue the state again over the bill — and the state attorney general’s office has made it clear it isn’t confident it could successfully defend the new legislation.
The bill “appears to try to thread the rapidly shrinking constitutional eye of a needle,” Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane recently wrote in an opinion. “This office cannot determine at this point whether that eye can be threaded with [the bill], but notes that based on the existent case law it will likely require the State to litigate this matter to the United States Supreme Court.”
Signing the bill essentially tasks the attorney general’s office with fighting a case it feels it might lose; legal experts estimate it could cost the state $1 million to defend the law. That’s a cost Republican lawmakers in the state appear ready to pay. “I think we all understand what the costs and what the risks are in making the decision to go forward,” said Republican state Sen. Jim Rice.
It remains to be seen whether Idaho Republicans’ gamble will pay off, or if voters will look back on these last few days of the state legislative calendar as a missed opportunity to mitigate a pandemic in the state.
Fighting the culture war in the age of coronavirus
The Idaho anti-trans bills are part of a larger conservative effort to use trans people and their needs as an electoral wedge issue. Their assumption is that working-class voters will turn on any Democrats defending trans people at the ballot box this fall — and it is a strategy that has paid dividends for Republicans in the past, albeit one that has grown much less effective over time.
For instance, in 2016 and again in 2018, conservative-led states attempted to enact discriminatory “bathroom bills,” assuming it would turn into a winning issue, but as of today, not a single state has a bathroom bill on the books, and efforts to ban trans athletes and puberty blockers for trans kids have failed everywhere outside of Idaho.
Despite this, anti-trans sentiment appears to still be strong among certain conservatives. Articles have racked up views on conservative news sites for months, and it appears Republican legislators in multiple states are trying to ride the wave of this sentiment through legislative action, such as by focusing on banning puberty blockers for trans kids, as I explained in late January:
This trend has long been evident in Idaho, which was one of the last states to have a birth certificate gender change ban on its books before it was overturned in court two years ago.
In a time when people are concerned for their own health, and as the US — and Idaho — sees a growing number of confirmed coronavirus cases, the state’s focus on further marginalizing a tiny community with little political power comes across as increasingly petty and small.
Correction, March 18: An earlier version of this article mistook the views of Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, whose office has indicated the two Idaho bills may face legal challenges. Wasden has not recommended vetoes of the bills.


vox--2020-03-18--Why we need to protect children from Covid-19, even if they face lower risks

Why we need to protect children from Covid-19 , even if they face lower risks Share All sharing options for : Why we need to protect children from Covid-19 , even if they face lower risks Children and young people are vulnerable to the new coronavirus , but Covid-19 appears to be less severe in children than in some older adults , and scientists aren ’ t sure why .
This age disparity of severe cases has become a critical question as scientists race to slow the virus ’ s spread .
Some clues to this mystery are starting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish what kinds of infection control measures are actually effective , as well as point the way toward treatments .
“ We do know that children tend to have more mild infection , have more mild disease , but we have seen [ at least one child ] die from this infection , ” Maria Van Kerkhove , the Covid-19 technical lead at the World Health Organization , said in a press conference on March 16 .
“ We can ’ t say universally that it ’ s mild in children , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children as a vulnerable population.
” In the United States , doctors say they have seen milder symptoms — like a fever and a dry cough — in children among those that have sought treatment than among adults .
“ At our hospital , Seattle Children ’ s , we ’ re a little bit further along in the pandemic ; we are not seeing serious disease in children , ” said Janet Englund , a professor of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington Seattle and a physician at Seattle Children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s relatively indistinguishable from flu , but we can ’ t tell the difference unless we test , which we can do here.
” Right now , the data on Covid-19 ’ s effects on the young are sparse , but recent studies show that even with children , some groups are more vulnerable than others depending on age and health conditions .
Some children with Covid-19 can still experience serious lung disease .
Kids with simultaneous respiratory infections can be more vulnerable to Covid-19 .
Infants without mature immune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet compared to adults , Covid-19 appears to be less severe in most kids .
“ I think it is clear that children are not as seriously impacted as older adults , ” Englund added .
The twist is that even if they don ’ t get very sick , young people infected with the virus can transmit it .
And the particular concern is that they spread it to someone who might be immunocompromised or otherwise at higher risk .
That means epidemic control measures — from proper hand-washing to social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the young and healthy as they are for people who are older or sicker .
What we know about the age disparity in severe cases of Covid-19 Countries that have experienced more extensive outbreaks of Covid-19 , including China and Italy , have seen the worst impacts of Covid-19 on older adults , with the number of people hospitalized and killed by the disease rising with age .
Underlying health problems like high blood pressure , a depressed immune system , and diabetes have also worsened the outcomes among the infected .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from babies to young adults , have also suffered serious harm .
A study published in February in the Journal of the American Medical Association of more than 72,000 infected people in China showed that just 2 percent of the infected in the sample were under the age of 19 .
Similarly , a February report from the WHO ’ s mission to China showed that only 2.4 percent of the infected were 18 years old or younger .
Out of those infected young people , 2.5 percent developed severe disease and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WHO report also noted that “ it is not possible to determine the extent of infection among children , what role children play in transmission , whether children are less susceptible or if they present differently clinically ( i.e .
generally milder presentations ) .
” Which is to say few children are being tested for the virus , so there still isn ’ t much good information about how many children are getting infected overall .
And from there , it ’ s hard to gauge the rate of severe illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Covid-19 seems to play out differently in children compared to what health officials have seen with other infections , such as influenza .
Influenza , also caused by a virus that infects the airways , can be a very serious illness in children .
Complications from influenza , like a subsequent bacterial pneumonia infection , can be fatal .
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , since September , 144 children have died in the US from influenza in the current season as of March 7 .
Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 among children in the US so far .
“ Everything we know about other viral infections would suggest that children are at higher risk ” of infection , said Bria Coates , an assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University and an attending physician at the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children ’ s Hospital of Chicago .
“ They don ’ t tend to wash their hands very well .
They don ’ t give each other space.
” Which makes the lower prevalence of severe illness for Covid-19 among children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease varies so much among age groups , especially compared to influenza , remains a mystery .
“ The reason why children are less affected than adults is potentially a very interesting question , ” said Steven Zeichner , a professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia School of Medicine who studies infectious disease .
“ I don ’ t think anybody knows the answer.
” The overall risk to children is low , but infants can experience more severe illness from Covid-19 compared to older children While children seem less likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adults , the risk isn ’ t zero .
A study published March 16 in the journal Pediatrics of more than 2,100 children in China found that children of all ages were vulnerable to Covid-19 , though the vast majority experienced mild symptoms , and some experienced none at all .
A caveat for this study is that only one-third of the children in the sample were tested and confirmed to have the Covid-19 virus , SARS-CoV-2 .
The rest were presumptive Covid-19 cases , which means there ’ s a possibility that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms .
Zeichner , who co-authored a commentary article about the findings , noted that the worst outcomes in children were often among infants .
The study showed that about 30 percent of childhood Covid-19 cases deemed “ severe ” and more than half of Covid-19 cases deemed “ critical ” were among children less than 1 year old .
Though the overall numbers were small — 7 infants had critical illness and 33 suffered severe illness — it did show that younger children faced a higher likelihood of more dangerous outcomes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because babies are still building up their immune systems .
When a baby is born , it retains some infection resistance in the form of antibodies from its mother .
That protection wanes over the first few months of life as the baby builds up its own defenses .
“ The immune systems in children are not weaker than adults , ” Coates said .
“ Instead , they are untrained.
” However , for a new virus like SARS-CoV-2 , there isn ’ t immunity a mother can pass on , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance to be infected with the new virus .
There ’ s also no Covid-19 vaccine right now that can coach a child ’ s immune system to fight the virus .
At the same time , babies are being exposed to all sorts of environmental stimuli for the first time — bacteria , pollen , dust .
To prevent their bodies from overreacting to otherwise harmless things , their immune reactions are tamped down .
“ In general , infants ’ immune systems err on the side of a decreased response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The results is that infants , particularly in their first year of life , are more vulnerable to dangerous complications from infections .
But during the first year , the baby ’ s immune system matures , becoming more effective at fighting off disease as it learns to identify threats .
Similarly , children who are immunocompromised or have other cardiac , metabolic , or respiratory problems are also at higher risk of complications from Covid-19 , just as they would be from other infections .
On the other hand , there may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children .
One hypothesis is that children face more frequent exposure to viruses that are related to SARS-CoV-2 but are much less harmful , so they have some cross-reacting immunity that helps them fight it .
“ SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus , but it ’ s far from the only coronavirus that ’ s out there , and a substantial fraction of the common cold [ cases ] are caused by other coronaviruses , ” Zeichner said .
Children may be exposed to these viruses more frequently than adults at school and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immune systems detect and fight off the new virus .
Another hypothesis is that the immune system in children is less likely to overreact to an invader , according to Coates .
Many of the older people who were hospitalized by Covid-19 suffered from severe inflammation and fever , immune responses that ended up causing more damage than the virus itself .
With a lower risk of severe immune response , children experience milder symptoms .
Right now these ideas are just hypotheses with scant evidence to back them up .
But figuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way could yield dividends for everyone .
“ If you could find out why children are protected , you could use that information to devise a strategy to protect adults , ” Coates said .
What is the best strategy to protect children from Covid-19 ?
Preventing infections is the best way to protect everyone , regardless of age .
Hand-washing , for instance , remains an important tactic for young and old alike to control the spread of the coronavirus .
But across the country , schools , colleges , offices , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down to limit the spread of the infection .
Canceling gatherings is a key component of social distancing , the practice of limiting exposure to other people to control the spread of the virus .
Many schools have no scheduled date to resume .
However , school closures come with trade-offs , including for public health .
Schools are also the main source of food for many students , and the supervision they provide allows the parents of children to go to work .
Some researchers also question the effectiveness of such measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that we are seeing , we are not seeing transmission in settings like schools where we would worry about amplification of transmission , ” said the WHO ’ s Van Kerkhove .
As Vox ’ s Anna North has reported , inconsistent guidelines for school closures are also undermining their effectiveness : However , other experts argue that now is exactly the time to pursue such drastic measures .
“ I think we ’ re at the very beginning of [ a potentially ] exponentially increasing problem , and if you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem , you have to intervene at the beginning , ” Zeichner said .
Coates agreed .
“ I think that closing schools is a very effective way of stopping transmission of infectious diseases , ” she said .
Experts are also divided on continuing smaller gatherings of children like play dates amid the outbreak .
Zeichner also emphasized keeping kids current with their vaccinations and making sure they get regular flu shots .
While the influenza vaccine can ’ t prevent Covid-19 , it can prevent influenza , which in turn reduces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and on families .
And if you suspect your child may be infected with SARS-CoV-2 , the best thing to do is to call your doctor for advice .
Seattle Children ’ s Englund said that parents should seek medical attention if they notice their children are having difficulty breathing — wheezing , persistent coughing , breathlessness , and difficulty talking .
“ If the child is having trouble breathing , they certainly need to be seen urgently , ” she said .
But ultimately , some degree of exposure is inevitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adults .
“ It ’ s hard to conduct a program of social distancing with your toddler , ” Zeichner said .

