vox--2020-10-20--Why the US government is suing Google

Why the US government is suing Google

Uncovering and explaining how our digital world is changing — and changing us .
After a 14-month investigation , the United States government filed a landmark lawsuit against Google on Tuesday , arguing that the search giant used unfair practices to preserve its search and search advertising monopoly .
The Department of Justice and 11 states filed the lawsuit against Google in a federal court , accusing Google of using money it makes from its dominant position in search to pay other companies to help maintain its lead and block out competitors .
Google pays Apple billions each year to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , and search comes preloaded on devices using Google ’ s Android operating system .
“ Two decades ago , Google became the darling of Silicon Valley as a scrappy startup with an innovative way to search the emerging internet , ” states the suit .
“ That Google is long gone .
The Google of today is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet.
” In a press briefing , Justice Department officials said the government is stepping in to protect access to a free market for customers and Google ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has illegally maintained its monopoly through exclusive business deals that put its own search and browser on phones and keep out competitors .
“ If the government does not enforce the antitrust laws to enable competition , we could lose the next wave of innovation , ” Justice Department spokesperson Marc Raimondi said in a press briefing .
“ If that happens , Americans may never get to see the next Google.
” The case argues that Google ’ s anticompetitive practices are harming three key groups : American consumers , who “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privacy practices ; advertisers , who have to pay a “ toll ” to Google to reach their customers ; and competing tech companies , who “ can not emerge from Google ’ s long shadow.
” The announcement unveils the biggest antitrust case against a tech company since the Microsoft antitrust case in 1998 .
“ Google ’ s practices are anticompetitive under long-established antitrust law , ” the new complaint reads .
The DOJ likened the situation to Microsoft , which made its internet browser the default on Windows operating systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Justice Department ’ s suit poses a potential existential threat to Google ’ s business if it results in breaking off Google ’ s search engine — which accounted for about $ 21 billion last quarter , or more than half of its total revenue — from its other lines of business , such as cloud computing and video .
Google rebutted the basis of the lawsuit , calling it a “ dubious complaint ” and arguing that consumers can easily use other products besides its own .
“ Today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply flawed , ” a Google spokesperson said in a statement .
“ People use Google because they choose to — not because they ’ re forced to or because they can ’ t find alternatives.
” The suit was filed amid heavy political tension between major tech companies and the US government , with Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly speeding up the timing of the lawsuit so that it would be filed before the presidential election in November .
Here ’ s a breakdown of the case , its political consequences , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the DOJ .
The DOJ considers Google search to be a monopoly in the US , where nearly 90 percent of internet searches are through Google .
The complaint says that Google is illegally trying to maintain its dominance through anticompetitive practices .
In its lawsuit , the Justice department claims that Google has used exclusive business contracts to limit rival companies ’ ability to put their products on Google ’ s Android mobile devices , and incentivizes device manufacturers like Apple and carriers like Verizon to use Google search instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these practices violate the century-old Sherman Antitrust Act , which outlaws companies from “ every contract , combination , or conspiracy ” to monopolize .
And the suit says Google uses its profits from its massive hold on the search industry to maintain that grip by paying companies like Apple , LG , and AT & T to make it the default search engine on their devices , thus making it harder for potential rivals to compete .
“ For many years , Google has used anti competitive tactics to maintain and extend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search services , search advertising , and general search text advertising—the cornerstones of its empire , ” the report reads .
Google said its contracts are similar to how other companies promote their products .
“ [ L ] ike countless other businesses , we pay to promote our services , just like a cereal brand might pay a supermarket to stock its products at the end of a row or on a shelf at eye level , ” the company wrote in a response to the DOJ complaint .
The DOJ said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain its search monopoly because its scale contributes to its effectiveness : The more user data it has , the better its search results are .
Additionally , the more people use Google search , the more advertisers will pay Google to reach them .
“ Google deprives rivals of the quality , reach , and financial position necessary to mount any meaningful competition to Google ’ s longstanding monopolies , ” the report reads .
“ By foreclosing competition from rivals , Google harms consumers and advertisers.
” The DOJ complaint is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Google ’ s monopoly could raise prices , it focuses on how lack of competition could lower quality , according to Thomas Campbell , former director of the FTC ’ s antitrust arm and a professor of antitrust law at Chapman University .
“ Normally in antitrust cases the argument is that because of exclusionary conduct , a market is monopolized and the price to the consumer is higher , ” Campbell told Recode .
In this case , “ the main point is the benefit of having a search engine that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit is more narrow than a report earlier this month from Congress ’ s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust , which also discussed how Google allegedly prioritizes its own search results over competing search platforms , like restaurant reviews on Yelp or flight queries on Expedia .
The DOJ case also limits its focus to search , rather than discussing other industries where Google is dominant , including online advertising , smartphone operating systems , and web browsers .
Critics say it uses that dominance in each to reinforce its other business lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these other issues in future lawsuits .
The DOJ could also expand the scope of its lawsuit as the case proceeds .
The lawsuit against Google comes at a time when there ’ s unprecedented public and political opposition to the financial and political power of major tech companies .
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle want to regulate Big Tech , though they disagree on why and how to regulate these giants .
President Trump , as well as many Republican and Democrat lawmakers , have argued with increasing urgency that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far too much market power .
They say the companies stifle competition and leave consumers with no choice but to use their services when they go online .
This is a departure from the decades-long prevailing legal attitude in the US government .
Historically , the idea was that to break up a company , you have to prove not just that it ’ s a monopoly but that it ’ s charging customers more for its products than it would with greater competition .
That makes it harder to go after Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products — search , email , browser , maps — are all free .
But in the past several years , there ’ s been a shift in that thinking , thanks in part to the scholarship of a new wave of influential legal academics dubbed the “ hipster antitrust ” movement , as well as rising bipartisan political opposition to Big Tech ’ s influence over the American public .
“ It ’ s a major , major change in the government ’ s orientation toward monopoly power , ” said Sally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Open Markets Institute , an antitrust nonprofit .
Earlier this month , the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee concluded its year-long investigation into major tech companies , concluding that not just Google , but also Amazon , Facebook , and Apple , use monopoly power to protect their dominant positions in the industry .
This investigation has set the stage for lawmakers to introduce new laws regulating the tech giants in the future .
The progressive flank of the Democratic party , such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and Sen. Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that the US needs new laws to break up big tech companies , which they say have amassed too much market power and are hurting the American people and economy .
At the same time , Republicans have been ramping up their attacks on tech for a more specific reason : alleged and unproven “ anti-conservative ” bias .
Facebook ’ s and Twitter ’ s recent efforts to fact-check and even block unsubstantiated claims made by Republican politicians and some conservative-leaning news outlets have further fueled these complaints .
Some conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Congress to repeal Section 230 , a landmark internet law that protects social media companies from being sued for what people say on their platforms .
Some Democrats , including presidential candidate Joe Biden , have also called for Section 230 reform , although not in the same manner Republicans are demanding .
On a press call with reporters announcing the case on Tuesday , DOJ ’ s Shores was clear in saying that the lawsuit does not address concerns about Section 230 .
“ The antitrust case is very separate from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other technology issues that are out there about skew or bias that have been the subject , at least for us , with regard to the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , ” said Shores .
But it ’ s impossible to separate the timing of its release from these larger talks of tech reform .
In fact , some have questioned whether the DOJ has rushed out its case against Google in order to file the suit before the election to please Trump , who has long been calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his administrations ’ larger confrontational policy against Big Tech .
If Biden wins the presidency , his administration ’ s Department of Justice could pursue the current case , refine the charges , or drop it altogether .
Several legal experts told Recode that it ’ s likely that a potential Biden administration would pursue the case in some form given the bipartisan support for going after tech .
And the American public has also increasingly come to question Big Tech ’ s power , with roughly half thinking major technology companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , according to a June poll by Pew Research .
As Recode previously reported , even some Google employees ( often anonymously , for fear of punishment by their employer ) have argued that the company should be broken up to help Google return to its small , scrappy startup ethos — which they think it needs in order to continue innovating .
What this means for Google ’ s future Google and the DOJ have a long and complicated road ahead before we see any meaningful resolution to this suit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ play out in court ; remember that Microsoft ’ s DOJ case took several years to come to a settlement .
Similarly , the Google case is expected to drag on for years — and of course there ’ s the real possibility that Google may eventually win , or settle with the US government to avoid a breakup , as Microsoft did .
But in the meantime , the mere threat of antitrust action is likely to loom over Google , putting the company in a defensive crouch , potentially slowing down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the types of business practices that made it successful — such as buying up companies like YouTube , Android , and DoubleClick .
“ When the Microsoft suit came down , we saw them change their behavior and it sent shockwaves through the industry , ” said Open Market ’ s Hubbard , who said that , similarly , this suit could prevent not just Google , but the other tech giants like Amazon , Facebook , and Apple , from being as brazen in buying up competitors or enforcing questionable business contracts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could also be more force behind the DOJ ’ s suit if more state attorneys general sign on .
No Democratic state attorneys general have signed on to the case now , but some , such as New York State AG Letitia James , have said they may sign on to the DOJ ’ s case at a later time after they ’ ve finished their own independent investigations .
The DOJ , or states , may also file more lawsuits against Amazon , Facebook , and Apple .
And as the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new legislation .
Regardless of the DOJ ’ s suit ’ s eventual outcome , its filing marks a clear turning point for Big Tech .
Giant companies like Google can no longer expect to continue skirting outdated regulations with impunity as they expand their empires ; instead , they will face growing scrutiny and enforcement now that they ’ re increasingly seen as potentially harmful institutions whose powers need to be checked by the government .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

After a 14-month investigation, the United States government filed a landmark lawsuit against Google on Tuesday, arguing that the search giant used unfair practices to preserve its search and search advertising monopoly.
The Department of Justice and 11 states filed the lawsuit against Google in a federal court, accusing Google of using money it makes from its dominant position in search to pay other companies to help maintain its lead and block out competitors. Google pays Apple billions each year to be the default browser on Safari, for example, and search comes preloaded on devices using Google’s Android operating system.