Children and young people are vulnerable to the new coronavirus, but the Covid-19 disease appears to be less severe in children than in some older adults, and scientists aren’t sure why.
This age disparity of severe cases has become a critical question as scientists race to slow the virus’s spread. Some clues to this mystery are starting to emerge, and the answers could help establish what kinds of infection control measures are actually effective, as well as point the way toward treatments.
“We do know that children tend to have more mild infection, have more mild disease, but we have seen [at least one child] die from this infection,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the Covid-19 technical lead at the World Health Organization, said in a press conference on March 16. “We can’t say universally that it’s mild in children, so it’s important that we protect children as a vulnerable population.”
In the United States, doctors say they have seen milder symptoms — like a fever and a dry cough — in children among those that have sought treatment than the adults who have.
“At our hospital, Seattle Children’s, we’re a little bit further along in the pandemic; we are not seeing serious disease in children,” said Janet Englund, a professor of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington Seattle and a physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital. “For us, it’s relatively indistinguishable from flu, but we can’t tell the difference unless we test, which we can do here.”
Right now, the data on Covid-19’s effects on the young are sparse, but recent studies show that even with children, some groups are more vulnerable than others depending on age and health conditions. Some children with Covid-19 can still experience serious lung disease. Kids with simultaneous respiratory infections can be more vulnerable to Covid-19. Infants without mature immune systems can get sick from the virus. Yet compared to adults, Covid-19 appears to be less severe in most kids.
“I think it is clear that children are not as seriously impacted as older adults,” Englund added.
The twist is that even if they don’t get very sick, young people infected with the virus can transmit it. And the particular concern is that they spread it to someone who might be immunocompromised or otherwise at higher risk. That means epidemic control measures — from proper hand-washing to social distancing — are just as important for the young and healthy as they are for people who are older or sicker.
What we know about the age disparity in severe cases of Covid-19
Countries that have experienced more extensive outbreaks of Covid-19, including China and Italy, have seen the worst impacts of Covid-19 on older adults, with the number of people hospitalized and killed by the disease rising with age. Underlying health problems like high blood pressure, a depressed immune system, and diabetes have also worsened the outcomes among the infected.
However, a small percentage of younger people, from babies to young adults, have also suffered serious harm.
A study published in February in the Journal of the American Medical Association of more than 72,000 infected people in China showed that just 2 percent of the infected in the sample were under the age of 19. Similarly, a February report from the WHO’s mission to China showed that only 2.4 percent of the infected were 18 years old or younger. Out of those infected young people, 2.5 percent developed severe disease and 0.2 percent developed critical disease.
But the WHO report also noted that “it is not possible to determine the extent of infection among children, what role children play in transmission, whether children are less susceptible or if they present differently clinically (i.e. generally milder presentations).” Which is to say few children are being tested for the virus, so there still isn’t much good information about how many children are getting infected overall. And from there, it’s hard to gauge the rate of severe illness for the young.
Another element is that Covid-19 seems to play out differently in children compared to what health officials have seen with other infections, such as influenza.
Influenza, also caused by a virus that infects the airways, can be a very serious illness in children. Complications from influenza, like a subsequent bacterial pneumonia infection, can be fatal. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, since September, 144 children have died in the US from influenza in the current season as of March 7. Meanwhile, there have been no reported deaths from Covid-19 among children in the US so far.
“Everything we know about other viral infections would suggest that children are at higher risk” of infection, said Bria Coates, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University and an attending physician at the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. “They don’t tend to wash their hands very well. They don’t give each other space.” Which makes the lower prevalence of severe illness for Covid-19 among children all the more remarkable.
Why the disease varies so much among age groups, especially compared to influenza, remains a mystery. “The reason why children are less affected than adults is potentially a very interesting question,” said Steven Zeichner, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia School of Medicine who studies infectious disease. “I don’t think anybody knows the answer.”
The overall risk to children is low, but infants can experience more severe illness from Covid-19 compared to older children
While children seem less likely to experience severe symptoms of Covid-19 than adults, the risk isn’t zero. A study published March 16 in the journal Pediatrics of more than 2,100 children in China found that children of all ages were vulnerable to Covid-19, though the vast majority experienced mild symptoms, and some experienced none at all. A caveat for this study is that only one-third of the children in the sample were tested and confirmed to have the Covid-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2. The rest were presumptive Covid-19 cases, which means there’s a possibility that another pathogen could have caused the observed symptoms.
Zeichner, who co-authored a commentary article about the findings, noted that the worst outcomes in children were often among infants. The study showed that about 30 percent of childhood Covid-19 cases deemed “severe” and more than half of Covid-19 cases deemed “critical” were among children less than 1 year old. Though the overall numbers were small — 7 infants had critical illness and 33 suffered severe illness — it did show that younger children faced a higher likelihood of more dangerous outcomes.
That higher risk for babies may be because babies are still building up their immune systems. When a baby is born, it retains some infection resistance in the form of antibodies from its mother. That protection wanes over the first few months of life as the baby builds up its own defenses.
“The immune systems in children are not weaker than adults,” Coates said. “Instead, they are untrained.”
However, for a new virus like SARS-CoV-2, there isn’t immunity a mother can pass on, since the mother likely would not have had a chance to be infected with the new virus. There’s also no Covid-19 vaccine right now that can coach a child’s immune system to fight the virus.
At the same time, babies are being exposed to all sorts of environmental stimuli for the first time — bacteria, pollen, dust. To prevent their bodies from overreacting to otherwise harmless things, their immune reactions are tamped down. “In general, infants’ immune systems err on the side of a decreased response to infections,” Coates said.
The results is that infants, particularly in their first year of life, are more vulnerable to dangerous complications from infections. But during the first year, the baby’s immune system matures, becoming more effective at fighting off disease as it learns to identify threats.
Similarly, children who are immunocompromised or have other cardiac, metabolic, or respiratory problems are also at higher risk of complications from Covid-19, just as they would be from other infections.
On the other hand, there may be factors that reduce risks for older children. One hypothesis is that children face more frequent exposure to viruses that are related to SARS-CoV-2 but are much less harmful, so they have some cross-reacting immunity that helps them fight it.
“SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus, but it’s far from the only coronavirus that’s out there, and a substantial fraction of the common cold [cases] are caused by other coronaviruses,” Zeichner said. Children may be exposed to these viruses more frequently than adults at school and in playgroups, which may be helping their immune systems detect and fight off the new virus.
Another hypothesis is that the immune system in children is less likely to overreact to an invader, according to Coates. Many of the older people who were hospitalized by Covid-19 suffered from severe inflammation and fever, immune responses that ended up causing more damage than the virus itself. With a lower risk of severe immune response, children experience milder symptoms.
Right now these ideas are just hypotheses with scant evidence to back them up. But figuring out why Covid-19 is playing out this way could yield dividends for everyone. “If you could find out why children are protected, you could use that information to devise a strategy to protect adults,” Coates said.
What is the best strategy to protect children from Covid-19?
Preventing infections is the best way to protect everyone, regardless of age. Hand-washing, for instance, remains an important tactic for young and old alike to control the spread of the coronavirus.
But across the country, schools, colleges, offices, and sporting events have all been shut down to limit the spread of the infection. Canceling gatherings is a key component of social distancing, the practice of limiting exposure to other people to control the spread of the virus. Many schools have no scheduled date to resume.
However, school closures come with trade-offs, including for public health. Schools are also the main source of food for many students, and the supervision they provide allows the parents of children to go to work.
Some researchers also question the effectiveness of such measures in protecting children. “From the evidence that we are seeing, we are not seeing transmission in settings like schools where we would worry about amplification of transmission,” said the WHO’s Van Kerkhove.
As Vox’s Anna North has reported, inconsistent guidelines for school closures are also undermining their effectiveness:
The CDC has said that school closures of under four weeks likely will not have a meaningful effect on the spread of the virus. In fact, the CDC is somewhat equivocal on whether school closures are effective at all, stating that closures of 8 to 20 weeks may have some effect, but that other interventions like hand-washing and isolation are more effective, according to the Washington Post.
However, other experts argue that now is exactly the time to pursue such drastic measures. “I think we’re at the very beginning of [a potentially] exponentially increasing problem, and if you want to get ahead of an exponentially increasing problem, you have to intervene at the beginning,” Zeichner said.
Coates agreed. “I think that closing schools is a very effective way of stopping transmission of infectious diseases,” she said.
Experts are also divided on continuing smaller gatherings of children like play dates amid the outbreak.
Zeichner also emphasized keeping kids current with their vaccinations and making sure they get regular flu shots. While the influenza vaccine can’t prevent Covid-19, it can prevent influenza, which in turn reduces the stress on the health care system, and on families.
And if you suspect your child may be infected with SARS-CoV-2, the best thing to do is to call your doctor for advice. Seattle Children’s Englund said that parents should seek medical attention if they notice their children are having difficulty breathing — wheezing, persistent coughing, breathlessness, and difficulty talking. “If the child is having trouble breathing, they certainly need to be seen urgently,” she said.
But ultimately, some degree of exposure is inevitable, among children and between children and adults. “It’s hard to conduct a program of social distancing with your toddler,” Zeichner said.


vox--2020-03-18--Trump spent weeks downplaying the coronavirus. He’s now pretending that never happened.

President Donald Trump has evolved on the coronavirus pandemic .
The president spent the first six weeks of the outbreak insisting that the situation was under control .
He even characterized Democratic criticism of the federal government ’ s response , which has been lowlighted by an inability to test sufficient numbers of people for the virus , as “ their new hoax.
” But this week , as the number of cases — and the death toll — rises and the economy looks increasingly bleak , Trump ’ s tone has shifted .
In a notable development , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday ’ s press conference , deferring to experts on scientific questions and outlining the government ’ s social distancing guidelines .
“ My administration is recommending that all Americans , including the young and healthy , work to engage in schooling from home when possible , avoid gathering in groups of more than 10 people , avoid discretionary travel , and avoid eating and drinking at bars , restaurants , and public food courts , ” Trump said .
That the president is taking the outbreak seriously is certainly a step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump and follow experts ’ advice , that may actually save lives .
But Trump is also interested in seizing the narrative of the pandemic now , attempting to frame himself as a president who competently handled the crisis , even referring to himself in Wednesday ’ s press conference as a “ wartime president.
” He ’ s also trying to erase his early rhetoric and response .
Trump proclaimed during Tuesday ’ s press conference that “ I ’ ve always known this is a real — this is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.
” CNN ran a segment Wednesday highlighting the disconnect between Trump ’ s public statements now and what he ’ s been saying the past six weeks .
Trump fired off this tweet a short time later : “ I always treated the Chinese Virus very seriously , and have done a very good job from the beginning , including my very early decision to close the ‘ borders ’ from China - against the wishes of almost all .
Many lives were saved .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ & false !
” It ’ s good that Trump is now taking the Covid-19 pandemic seriously , but it is simply not the case that he did so from the start .
His own actions and public statements demonstrate this .
As the media continues to cover the story , it ’ s important to hold the president accountable for his actions — and inactions .
Trump lost valuable time ignoring expert calls to act .
He also actively spread misinformation .
Real people ’ s lives were harmed and we shouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a look back at Trump ’ s evolution over the two months .
Trump gutted the government ’ s pandemic response capability and then downplayed the seriousness of an ensuing pandemic As my colleague German Lopez detailed last week , two years ago Trump and then-National Security Adviser John Bolton disbanded a White House agency that was set up by the Obama administration to lead federal preparation and coordination for outbreaks like the one the world is now trying to contend with .
But during a news conference last week , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , saying , “ I didn ’ t do it .
We have a group of people ...
I don ’ t know anything about it.
” When he wasn ’ t insisting that the buck stops elsewhere , Trump was telling the public that coronavirus was really nothing to worry about .
As the coronavirus spread in China and the first US case was reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) on January 21 , Trump was asked during an interview with CNBC on January 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation escalating into a pandemic .
He said he did not .
“ No , not at all .
We have it totally under control , ” Trump said .
“ It ’ s one person coming in from China , and we have it under control .
It ’ s going to be just fine.
” That comment set the tone for Trump ’ s remarks about the coronavirus until this Monday , when — as the stock market endured one of its worst days in history and the country entered a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s spread — Trump finally started to talk about the situation with the seriousness it deserves .
The change in tone was remarkable considering how dismissive Trump had been about the coronavirus before then .
During an interview on February 2 , for instance , Trump alluded to the move his administration announced in January to restrict entry into the country from China and said , “ We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.
” But by that time cases were already spreading inside the country .
Then , 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubious assertion that “ you know in April , supposedly [ the virus ] dies with the hotter weather.
” “ One day it ’ s like a miracle , it will disappear , ” Trump said .
( Unfortunately , research indicates it doesn ’ t quite work like that . )
Trump even expressed hope that the coronavirus would go away before winter ended .
During a news conference on February 26 , he noted there were only five coronavirus cases in the country and said “ we could be at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next short period of time.
” But despite issues with testing preventing the full scope of infection in the US from being known , by the end of February the number of cases in the US had broken 60 and instances of community spread had been recorded .
Trump , however , ignored those problems and cited his “ hunch ” to make a case that the coronavirus death rate is lower than official estimates coming from organizations like the World Health Organization ( WHO ) .
Perhaps most memorably , Trump closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he dismissed criticism of the government ’ s testing failures coming from Democrats and elsewhere as “ their new hoax.
” After receiving criticism for it , Trump quickly tried to walk it back — but in the days that followed he misleadingly hyped a coronavirus vaccine even as experts were telling him it wouldn ’ t be available for a year or more .
On March 6 , Trump proclaimed during a tour of the CDC in Atlanta that “ anybody right now and yesterday , anybody that needs a test gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was false then and false now : The US continues to lag far behind other countries in testing capability .
As recently as March 7 , Trump was telling reporters he was “ not concerned ” about coronavirus ’ s spread because “ we ’ ve done a great job.
” Ironically , he made that remark during a summit with Brazilian leaders at Mar-a-Lago that culminated in at least four people who were there testing positive for the virus .
Two days later , Trump posted a tweet in which he undersold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the common flu , which is less deadly and spreads less easily .
So instead of treating the coronavirus “ very seriously , ” Trump actually spent weeks downplaying it .
The Recount put together this helpful video tracking Trump ’ s dismissive comments with the spread in the United States .
Something seemed to change for Trump toward the end of last week — a week in which the WHO officially declared coronavirus to be a pandemic as the number of cases and deaths in the United States mounted and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a national emergency last Friday — days after the national address when many thought he would — and then began this week with a news conference in which he discussed new federal guidelines about what people should do to slow the spread of coronavirus .
That was followed by the news conference on Tuesday in which Trump claimed “ I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic ” and his Wednesday morning tweet on the same theme .
The president is telling people the right thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time telling them the wrong thing To be clear : The president finally treating coronavirus with the seriousness it deserves is a good thing .
He finally seems to realize he can ’ t bluster his way out of this one and is giving the public responsible advice .
But it ’ s also worth remembering the steps Trump took to dismantle America ’ s pandemic preparedness capabilities during his first three years in office , as well as dismissive comments he made more recently that may have resulted in people not taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy spiraling into a possible recession , the number of cases domestically still increasing exponentially , and the number of deaths surpassing 100 — and all of this happening as the president tries to campaign for reelection — Trump has good reasons to try to get people to believe he ’ s taken the coronavirus seriously all along .
But the truth of the matter is he didn ’ t .
And as a result , the country was less prepared for what it ’ s now dealing with than it could ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