“Two decades ago, Google became the darling of Silicon Valley as a scrappy startup with an innovative way to search the emerging internet,” states the suit. “That Google is long gone. The Google of today is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet.”
In a press briefing, Justice Department officials said the government is stepping in to protect access to a free market for customers and Google’s competitors. They argue that Google has illegally maintained its monopoly through exclusive business deals that put its own search and browser on phones and keep out competitors.
“If the government does not enforce the antitrust laws to enable competition, we could lose the next wave of innovation,” Justice Department spokesperson Marc Raimondi said in a press briefing. “If that happens, Americans may never get to see the next Google.”
The case argues that Google’s anticompetitive practices are harming three key groups: American consumers, who “are forced to accept” its often-controversial privacy practices; advertisers, who have to pay a “toll” to Google to reach their customers; and competing tech companies, who “cannot emerge from Google’s long shadow.”
The announcement unveils the biggest antitrust case against a tech company since the Microsoft antitrust case in 1998. “Google’s practices are anticompetitive under long-established antitrust law,” the new complaint reads. The DOJ likened the situation to Microsoft, which made its internet browser the default on Windows operating systems and made it impossible to delete.
The Justice Department’s suit poses a potential existential threat to Google’s business if it results in breaking off Google’s search engine — which accounted for about $21 billion last quarter, or more than half of its total revenue — from its other lines of business, such as cloud computing and video.
Google rebutted the basis of the lawsuit, calling it a “dubious complaint” and arguing that consumers can easily use other products besides its own.
“Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement. “People use Google because they choose to — not because they’re forced to or because they can’t find alternatives.”
The suit was filed amid heavy political tension between major tech companies and the US government, with Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly speeding up the timing of the lawsuit so that it would be filed before the presidential election in November.
Here’s a breakdown of the case, its political consequences, and the complicated path ahead for Google and the DOJ.
The case against Google
The DOJ considers Google search to be a monopoly in the US, where nearly 90 percent of internet searches are through Google. The complaint says that Google is illegally trying to maintain its dominance through anticompetitive practices.
In its lawsuit, the Justice department claims that Google has used exclusive business contracts to limit rival companies’ ability to put their products on Google’s Android mobile devices, and incentivizes device manufacturers like Apple and carriers like Verizon to use Google search instead of other search engines.
The suit argues these practices violate the century-old Sherman Antitrust Act, which outlaws companies from “every contract, combination, or conspiracy” to monopolize.
And the suit says Google uses its profits from its massive hold on the search industry to maintain that grip by paying companies like Apple, LG, and AT&T to make it the default search engine on their devices, thus making it harder for potential rivals to compete.
“For many years, Google has used anti competitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising—the cornerstones of its empire,” the report reads.
Google said its contracts are similar to how other companies promote their products.
“[L]ike countless other businesses, we pay to promote our services, just like a cereal brand might pay a supermarket to stock its products at the end of a row or on a shelf at eye level,” the company wrote in a response to the DOJ complaint.
The DOJ said that Google’s contracts help Google maintain its search monopoly because its scale contributes to its effectiveness: The more user data it has, the better its search results are. Additionally, the more people use Google search, the more advertisers will pay Google to reach them.
“Google deprives rivals of the quality, reach, and financial position necessary to mount any meaningful competition to Google’s longstanding monopolies,” the report reads. “By foreclosing competition from rivals, Google harms consumers and advertisers.”
The DOJ complaint is also notable because rather than focusing on how Google’s monopoly could raise prices, it focuses on how lack of competition could lower quality, according to Thomas Campbell, former director of the FTC’s antitrust arm and a professor of antitrust law at Chapman University.
“Normally in antitrust cases the argument is that because of exclusionary conduct, a market is monopolized and the price to the consumer is higher,” Campbell told Recode. In this case, “the main point is the benefit of having a search engine that protects your privacy is lost.”
The lawsuit is more narrow than a report earlier this month from Congress’s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, which also discussed how Google allegedly prioritizes its own search results over competing search platforms, like restaurant reviews on Yelp or flight queries on Expedia.
The DOJ case also limits its focus to search, rather than discussing other industries where Google is dominant, including online advertising, smartphone operating systems, and web browsers. Critics say it uses that dominance in each to reinforce its other business lines.
Democratic state attorneys general may address these other issues in future lawsuits. The DOJ could also expand the scope of its lawsuit as the case proceeds.
The complicated bipartisan politics behind Big Tech regulation
The lawsuit against Google comes at a time when there’s unprecedented public and political opposition to the financial and political power of major tech companies. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle want to regulate Big Tech, though they disagree on why and how to regulate these giants.
President Trump, as well as many Republican and Democrat lawmakers, have argued with increasing urgency that major tech companies like Google have amassed far too much market power. They say the companies stifle competition and leave consumers with no choice but to use their services when they go online.
This is a departure from the decades-long prevailing legal attitude in the US government. Historically, the idea was that to break up a company, you have to prove not just that it’s a monopoly but that it’s charging customers more for its products than it would with greater competition.
That makes it harder to go after Google on antitrust grounds because its most popular products — search, email, browser, maps — are all free.
But in the past several years, there’s been a shift in that thinking, thanks in part to the scholarship of a new wave of influential legal academics dubbed the “hipster antitrust” movement, as well as rising bipartisan political opposition to Big Tech’s influence over the American public.
“It’s a major, major change in the government’s orientation toward monopoly power,” said Sally Hubbard, director of enforcement strategy at the Open Markets Institute, an antitrust nonprofit.
Earlier this month, the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee concluded its year-long investigation into major tech companies, concluding that not just Google, but also Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, use monopoly power to protect their dominant positions in the industry. This investigation has set the stage for lawmakers to introduce new laws regulating the tech giants in the future.
The progressive flank of the Democratic party, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), have long argued that the US needs new laws to break up big tech companies, which they say have amassed too much market power and are hurting the American people and economy.
At the same time, Republicans have been ramping up their attacks on tech for a more specific reason: alleged and unproven “anti-conservative” bias. Facebook’s and Twitter’s recent efforts to fact-check and even block unsubstantiated claims made by Republican politicians and some conservative-leaning news outlets have further fueled these complaints.
Some conservatives, including Trump, are increasingly calling for Congress to repeal Section 230, a landmark internet law that protects social media companies from being sued for what people say on their platforms. Some Democrats, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have also called for Section 230 reform, although not in the same manner Republicans are demanding.
On a press call with reporters announcing the case on Tuesday, DOJ’s Shores was clear in saying that the lawsuit does not address concerns about Section 230.
“The antitrust case is very separate from the questions about social media and some other technology issues that are out there about skew or bias that have been the subject, at least for us, with regard to the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,” said Shores.
But it’s impossible to separate the timing of its release from these larger talks of tech reform.
In fact, some have questioned whether the DOJ has rushed out its case against Google in order to file the suit before the election to please Trump, who has long been calling for this suit to move forward as part of his administrations’ larger confrontational policy against Big Tech.
If Biden wins the presidency, his administration’s Department of Justice could pursue the current case, refine the charges, or drop it altogether. Several legal experts told Recode that it’s likely that a potential Biden administration would pursue the case in some form given the bipartisan support for going after tech.
And the American public has also increasingly come to question Big Tech’s power, with roughly half thinking major technology companies should be regulated more than they are now, according to a June poll by Pew Research.
As Recode previously reported, even some Google employees (often anonymously, for fear of punishment by their employer) have argued that the company should be broken up to help Google return to its small, scrappy startup ethos — which they think it needs in order to continue innovating.
What this means for Google’s future
Google and the DOJ have a long and complicated road ahead before we see any meaningful resolution to this suit.
The case could take several years to play out in court; remember that Microsoft’s DOJ case took several years to come to a settlement.
Similarly, the Google case is expected to drag on for years — and of course there’s the real possibility that Google may eventually win, or settle with the US government to avoid a breakup, as Microsoft did.
But in the meantime, the mere threat of antitrust action is likely to loom over Google, putting the company in a defensive crouch, potentially slowing down its growth and preventing it from continuing the types of business practices that made it successful — such as buying up companies like YouTube, Android, and DoubleClick.
“When the Microsoft suit came down, we saw them change their behavior and it sent shockwaves through the industry,” said Open Market’s Hubbard, who said that, similarly, this suit could prevent not just Google, but the other tech giants like Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, from being as brazen in buying up competitors or enforcing questionable business contracts that reinforce their market power.
There could also be more force behind the DOJ’s suit if more state attorneys general sign on.
No Democratic state attorneys general have signed on to the case now, but some, such as New York State AG Letitia James, have said they may sign on to the DOJ’s case at a later time after they’ve finished their own independent investigations.
The DOJ, or states, may also file more lawsuits against Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. And as the case unfolds in court, Congress could pass new legislation.
Regardless of the DOJ’s suit’s eventual outcome, its filing marks a clear turning point for Big Tech. Giant companies like Google can no longer expect to continue skirting outdated regulations with impunity as they expand their empires; instead, they will face growing scrutiny and enforcement now that they’re increasingly seen as potentially harmful institutions whose powers need to be checked by the government.


vox--2020-10-20--The world is worried about the coronavirus. It’s equally concerned about climate change.

Even amid a pandemic that has killed more than 1 million people , infected over 40 million , and tanked economies , people around the world are still extremely worried about the threat posed by climate change .
A recent poll from the Pew Research Center found that a median of 70 percent of respondents in 14 countries identified climate change as a major threat to their countries , while 69 percent expressed the same level of worry about the spread of infectious disease .
Majorities in all countries surveyed said both issues were major causes for concern .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight countries were more worried about climate change as a significant threat .
Spain , France , and Italy showed the highest level of concern , at 83 percent , while 60 percent or greater in Denmark , Sweden , Germany , the Netherlands , and Belgium felt similarly .
Respondents in Australia expressed the least concern for climate change , at 59 percent .
Canada was equally worried about climate change and the spread of infectious disease , with both issues accounting for 67 percent .