President Donald Trump has evolved on the coronavirus pandemic.
The president spent the first six weeks of the outbreak insisting that the situation was under control. He even characterized Democratic criticism of the federal government’s response, which has been lowlighted by an inability to test sufficient numbers of people for the virus, as “their new hoax.”
But this week, as the number of cases — and the death toll — rises and the economy looks increasingly bleak, Trump’s tone has shifted. In a notable development, Trump took a calm and measured tone during Monday’s press conference, deferring to experts on scientific questions and outlining the government’s social distancing guidelines.
“My administration is recommending that all Americans, including the young and healthy, work to engage in schooling from home when possible, avoid gathering in groups of more than 10 people, avoid discretionary travel, and avoid eating and drinking at bars, restaurants, and public food courts,” Trump said.
That the president is taking the outbreak seriously is certainly a step in the right direction. If people listen to Trump and follow experts’ advice, that may actually save lives.
But Trump is also interested in seizing the narrative of the pandemic now, attempting to frame himself as a president who competently handled the crisis, even referring to himself in Wednesday’s press conference as a “wartime president.”
He’s also trying to erase his early rhetoric and response. Trump proclaimed during Tuesday’s press conference that “I’ve always known this is a real — this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”
CNN ran a segment Wednesday highlighting the disconnect between Trump’s public statements now and what he’s been saying the past six weeks. Trump fired off this tweet a short time later: “I always treated the Chinese Virus very seriously, and have done a very good job from the beginning, including my very early decision to close the ‘borders’ from China - against the wishes of almost all. Many lives were saved. The Fake News new narrative is disgraceful & false!”
I always treated the Chinese Virus very seriously, and have done a very good job from the beginning, including my very early decision to close the “borders” from China - against the wishes of almost all. Many lives were saved. The Fake News new narrative is disgraceful & false! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2020
It’s good that Trump is now taking the Covid-19 pandemic seriously, but it is simply not the case that he did so from the start. His own actions and public statements demonstrate this.
As the media continues to cover the story, it’s important to hold the president accountable for his actions — and inactions. Trump lost valuable time ignoring expert calls to act. He also actively spread misinformation. Real people’s lives were harmed and we shouldn’t forget it. Here’s a look back at Trump’s evolution over the two months.
Trump gutted the government’s pandemic response capability and then downplayed the seriousness of an ensuing pandemic
As my colleague German Lopez detailed last week, two years ago Trump and then-National Security Adviser John Bolton disbanded a White House agency that was set up by the Obama administration to lead federal preparation and coordination for outbreaks like the one the world is now trying to contend with.
But during a news conference last week, Trump pretended he had no involvement in that decision, saying, “I didn’t do it. We have a group of people ... I don’t know anything about it.”
.@Yamiche: You said you don't yet responsibility for any failures, & yet you disbanded the pandemic response team. What do you say to criticism of that?
TRUMP: "I just think it's a nasty question ... I didn't do it. We have a group of people ... I don't know anything about it." pic.twitter.com/PGRY0kI6uh — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 13, 2020
When he wasn’t insisting that the buck stops elsewhere, Trump was telling the public that coronavirus was really nothing to worry about. As the coronavirus spread in China and the first US case was reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on January 21, Trump was asked during an interview with CNBC on January 22 if he had any worries about the situation escalating into a pandemic. He said he did not.
“No, not at all. We have it totally under control,” Trump said. “It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
That comment set the tone for Trump’s remarks about the coronavirus until this Monday, when — as the stock market endured one of its worst days in history and the country entered a lockdown posture to stop the virus’s spread — Trump finally started to talk about the situation with the seriousness it deserves.
The change in tone was remarkable considering how dismissive Trump had been about the coronavirus before then. During an interview on February 2, for instance, Trump alluded to the move his administration announced in January to restrict entry into the country from China and said, “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.” But by that time cases were already spreading inside the country. Then, 10 days later, Trump made the scientifically dubious assertion that “you know in April, supposedly [the virus] dies with the hotter weather.”
“One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear,” Trump said. (Unfortunately, research indicates it doesn’t quite work like that.)
Trump even expressed hope that the coronavirus would go away before winter ended. During a news conference on February 26, he noted there were only five coronavirus cases in the country and said “we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time.”
But despite issues with testing preventing the full scope of infection in the US from being known, by the end of February the number of cases in the US had broken 60 and instances of community spread had been recorded. Trump, however, ignored those problems and cited his “hunch” to make a case that the coronavirus death rate is lower than official estimates coming from organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO).
Perhaps most memorably, Trump closed out February with a rally in which he dismissed criticism of the government’s testing failures coming from Democrats and elsewhere as “their new hoax.” After receiving criticism for it, Trump quickly tried to walk it back — but in the days that followed he misleadingly hyped a coronavirus vaccine even as experts were telling him it wouldn’t be available for a year or more.
On March 6, Trump proclaimed during a tour of the CDC in Atlanta that “anybody right now and yesterday, anybody that needs a test gets a test.” Trump’s claim was false then and false now: The US continues to lag far behind other countries in testing capability.
This is how behind the U.S. is in coronavirus testinghttps://t.co/b3uofYfkfD — The New York Times (@nytimes) March 17, 2020
As recently as March 7, Trump was telling reporters he was “not concerned” about coronavirus’s spread because “we’ve done a great job.” Ironically, he made that remark during a summit with Brazilian leaders at Mar-a-Lago that culminated in at least four people who were there testing positive for the virus. Two days later, Trump posted a tweet in which he undersold the coronavirus threat by misleadingly comparing it to the common flu, which is less deadly and spreads less easily.
So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 9, 2020
So instead of treating the coronavirus “very seriously,” Trump actually spent weeks downplaying it. The Recount put together this helpful video tracking Trump’s dismissive comments with the spread in the United States.
Today, @realdonaldtrump said: “I’ve always known this is a pandemic. I’ve felt that it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic ... I’ve always viewed it as serious.”
Really??? Let’s roll the tape. pic.twitter.com/NpUTzGiokW — John Heilemann (@jheil) March 17, 2020
Something seemed to change for Trump toward the end of last week — a week in which the WHO officially declared coronavirus to be a pandemic as the number of cases and deaths in the United States mounted and the financial markets tanked.
Trump declared coronavirus to be a national emergency last Friday — days after the national address when many thought he would — and then began this week with a news conference in which he discussed new federal guidelines about what people should do to slow the spread of coronavirus. That was followed by the news conference on Tuesday in which Trump claimed “I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic” and his Wednesday morning tweet on the same theme.
The president is telling people the right thing now, but he spent a long time telling them the wrong thing
To be clear: The president finally treating coronavirus with the seriousness it deserves is a good thing. He finally seems to realize he can’t bluster his way out of this one and is giving the public responsible advice.
But it’s also worth remembering the steps Trump took to dismantle America’s pandemic preparedness capabilities during his first three years in office, as well as dismissive comments he made more recently that may have resulted in people not taking the proper precautions.
With the US economy spiraling into a possible recession, the number of cases domestically still increasing exponentially, and the number of deaths surpassing 100 — and all of this happening as the president tries to campaign for reelection — Trump has good reasons to try to get people to believe he’s taken the coronavirus seriously all along.
But the truth of the matter is he didn’t. And as a result, the country was less prepared for what it’s now dealing with than it could’ve been.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-03-18--The Defense Production Act, the law Trump is using to boost coronavirus supplies, briefly explained