In South Korea , Japan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Australia , a greater share of people viewed the spread of infectious disease as a more significant threat than climate change , ranging from 68 percent in Australia to 89 percent in South Korea .
One in 10 or fewer of all respondents did not think global climate change was a threat .
Many of the countries witnessed a substantial increase in the percentage of people who view climate change as a major threat since Pew first asked the question .
In 2013 , a median of 55 percent of respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major threat , compared to 76 percent in 2020 .
Concern in France grew 29 points , from 54 percent to 83 percent .
No noticeable increase occurred from the last time the question was asked in 2018 .
The results of the Pew Research Center poll , which was conducted from June 10 to August 3 , 2020 , might seem surprising given how much space the Covid-19 pandemic has taken up in our global consciousness in recent months .
But there are several possible explanations .
As stay-at-home orders were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reports cited the drop in carbon dioxide emissions due to a global collapse in airline travel and a sharp decline in the number of people commuting to work .
Many were forced to consider the impact of their personal choices on the environment .
The economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic has also prompted governments around the world to consider “ green ” stimulus plans that would jump-start economies while also tackling climate change .
For example , South Korea , France , and Italy have used their Covid-19 responses as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas emissions — which are accelerating global warming — in the energy , infrastructure , government , and industry sectors .
Democrats in the US have put forth a Green New Deal , and the European Commission has released its own version .
Both plans suggest a complete overhaul of every sector of the economy toward clean energy sources , while protecting workers and fostering technological innovation .
By some estimates , the US has the capacity to do so by 2035 .
Given the level of concern about global climate change across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be time for governments to take decisive action .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Even amid a pandemic that has killed more than 1 million people, infected over 40 million, and tanked economies, people around the world are still extremely worried about the threat posed by climate change.
A recent poll from the Pew Research Center found that a median of 70 percent of respondents in 14 countries identified climate change as a major threat to their countries, while 69 percent expressed the same level of worry about the spread of infectious disease.
Majorities in all countries surveyed said both issues were major causes for concern. When comparing the two problems, respondents in eight countries were more worried about climate change as a significant threat.
Spain, France, and Italy showed the highest level of concern, at 83 percent, while 60 percent or greater in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium felt similarly. Respondents in Australia expressed the least concern for climate change, at 59 percent.
Canada was equally worried about climate change and the spread of infectious disease, with both issues accounting for 67 percent.
In South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia, a greater share of people viewed the spread of infectious disease as a more significant threat than climate change, ranging from 68 percent in Australia to 89 percent in South Korea.
One in 10 or fewer of all respondents did not think global climate change was a threat.
Many of the countries witnessed a substantial increase in the percentage of people who view climate change as a major threat since Pew first asked the question.
In 2013, a median of 55 percent of respondents in 10 countries said climate change was a major threat, compared to 76 percent in 2020.
Concern in France grew 29 points, from 54 percent to 83 percent. No noticeable increase occurred from the last time the question was asked in 2018.
The results of the Pew Research Center poll, which was conducted from June 10 to August 3, 2020, might seem surprising given how much space the Covid-19 pandemic has taken up in our global consciousness in recent months. But there are several possible explanations.
As stay-at-home orders were issued in countries worldwide, a number of reports cited the drop in carbon dioxide emissions due to a global collapse in airline travel and a sharp decline in the number of people commuting to work. Many were forced to consider the impact of their personal choices on the environment.
The economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic has also prompted governments around the world to consider “green” stimulus plans that would jump-start economies while also tackling climate change. For example, South Korea, France, and Italy have used their Covid-19 responses as a chance to cut pollution and greenhouse gas emissions — which are accelerating global warming — in the energy, infrastructure, government, and industry sectors.
Democrats in the US have put forth a Green New Deal, and the European Commission has released its own version. Both plans suggest a complete overhaul of every sector of the economy toward clean energy sources, while protecting workers and fostering technological innovation. By some estimates, the US has the capacity to do so by 2035.
Given the level of concern about global climate change across 14 diverse countries, it might finally be time for governments to take decisive action.


vox--2020-10-20--Trump’s new attack: Biden “wants to listen to Fauci”

In the final weeks of his reelection campaign , President Donald Trump is facing harsh polling in key states and a major financial disadvantage , plus a pandemic that has left more than 220,000 Americans dead and millions in dire economic straights .
In response , Trump has debuted a new line of attack on former Vice President Joe Biden : “ He wants to listen to Dr. Fauci.
” At a rally in Phoenix , Arizona , on Monday , Trump told the crowd in disparaging tones that “ Biden wants to lock it down , ” and heed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci .
The day before , at a rally in Carson City , Nevada , Trump mocked Biden by saying “ he ’ ll listen to the scientists .
If I listened totally to the scientists we would right now have a country that would be in a massive depression.
” Biden ’ s subsequent tweet indicates he ’ s likely not worried about this line of attack .
The Washington Post reported that this attack may have less to do with Biden and more to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 Minutes interview that reportedly angered the president .