As the United States ramps up its coronavirus response , President Donald Trump on Wednesday invoked the Defense Production Act , or DPA , in order to provide necessary medical equipment to treat patients .
“ It can do a lot of good things , if we need it , and we will have it all completed , signing it in just a little while , ” the president told reporters during a Wednesday press conference .
“ We have targets for certain pieces of equipment .
We have targets for masks .
... We need respirators .
We need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis response experts as well as top politicians have been pushing for as the outbreak spread across the country .
The reason is simple : Invoking this act gives the president broad authorities to order domestic manufacturing industries to make products the nation needs in a time of crisis .
A bigger option would be for the US to federalize certain industries — which one expert called the “ nuclear option ” — but Trump doesn ’ t seem ready to do that quite yet .
Since there are concerns about a dearth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , respirators , and perhaps even hospital beds , it ’ s likely that those are what Trump will request of industry in America over the next few weeks .
“ Depending on how the Trump administration utilizes the DPA , this could be a big step forward in combating the pandemic , ” Jerry McGinn , who ran DPA programs in the Pentagon , told me .
“ Invoking the DPA is like calling in the cavalry in response to a national emergency.
” The DPA was inspired by laws from 1941 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ability to tell private companies what to make for the good of the country .
Think , for example , of how Ford Motor Company made nearly 300,000 vehicles — including tanks — for World War II .
As the Cold War heated up in the late 1940s and the Korean War began in June 1950 , President Harry Truman ’ s administration thought it should codify those powers into law .
With Congress ’ s help , the DPA was signed into law in September 1950 .
It ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the general thrust remains the same .
Specifically , the DPA allows the federal government to skip the line , so to speak , when it makes requests of private industries .
But Trump can ’ t just go to a company and say “ produce this.
” He delegates those requests to federal agencies , and the one that does the vast majority of the ordering is the Defense Department .
The president would authorize DoD to place an order with a company — say , for a lot of respirators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that company and ask it to produce those respirators .
That company would then have to fulfill that order first before it could fill any other commercial orders , since the federal government gets priority .
The DPA was “ really made for a moment like this ” Sasha Baker , a top aide to former Defense Secretary Ash Carter , told me that some people may get scared or anxious hearing the act has been invoked because it makes it seem like the nation is gearing up for war .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a much smaller scale .
In fact , Trump invoked the DPA last summer , though it received little attention .
He ordered the Pentagon to increase the production of rare-earth magnets used in electronics out of concern that China would restrict exports of those materials .
Having enough magnets in American hands was “ essential to the national defense , ” Trump proclaimed at the time .
Baker said Trump ’ s Wednesday decision was a good one , though she thinks he should ’ ve made it weeks earlier .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moment like this , ” she told me .

As the United States ramps up its coronavirus response, President Donald Trump on Wednesday invoked the Defense Production Act, or DPA, in order to provide necessary medical equipment to treat patients.
“It can do a lot of good things, if we need it, and we will have it all completed, signing it in just a little while,” the president told reporters during a Wednesday press conference. “We have targets for certain pieces of equipment. We have targets for masks. ... We need respirators. We need ventilators.”
This is what military and crisis response experts as well as top politicians have been pushing for as the outbreak spread across the country. The reason is simple: Invoking this act gives the president broad authorities to order domestic manufacturing industries to make products the nation needs in a time of crisis.
A bigger option would be for the US to federalize certain industries — which one expert called the “nuclear option” — but Trump doesn’t seem ready to do that quite yet.
I only signed the Defense Production Act to combat the Chinese Virus should we need to invoke it in a worst case scenario in the future. Hopefully there will be no need, but we are all in this TOGETHER! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2020
Since there are concerns about a dearth of masks, medical gloves, ventilators, respirators, and perhaps even hospital beds, it’s likely that those are what Trump will request of industry in America over the next few weeks.
“Depending on how the Trump administration utilizes the DPA, this could be a big step forward in combating the pandemic,” Jerry McGinn, who ran DPA programs in the Pentagon, told me. “Invoking the DPA is like calling in the cavalry in response to a national emergency.”
What’s the Defense Production Act?
The DPA was inspired by laws from 1941 and 1942 that gave the White House the ability to tell private companies what to make for the good of the country. Think, for example, of how Ford Motor Company made nearly 300,000 vehicles — including tanks — for World War II.
As the Cold War heated up in the late 1940s and the Korean War began in June 1950, President Harry Truman’s administration thought it should codify those powers into law. With Congress’s help, the DPA was signed into law in September 1950. It’s been amended and altered over the years, but the general thrust remains the same.
Specifically, the DPA allows the federal government to skip the line, so to speak, when it makes requests of private industries. But Trump can’t just go to a company and say “produce this.” He delegates those requests to federal agencies, and the one that does the vast majority of the ordering is the Defense Department.
The president would authorize DoD to place an order with a company — say, for a lot of respirators — and then the Pentagon would go to that company and ask it to produce those respirators. That company would then have to fulfill that order first before it could fill any other commercial orders, since the federal government gets priority.
The DPA was “really made for a moment like this”
Sasha Baker, a top aide to former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, told me that some people may get scared or anxious hearing the act has been invoked because it makes it seem like the nation is gearing up for war. But it actually happens pretty regularly, though on a much smaller scale.
In fact, Trump invoked the DPA last summer, though it received little attention. He ordered the Pentagon to increase the production of rare-earth magnets used in electronics out of concern that China would restrict exports of those materials. Having enough magnets in American hands was “essential to the national defense,” Trump proclaimed at the time.
Baker said Trump’s Wednesday decision was a good one, though she thinks he should’ve made it weeks earlier. The DPA was “really made for a moment like this,” she told me.


vox--2020-03-18--#ReleaseTheButtholeCut helps noted box office flop Cats find new life in a time of crisis

It ’ s fair to say that Cats , Tom Hooper ’ s film adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber ’ s mystifying musical released in December , was a flop .
Let us briefly recount the ways : • Critically , Cats earned a 20 percent rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes ; an unfavorable 32 on Metacritic ; and a C+ Cinemascore , indicating poor audience response .
• The movie made $ 74 million at the box office , meaning it didn ’ t even make back its reported $ 100 million production budget .
• Tom Hooper continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even post-release .
The changes didn ’ t leave much of an impression .
• Universal Pictures chose not to submit the movie for Oscar consideration .
• Instead , co-stars James Corden and Rebel Wilson mocked the film in costume onstage at the Academy Awards ceremony in February .
• Cats did receive several honors , however — from the Razzie Awards , which named it Worst Picture of the Year among other accolades .
All of this to say , Cats : It ’ s not great !
Yet the film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which anthropomorphized cats compete via song and dance to ascend to Cat Heaven ) , uncanny-valley-skirting human-cat hybrids , and choppy CGI have cultivated a fan base .
Movie theaters continued holding “ rowdy ” screenings of the movie for weeks after its release , encouraging moviegoers to sing and shout along with the so-called Jellicle Cats as they danced their way to the land of eternal catnip in the sky .
In 2020 , Cats has become something of a collective shorthand for “ so bad it ’ s ... maybe good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can tolerate its nonsensical plot while Idris Elba-Cat and James Corden-Cat snarl and fart onscreen for 90 minutes .
And now that Cats is available for digital purchase and rental , new viewers are discovering the ironic glee that this weirdo film can provide — including some with enough social media influence to generate entire Cats-based hashtags .
Cats is continuing to confuse viewers , three months after release One newcomer to Cats is actor Seth Rogen , who live-tweeted his experience watching it while “ very stoned ” on Twitter late Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to result in an extra-wacky viewing . )
Rogen started his journey as a skeptic : “ Am I supposed to know what a Jellicle is ?
” he asked , in the first tweet of a lengthy thread .
“ They ’ ve said it 200,000 times but I don ’ t know what ’ s happening haha.
” It ’ s a totally fair response to a movie based on a musical based on a collection of freewheeling T.S .
Eliot poems .
Rogen also called out the visual and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ milk bar ” ( “ For cats ?
Is this in Clockwork Orange world ?
Huh ?
” ) to Judi Dench ’ s coat made of cat fur ( “ which I can only assume is socially APPALLING in this world ” ) .
By the end , Rogen was ... well , he actually didn ’ t make it to the end of the movie .
Based on the timestamps in his Twitter thread , he gave up less than an hour into Cats .
“ Alright I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day fiancé .
Good night .
Stay clean as fuck , ” he said as he signed off .
Rogen ’ s thread was a pretty honest characterization of what it ’ s like to watch Cats , especially for people who aren ’ t familiar with the source musical .
The movie can be a lot to take in , what with humanoid cats with names like Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer singing and gyrating all over the place .
But fellow Twitter users lapped up Rogen ’ s tweets , inspiring a deluge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which riled up Cats fans and non-fans alike in a single tweet Amid all the errant observations , “ WTF ?
” questions , and memes , one tweet suddenly ricocheted the renewed Cats conversation in a different direction .
Along with the replies and reminiscences came a tweet from someone who claimed to know someone who worked on Cats ’ visual effects team .
The cats in Cats have numerous human features — fingered hands , toed feet , flaring nostrils — but one thing they do not have is clothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cat-fur coat ) .
The exposed rear ends of the cats are family-friendly , however ; they have tails but no butt cheeks .
There ’ s nary a genital in sight , and only the silhouettes of features that serve to demarcate female from male felines .
( Taylor Swift ’ s Bombalurina was called out for having human-like “ cat boobs.
” ) So the suggestion of a so-called butthole cut ignited a Cats-lusting crowd of tweeters eager for more ways to eke entertainment out of the movie .
Rogen jumped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ # ReleaseTheButtholeCut .
Rian Johnson , director of Star Wars : The Last Jedi and Knives Out , joined in .
So did Lindsay Ellis , a YouTuber who specializes in film critique .
With the power of the Twitter blue checkmark , these folks and others were able to get # ReleaseTheButtholeCut trending .
It ’ s a not-so-subtle reference to the long-established and thoroughly sincere cry from DC Comics fans , who regularly demand that Warner Bros. # ReleaseTheSnyderCut of Justice League .
That movie was similarly flawed — albeit not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least according to critics .
But in contrast to Cats , which was expected to be a mess from the moment its first misbegotten trailer was released , Justice League arrived with lofty expectations and a major fan base behind it .
So the frustration with its quality — and the cast and director Zack Snyder ’ s regular insistence that much of the movie ’ s better content was cut — continues on in earnest .
Just as the Snyder Cut may remain apocryphal forever , so too may the rumored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Ben Mekler , whose tweet spurred the original butthole conversation , received a note from a “ CATS VFX crewmember who has asked to remain anonymous , ” who claimed that no Butthole Cut exists .
So there could be a much more ... risqué version out there , perhaps , that could send Cats viewers starved for entertainment on a different wild goose chase .
And yet : Many years from now , will we even still want it ?
Will we shift to the next campy travesty , whenever that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say .
But as movie fans watch Hollywood shift its release schedules indefinitely and halt production on anticipated projects in the midst of a pandemic , savoring Cats has become something of a salve .

It’s fair to say that Cats, Tom Hooper’s film adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s mystifying musical released in December, was a flop. Let us briefly recount the ways:
All of this to say, Cats: It’s not great! Yet the film’s notoriously bizarre storyline (in which anthropomorphized cats compete via song and dance to ascend to Cat Heaven), uncanny-valley-skirting human-cat hybrids, and choppy CGI have cultivated a fan base. Movie theaters continued holding “rowdy” screenings of the movie for weeks after its release, encouraging moviegoers to sing and shout along with the so-called Jellicle Cats as they danced their way to the land of eternal catnip in the sky. In 2020, Cats has become something of a collective shorthand for “so bad it’s ... maybe good?” — particularly for those who can tolerate its nonsensical plot while Idris Elba-Cat and James Corden-Cat snarl and fart onscreen for 90 minutes.
And now that Cats is available for digital purchase and rental, new viewers are discovering the ironic glee that this weirdo film can provide — including some with enough social media influence to generate entire Cats-based hashtags.
Cats is continuing to confuse viewers, three months after release
One newcomer to Cats is actor Seth Rogen, who live-tweeted his experience watching it while “very stoned” on Twitter late Tuesday night. (Cats plus weed would seem to result in an extra-wacky viewing.) Rogen started his journey as a skeptic: “Am I supposed to know what a Jellicle is?” he asked, in the first tweet of a lengthy thread. “They’ve said it 200,000 times but I don’t know what’s happening haha.”
I’m pretty stoned and watching Cats. I’ve never seen the broadway show. It is truly trippy. Am I supposed to know what a Jellicle is? They’ve said it 200,000 times but I don’t know what’s happening haha. — Seth Rogen (@Sethrogen) March 18, 2020
It’s a totally fair response to a movie based on a musical based on a collection of freewheeling T.S. Eliot poems. Rogen also called out the visual and narrative inconsistencies, from the presence of a “milk bar” (“For cats? Is this in Clockwork Orange world? Huh?”) to Judi Dench’s coat made of cat fur (“which I can only assume is socially APPALLING in this world”).
By the end, Rogen was ... well, he actually didn’t make it to the end of the movie. Based on the timestamps in his Twitter thread, he gave up less than an hour into Cats. “Alright I’m turning this off and watching 90 day fiancé. Good night. Stay clean as fuck,” he said as he signed off.
Alright I’m turning this off and watching 90 day fiancé. Good night. Stay clean as fuck. — Seth Rogen (@Sethrogen) March 18, 2020
Rogen’s thread was a pretty honest characterization of what it’s like to watch Cats, especially for people who aren’t familiar with the source musical. The movie can be a lot to take in, what with humanoid cats with names like Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer singing and gyrating all over the place.
But fellow Twitter users lapped up Rogen’s tweets, inspiring a deluge of Cats conversation.
I’m watching the extras for the Cats movie and this concept art is killinggg meeee pic.twitter.com/Fq2W1UsYzd — angelina christina (@whyangelinawhy) March 17, 2020
Munkustrap in the stage musical is a beleaguered stage manager, trying to wrangle the least professional show ever.
Munkustrap in the movie is Daddy, and if kitty is naughty, Daddy spank. #cats — Hilary Thomas (@airspaniel) March 18, 2020
I don't smoke pot and will never, until the end of my days, watch the Cats movie. That's the tweet. — Alex Winter @ (@Winter) March 18, 2020
Enter #ReleaseTheButtholeCut, which riled up Cats fans and non-fans alike in a single tweet
Amid all the errant observations, “WTF?” questions, and memes, one tweet suddenly ricocheted the renewed Cats conversation in a different direction. Along with the replies and reminiscences came a tweet from someone who claimed to know someone who worked on Cats’ visual effects team.
A VFX producer friend of a friend was hired in November to finish some of the 400 effects shots in @catsmovie. His entire job was to remove CGI buttholes that had been inserted a few months before. Which means that, somewhere out there, there exists a butthole cut of Cats — Jack Waz (@jackwaz) March 18, 2020
The cats in Cats have numerous human features — fingered hands, toed feet, flaring nostrils — but one thing they do not have is clothing (save for Judi Dench’s cat-fur coat). The exposed rear ends of the cats are family-friendly, however; they have tails but no butt cheeks. There’s nary a genital in sight, and only the silhouettes of features that serve to demarcate female from male felines. (Taylor Swift’s Bombalurina was called out for having human-like “cat boobs.”)
So the suggestion of a so-called butthole cut ignited a Cats-lusting crowd of tweeters eager for more ways to eke entertainment out of the movie. Rogen jumped on the train, urging Universal to #ReleaseTheButtholeCut.
Release the Butthole Cut of Cats!! https://t.co/C2VgPqSv1L — Seth Rogen (@Sethrogen) March 18, 2020
Rian Johnson, director of Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Knives Out, joined in. So did Lindsay Ellis, a YouTuber who specializes in film critique. With the power of the Twitter blue checkmark, these folks and others were able to get #ReleaseTheButtholeCut trending.
#ReleaseTheButtholeCut is exactly what we all need right now https://t.co/BhaROTRqLM — Rian Johnson (@rianjohnson) March 18, 2020
I just want to go on the record. That I 100% support this. #ReleaseTheButtholeCut — Paul Scheer (@paulscheer) March 18, 2020
Movie theaters face an impossible challenge. Some say they won’t survive.
We need a flag to rally around; something to inspire passion in every audience. A movie we’ll all clamor to see the moment that silver screen flickers back to life. #ReleaseTheButtholeCut — Russ Fischer (@russfischer) March 18, 2020
Just imagine, you worked your ass off to get through college to become a CGI artist. Eventually, you land a job in Hollywood, and then one day you’re hired to draw 400 cat buttholes, and then, THEN, someone comes along and erases all your buttholes. #ReleaseTheButtholeCut https://t.co/Gb8aOqSrIR — Michael Tushaus (@MichaelTushaus) March 18, 2020
Finding this cut is my white whale #ReleaseTheButtholeCut — Jack Waz (@jackwaz) March 18, 2020
It’s a not-so-subtle reference to the long-established and thoroughly sincere cry from DC Comics fans, who regularly demand that Warner Bros. #ReleaseTheSnyderCut of Justice League. That movie was similarly flawed — albeit not to the same extent as Cats, at least according to critics. But in contrast to Cats, which was expected to be a mess from the moment its first misbegotten trailer was released, Justice League arrived with lofty expectations and a major fan base behind it. So the frustration with its quality — and the cast and director Zack Snyder’s regular insistence that much of the movie’s better content was cut — continues on in earnest.
Just as the Snyder Cut may remain apocryphal forever, so too may the rumored Butthole Cut of Cats. One wrinkle: Ben Mekler, whose tweet spurred the original butthole conversation, received a note from a “CATS VFX crewmember who has asked to remain anonymous,” who claimed that no Butthole Cut exists.
URGENT #ReleaseTheButtholeCut update/clarification, emailed to me by a CATS VFX crewmember who has asked to remain anonymous pic.twitter.com/nmta9CG08E — ben mekler (@benmekler) March 18, 2020
But there could still be a much more ... risqué version out there that could send Cats viewers starved for entertainment on a different wild goose chase.
Whether or not it ever materializes, as movie fans watch Hollywood shift its release schedules indefinitely and halt production on anticipated projects in the midst of a global pandemic, savoring Cats has become something of a salve.