During the interview , Fauci said that “ the president ’ s conduct made it unsurprising that he caught the coronavirus and that the administration had tried to muzzle him.
” The next day Trump named him in his attacks on Biden in Arizona .
Trump may have a hard time rallying more supporters by vilifying the 79-year-old public health expert .
A Morning Consult poll conducted October 9-11 among 1,986 registered voters shows that “ nearly 2 in 3 voters rate Dr. Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good.
” In stark contrast , Trump has “ never topped the 42 percent of voters ” who gave him a “ good or excellent ” rating in late April .
In early October , this poll indicates that 58 percent of voters believe Trump ’ s handling of the virus has been “ poor ” or “ just fair.
” Another poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted August 28 to September 3 among 1,199 American adults has 68 percent of voters with “ a great deal ” or “ a fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ provide reliable information on coronavirus.
” The same poll has only 40 percent of voters saying the same of Trump .
Whether personal vendetta or strategic move , this is unlikely to be the game changer Trump needs to shake up the race .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

In the final weeks of his reelection campaign, President Donald Trump is facing harsh polling in key states and a major financial disadvantage, plus a pandemic that has left more than 220,000 Americans dead and millions in dire economic straights. In response, Trump has debuted a new line of attack on former Vice President Joe Biden: “He wants to listen to Dr. Fauci.”
At a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, on Monday, Trump told the crowd in disparaging tones that “Biden wants to lock it down,” and heed the advice of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci. The day before, at a rally in Carson City, Nevada, Trump mocked Biden by saying “he’ll listen to the scientists. If I listened totally to the scientists we would right now have a country that would be in a massive depression.”
Biden’s subsequent tweet indicates he’s likely not worried about this line of attack.
The Washington Post reported that this attack may have less to do with Biden and more to do with Fauci, who gave a critical 60 Minutes interview that reportedly angered the president. During the interview, Fauci said that “the president’s conduct made it unsurprising that he caught the coronavirus and that the administration had tried to muzzle him.” The next day Trump named him in his attacks on Biden in Arizona.
Trump may have a hard time rallying more supporters by vilifying the 79-year-old public health expert. A Morning Consult poll conducted October 9-11 among 1,986 registered voters shows that “nearly 2 in 3 voters rate Dr. Fauci’s coronavirus response as excellent or good.” In stark contrast, Trump has “never topped the 42 percent of voters” who gave him a “good or excellent” rating in late April. In early October, this poll indicates that 58 percent of voters believe Trump’s handling of the virus has been “poor” or “just fair.”
Another poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted August 28 to September 3 among 1,199 American adults has 68 percent of voters with “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in Dr. Fauci to “provide reliable information on coronavirus.” The same poll has only 40 percent of voters saying the same of Trump.
Whether personal vendetta or strategic move, this is unlikely to be the game changer Trump needs to shake up the race.


vox--2020-10-20--Eating indoors is risky for diners. It’s even riskier for chefs and waiters.

Outdoor restaurant dining is perhaps the closest we ’ ve come to a return to normalcy since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic : Sidewalk and patio setups offer a familiar service while , if approached responsibly , mitigate risk .
These outdoor dining rooms have remade the landscape of major metropolitan centers and small towns , allowing people to spill into the streets , visit with friends and family , and — for an hour or two — forget about the looming threat of a deadly and highly contagious virus .
Outdoor setups have also given restaurants a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to welcome customers eager for a break from their own kitchens .
When restaurateurs and diners alike are mindful and cautious , eating outside has proven to be relatively low risk .
Indoor dining , however , is another story altogether , presenting considerably higher degrees of risk .
As temperatures creep lower in parts of the country , and restrictions are loosened in others , dining rooms are reopening : some at a very limited capacity ( in San Francisco and New York , for instance ) , and elsewhere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with no capacity limits whatsoever .
Diners in warmer cities may choose to head indoors simply for a change of scenery as restrictions lift , while those in colder climates won ’ t have many other options if they want to continue eating out when winter comes .
Indoor spaces create an ideal environment for the spread of COVID-19 .
But a transition indoors should not be treated simply as a continuation of outdoor dining : Indoor reopenings often correlate with spikes in coronavirus cases .
A CDC report published in early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dined at a restaurant — the report included both indoor and patio diners — were “ approximately twice as likely ” to have tested positive for COVID-19 as those who did not frequent restaurants .
It ’ s impossible to pin the responsibility for these case spikes on the restaurant industry — nor should we — and in states where cases have risen , other factors may contribute to increased presence of the virus , such as the loosening of other preventative measures such as mandatory mask-wearing and limits on large gatherings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at this point in the pandemic , there is no question that indoor restaurant dining is a high-risk activity , regardless of what controls are in place .
“ Anytime you ’ re opting into sitting down and eating at a restaurant , particularly with people , you ’ re taking on increased risk , ” says Marissa Baker , an assistant professor at the University of Washington ’ s Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences .
And as your risk increases , so too does the risk for the waiters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff who make the wheels of a restaurant turn smoothly .
Is there a safe way to eat indoors if my state has lifted capacity restrictions and mask-wearing mandates ?
To put it simply : no .
Any indoor spaces — particularly those where mask-wearing mandates have been abandoned or were never enforced — create an ideal environment for the spread of COVID-19 .
Why is indoor dining inherently riskier than eating outdoors ?
To understand the risks associated with indoor dining , it ’ s important to first understand how COVID-19 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus is predominantly thought to spread from person to person through droplets produced when someone infected with the virus coughs , sneezes , or talks — or , say , raises their voice as they split a bottle of wine over dinner .
These droplets , as Penn Medicine explains , “ fall quickly to earth , ” meaning that , while there is a high risk of contracting the virus when speaking with or in close proximity to an infectious person , droplets alone do not present an extreme risk once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , that ’ s not the whole story .
The CDC recently added an update to their coronavirus webpage , acknowledging that it ’ s also possible for the virus to be spread by airborne transmission .
The update notes that infectious droplets and particles can “ linger in the air for minutes to hours ” and that past instances of airborne transmissions “ occurred within enclosed spaces that had inadequate ventilation.
” The virus is spread in this way through aerosols , tiny droplets that “ remain infectious when suspended in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” according to the World Health Organization ( WHO ) .
The WHO points to a working theory that larger respiratory droplets generate the airborne aerosols when they evaporate , as well as when an infected person breathes and talks .
“ Being in an enclosed space where air is recirculated means that if there are viruses suspended in those aerosols in a room , the longer you spend time unmasked in an enclosed space , the higher the risk of contracting the virus , ” says Dr. Russell G. Buhr , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health .
“ It ’ s tough because the type of non-medical face coverings that we use don ’ t protect well against aerosols ; the particles in aerosols are smaller than the pores between the fabric .
The way that people get infected is a combination of how long they are in close proximity to an infectious source , coupled with how much virus they are exposed to.
” Even in restaurant settings featuring spaced-apart tables and barriers between diners , the potential for airborne transmission raises some serious concerns .
Restaurants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoulder , and those in the space can share the same air for hours .
The reality is , restaurant employees will spend hours indoors with one another , and with people who take off their masks to eat .
Some restaurants are touting their HVAC systems as safety measures .
Do they work ?
On its website , the Environmental Protection Agency stresses the importance of air circulation and filtration in helping to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in indoor spaces : “ Although improvements to ventilation and air cleaning can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus , EPA recommends precautions to reduce the potential for airborne transmission of the virus .
These precautions include increasing ventilation with outdoor air and air filtration as part of a larger strategy.
” Ideally , a restaurant offering indoor dining will at the very least have a powerful HVAC system pulling air out of the restaurant , and pumping fresh air in — not a foolproof solution , but one that does help .
But as Baker points out , unless these upgrades are being touted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website , it ’ s nearly impossible for a diner to know whether a dining room is being filled with fresh air or is simply pumping recycled air back into the dining room and kitchen .
Some restaurants in New York that have enough capital have invested in ultraviolet lamps and MERV-13 HVAC units ( an air filtration measure several degrees less powerful than the ones present in hospitals ) .
Le Bernardin , one of New York ’ s three Michelin-starred establishments , installed a “ Needlepoint BiPolar Ionization system tested and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 virus particles , ” according to the restaurant ’ s Resy page .
Photojournalist Gary He reported on Eater NY that the Financial District restaurant Crown Shy spent $ 40,000 adding a bi-polar ionization system to their HVAC units .
He notes that because there are still very few peer-reviewed studies on the technology , the efficacy of bi-polar ionization systems is “ still up for debate.
” These kinds of measures will assure some diners , but Baker says others will place more trust in the mom-and-pop restaurants they already know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite potentially limited resources to upgrade air filtration and ventilation .
“ Especially for eating at restaurants , risk perception plays a really big role as to what actions people are going to take , ” she says .
“ And I don ’ t think that the average person is very influenced by ventilation in their risk calculation .
Things like familiarity are going to drive their decision making.
” I ’ m only going to restaurants without table service .
Why are those places still high risk for workers ?
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buhr says to picture a restaurant as a large cube , which contains a certain number of cubic feet of air .
Say , for instance , a restaurant contains 1,000 cubic feet of air : “ That same 1,000 cubic feet of air is then being stirred through the air conditioner , and recirculated in the space over and over and over again.
” A strong and effective filtration system will filter and circulate fresh air , but even the best air filtration system won ’ t entirely eliminate risk .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diners , is even more concerning for restaurant workers .
“ Although masks are protective , over a long period of time and over multiple exposure events , they are not 100 percent foolproof.
” A diner might be exposed to virus particles in the air , or particles expelled by an infected person nearby , during the hour or two while they ’ re eating their meal .
For an employee who spends hours in the restaurant , the risk is exponentially higher .
“ It ’ s not like the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nine hours , ” says Buhr .
“ One restaurant worker may be exposed to 200 or 300 people [ every day ] who by necessity of dining don ’ t have their faces covered.
” In protecting workers , it ’ s crucial that employers provide masks , and that employees properly and consistently wear them .
But even this , Baker says , is not enough to negate all risk associated with working indoors .