vox--2020-03-18--Congress just passed a bill that will guarantee free coronavirus testing for all Americans

Congress has officially passed a major package guaranteeing free coronavirus testing for all Americans as well as an expansion of paid sick days for a subset of workers .
The legislation now heads to President Donald Trump ’ s desk , where he ’ s expected to sign it .
The wide-ranging legislation is the second of at least three proposals lawmakers are working on to address the economic fallout that ’ s resulted from the coronavirus pandemic .
This latest bill is focused on providing more paid sick days to certain workers — and giving states a funding boost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In total , it ’ s set to cost roughly $ 104 billion .
The bill is the byproduct of a compromise between House Democrats , the administration , and House Republicans — which has led to the bill ’ s original provisions being scaled back and some pretty significant omissions in coverage .
As Vox ’ s Anna North reports , millions of workers will not be covered by the paid sick day and paid leave provisions in the legislation , which do not apply to companies with more than 500 employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can also request exemptions from the bill ’ s paid and sick leave regulations , as can institutions that employ health care workers — including hospitals and nursing homes — regardless of size .
Despite these limitations , the legislation will provide some economic relief for workers affected by the coronavirus outbreak that has already led to temporary closures of many businesses and reduced spending across an array of industries including restaurants and airlines .
Workers who are covered by the guarantee of 10 paid sick days during this outbreak include all federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and self-employed workers , according to the Washington Post ’ s Heather Long .
Those who are not include workers at larger companies such as Amazon and McDonald ’ s — though some of these firms have committed to providing sick pay for their employees during this time .
Next , Congress is turning its focus to a third stimulus package , which could include direct payments to all Americans below a certain income threshold and could cost up to $ 1 trillion .
What ’ s included in the legislation that just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding to support workers who get sick as well as those who have to care for children who are out of school because of the coronavirus response .
It also includes money intended to expand programs for workers who have been laid off from their jobs , including additional funding for states ’ unemployment programs .
Here ’ s a high-level rundown of what ’ s included , as reported by Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen , though the updated version has some differences with the original House deal — as indicated below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propose making coronavirus testing free to increase access by requiring private health insurers ( plus government programs like Medicare and Medicaid ) to cover the cost of testing , including emergency room visits and doctor fees .
This will also cover Americans without insurance .
Emergency paid sick days : The bill would give workers [ 10 ] days of paid sick leave to be available immediately during the coronavirus ( many employers are asking employees to work from home for that amount of time ) .
It ensures sick leave to [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by quarantine orders [ depending on the business they work at . ]
Emergency paid leave : The bill would create a new federal emergency paid leave program for those ... caring for a child due to coronavirus-related school closings .
Eligible workers would receive benefits for a month ( the program goes up to three months ) , and the benefit amount would be two-thirds of the individual ’ s average monthly earnings .
Those receiving pay or unemployment compensation directly through their employers aren ’ t eligible .
There is some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits for up to 99 weeks for Americans left unemployed by the 2008 financial crisis .
Expanded unemployment insurance : The bill would direct $ 2 billion to state unemployment insurance programs .
Expanding food security : The bill would direct $ 1 billion to expanding access to programs like SNAP , WIC and the emergency food assistance program throughout the coronavirus pandemic .
Progressive economists have long believed that expanding existing safety net programs is a highly effective way of stimulating the economy because the low-income people who benefit from them are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money they get — helping stabilize economy-wide demand .
The 2009 stimulus bill featured many provisions along these lines .
Conservatives , who are critical of those programs in general , tend to be highly skeptical of putting more money into them .
The passage of this bill signals major progress in Congress ’ s response to the coronavirus , though there are still many gaps it does not address .
Lawmakers ’ next package is intended to provide direct financial support for workers , small businesses , and affected industries — though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked out .

Congress has officially passed a major package guaranteeing free coronavirus testing for all Americans as well as an expansion of paid sick days for a subset of workers. The legislation now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk, where he’s expected to sign it.
The wide-ranging legislation is the second of at least three proposals lawmakers are working on to address the economic fallout that’s resulted from the coronavirus pandemic. This latest bill is focused on providing more paid sick days to certain workers — and giving states a funding boost for unemployment insurance and food assistance. In total, it’s set to cost roughly $104 billion.
The bill is the byproduct of a compromise between House Democrats, the administration, and House Republicans — which has led to the bill’s original provisions being scaled back and some pretty significant omissions in coverage.
As Vox’s Anna North reports, millions of workers will not be covered by the paid sick day and paid leave provisions in the legislation, which do not apply to companies with more than 500 employees. Companies with fewer than 50 employees can also request exemptions from the bill’s paid and sick leave regulations, as can institutions that employ health care workers — including hospitals and nursing homes — regardless of size.
Despite these limitations, the legislation will provide some economic relief for workers affected by the coronavirus outbreak that has already led to temporary closures of many businesses and reduced spending across an array of industries including restaurants and airlines.
Workers who are covered by the guarantee of 10 paid sick days during this outbreak include all federal government employees, gig economy workers, and self-employed workers, according to the Washington Post’s Heather Long. Those who are not include workers at larger companies such as Amazon and McDonald’s — though some of these firms have committed to providing sick pay for their employees during this time.
Next, Congress is turning its focus to a third stimulus package, which could include direct payments to all Americans below a certain income threshold and could cost up to $1 trillion.
What’s included in the legislation that just passed
The legislation that just passed includes funding to support workers who get sick as well as those who have to care for children who are out of school because of the coronavirus response. It also includes money intended to expand programs for workers who have been laid off from their jobs, including additional funding for states’ unemployment programs.
Here’s a high-level rundown of what’s included, as reported by Vox’s Ella Nilsen, though the updated version has some differences with the original House deal — as indicated below:
Free coronavirus testing: Democratic leaders propose making coronavirus testing free to increase access by requiring private health insurers (plus government programs like Medicare and Medicaid) to cover the cost of testing, including emergency room visits and doctor fees. This will also cover Americans without insurance. Emergency paid sick days: The bill would give workers [10] days of paid sick leave to be available immediately during the coronavirus (many employers are asking employees to work from home for that amount of time). It ensures sick leave to [those who are ill or] impacted by quarantine orders [depending on the business they work at.] Emergency paid leave: The bill would create a new federal emergency paid leave program for those ... caring for a child due to coronavirus-related school closings. Eligible workers would receive benefits for a month (the program goes up to three months), and the benefit amount would be two-thirds of the individual’s average monthly earnings. Those receiving pay or unemployment compensation directly through their employers aren’t eligible. There is some precedent for this: Congress expanded unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks for Americans left unemployed by the 2008 financial crisis. Expanded unemployment insurance: The bill would direct $2 billion to state unemployment insurance programs. Expanding food security: The bill would direct $1 billion to expanding access to programs like SNAP, WIC and the emergency food assistance program throughout the coronavirus pandemic. Progressive economists have long believed that expanding existing safety net programs is a highly effective way of stimulating the economy because the low-income people who benefit from them are highly likely to immediately spend any extra money they get — helping stabilize economy-wide demand. The 2009 stimulus bill featured many provisions along these lines. Conservatives, who are critical of those programs in general, tend to be highly skeptical of putting more money into them.
The passage of this bill signals major progress in Congress’s response to the coronavirus, though there are still many gaps it does not address. Lawmakers’ next package is intended to provide direct financial support for workers, small businesses, and affected industries — though the exact details have yet to be worked out.


vox--2020-03-18--The Dow Jones falls to where it was when Trump took office

“ Since my election , U.S. stock markets have soared 70 percent , ” President Trump bragged at his State of the Union address in February , before claiming that this bull market was “ transcending anything anyone believed was possible.
” Those gains are gone .
On January 19 , 2017 , the day before Trump took office , the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 19,804.72 .
For much of Wednesday , the Dow dropped below that level , meaning that the rise in stock prices Trump touted so recently — and that he hoped to ride into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer really exists .
( Although , for what it is worth , the markets closed with the Dow slightly above its pre-Trump levels . )
Two caveats are worth making .
The first is that the stock market is not the economy .
Stock prices reflect investors ’ best predictions about what various companies will be worth , and how much those companies will produce in dividends , in the fairly near future .
There is little correlation between the value of the Dow Jones index and the rate of US gross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The second point is that better economic indicators , such as GDP growth or job growth , do not support Trump ’ s claims that he ’ s been a particularly effective economic steward .
At best , they suggest that — at least until very recently — Trump hasn ’ t done anything to spoil the slow but steady growth that he inherited from President Obama .
This chart , for example , represents US GDP growth from 2009 to 2019 .
After the Great Recession ended in mid- to late 2009 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pretty steady upward climb .
Neither Trump ’ s election in late 2016 nor his inauguration in early 2017 appears to have altered this trajectory in any significant way .
Which is not to say that Trump ’ s policies are entirely irrelevant .
As my colleague Matt Yglesias wrote around the time of the last State of the Union address , Trump “ made a sensible selection for Federal Reserve chair and has presided over a healthy dose of fiscal stimulus , and his trade policies haven ’ t been as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It ’ s possible that the economy would have fallen further off track without Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell ’ s stewardship , or that growth would have slowed without fiscal stimulus .
But the eye-popping stock market growth that defined the first three years of Trump ’ s presidency was not felt by the average American .
The investor class briefly got richer , as did those with enough money to afford significant retirement savings , while the rest of the country lived in an economy much like the one Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not deserve all the blame for a collapse in stock prices that is largely driven by fears of coronavirus — it ’ s not like Trump personally created the virus that has now spread into a global pandemic .
But the administration ’ s response to the pandemic has been largely incompetent .
Trump himself is frequently dishonest when he talks about the virus .
The United States lags far behind its peer nations in making tests that can screen for coronavirus available to doctors .
And the Trump White House dismantled much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help us respond to a pandemic .
So while it is unfair to blame Trump for the mere existence of any economic downturn caused by the pandemic , it is fair to wonder whether the depth of this downturn — not to mention the public health consequences of a largely unchecked disease — will be exacerbated by Trump ’ s inadequate performance .

“Since my election, U.S. stock markets have soared 70 percent,” President Trump bragged at his State of the Union address in February, before claiming that this bull market was “transcending anything anyone believed was possible.”
Those gains are gone.
On January 19, 2017, the day before Trump took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 19,804.72. For much of Wednesday, the Dow dropped below that level, meaning that the rise in stock prices Trump touted so recently — and that he hoped to ride into this November’s election — no longer really exists. (Although, for what it is worth, the markets closed with the Dow slightly above its pre-Trump levels.)
Two caveats are worth making. The first is that the stock market is not the economy. Stock prices reflect investors’ best predictions about what various companies will be worth, and how much those companies will produce in dividends, in the fairly near future. There is little correlation between the value of the Dow Jones index and the rate of US gross domestic product (GDP) growth.
The second point is that better economic indicators, such as GDP growth or job growth, do not support Trump’s claims that he’s been a particularly effective economic steward. At best, they suggest that — at least until very recently — Trump hasn’t done anything to spoil the slow but steady growth that he inherited from President Obama.
This chart, for example, represents US GDP growth from 2009 to 2019. After the Great Recession ended in mid- to late 2009, the US economy has been on a pretty steady upward climb. Neither Trump’s election in late 2016 nor his inauguration in early 2017 appears to have altered this trajectory in any significant way.
The data on unemployment tells a similar story.
Which is not to say that Trump’s policies are entirely irrelevant. As my colleague Matt Yglesias wrote around the time of the last State of the Union address, Trump “made a sensible selection for Federal Reserve chair and has presided over a healthy dose of fiscal stimulus, and his trade policies haven’t been as disruptive as the most alarmist critics warn.” It’s possible that the economy would have fallen further off track without Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s stewardship, or that growth would have slowed without fiscal stimulus.
But the eye-popping stock market growth that defined the first three years of Trump’s presidency was not felt by the average American. The investor class briefly got richer, as did those with enough money to afford significant retirement savings, while the rest of the country lived in an economy much like the one Obama left behind.
Similarly, Trump does not deserve all the blame for a collapse in stock prices that is largely driven by fears of coronavirus — it’s not like Trump personally created the virus that has now spread into a global pandemic. But the administration’s response to the pandemic has been largely incompetent.
Trump himself is frequently dishonest when he talks about the virus. The United States lags far behind its peer nations in making tests that can screen for coronavirus available to doctors. And the Trump White House dismantled much of the governmental infrastructure that was supposed to help us respond to a pandemic.
So while it is unfair to blame Trump for the mere existence of any economic downturn caused by the pandemic, it is fair to wonder whether the depth of this downturn — not to mention the public health consequences of a largely unchecked disease — will be exacerbated by Trump’s inadequate performance.