“ The worker is encountering multiple people over the course of their shift .
… You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming into contact with somebody who may be asymptomatically , or even symptomatically , carrying the virus , ” says Baker .
“ Most of the time we see workers in cloth masks or maybe surgical masks .
And although those are protective , over a long period of time and over multiple exposure events , they are not 100 percent foolproof.
” It ’ s not just diners who pose a threat to the health of restaurant workers : Coworkers may also put each other at risk of infection .
In an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often low pay , many restaurant workers return to the tight confines of dining rooms and kitchens because they can not afford to stay home , even if they are symptomatic or have been recently exposed to the virus .
“ You could be working shoulder to shoulder on the line or shoulder to shoulder washing dishes , ” Baker says .
“ It can be fairly physical work , so you ’ re breathing heavily , which is increasing not only any particles coming out of your mouth , but the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in.
” The risk exists whether a restaurant is offering indoor dining or not , but Baker points out that indoor dining inevitably leads to a higher density of customers , and a more rushed kitchen environment .
A higher number of orders and table turnovers are “ only going to increase the speed in the back of house both for food preparation , and for dishwashing , ” she says .
“ So you ’ re either going to increase the speed , or you ’ re going to increase the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift ] , both of which are related to increased exposure.
” This puts restaurants — and as a result , their workers — in an impossible position : The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to limit both staff and customers in a restaurant .
But the most viable way to meet razor-thin margins and keep a restaurant afloat is to fill a dining room back up with hungry diners as soon as local mandates allow .
When will indoor dining be safe again ?
How will I know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make informed decisions about the risk of indoor dining by looking at the rate of community spread in their neighborhood or city .
The CDC describes community spread as the number of people who have “ been infected with the virus in an area , including some who are not sure how or where they became infected.
” The health experts who spoke with Eater agreed that — until a vaccine is widely available and has been distributed throughout the country — an extremely low rate of community spread is the only way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience .
The risk of community spread presents a unique challenge when it comes to restaurant dining .
“ You don ’ t only go out to eat in your own neighborhood , ” Buhr says of most diners during “ normal ” times .
“ You go across town to the restaurant that you really want to go to .
And so maybe there isn ’ t an outbreak in Downtown Los Angeles , but there is an outbreak in Beverly Hills , where you happen to live .
And so now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s coming from a high-probability-of-transmission area , and moved them temporarily to a low-probability area .
The problems come when people are mixing , and you have people that are shedding the virus interacting with people who are not infected.
” The difficulty of containing COVID-19 hot spots can already be seen in cities like New York , where some neighborhoods have been ordered to shut down indoor dining following upticks in coronavirus cases , while others remain open for business as usual .
Diners who keep an eye on community spread as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety should be cognizant of the fact that residents in COVID-19 hot spots could be visiting neighborhoods with otherwise-low community spread .
The inherently communal nature of restaurants , coupled with the fact that people will gladly travel across town for a good meal , renders community spread an only somewhat trusty reflection of risk level in any given area .
What will it take to make indoor dining as safe as possible ?
For restaurants that do choose to reopen , Dr. Elizabeth Noth , a researcher in environmental and occupational exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Baker in emphasizing the importance of airflow and ventilation to the relative safety of indoor spaces .
“ Ventilation and clean air is my biggest concern when it comes to what ’ s going to make an indoor dining experience risky or less risky , ” she says .
Beyond ensuring a restaurant has a powerful HVAC system , Noth says the proper distancing of tables and mask wearing by employees is a good indicator of how seriously an establishment is taking both employee and diner safety .
“ If [ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — places that don ’ t make you wear a mask while you ’ re waiting in the lobby , if they don ’ t have their own servers in masks — then you can ’ t really expect them to be doing much more.
” Noth says these are easier signs to look for when evaluating a restaurant ’ s safety protocol than , say , snooping around to find the HVAC system and trying to figure out how powerful it is .
To protect workers , Noth says proper ventilation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extend to worker break rooms and communal spaces , pointing to reports of the increased spread of COVID-19 in a hospital break room , where windows were absent and health care workers were less likely to observe the same precautions they did while working .
To enforce proper ventilation , and ensure employers are providing their employees with protective equipment , Baker hopes to see increased government involvement .
“ We need regulations from federal and state OSHA ( Occupational Safety and Health Administration ) to protect workers at work .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that the workers in restaurants are getting the adequate personal protective equipment that they need , ” she says .
But making indoor dining as safe as possible isn ’ t just up to government regulators .
It ’ s a matter of personal choice and good judgement for consumers , too .
“ It isn ’ t as simple as just being like , ‘ I ’ m comfortable going out to a bar or a restaurant because I think even if I get sick , I ’ ll probably be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That doesn ’ t work in public health , because you may be exposing other people to your own unknown infection .
We ’ ve unfortunately gotten to a place where I think the number of deaths has gotten so high that we ’ ve become a little desensitized to it .
As if it ’ s a little bit more inevitable .
And it ’ s just not really the case.
” Diners have a responsibility to follow every possible safety precaution if they choose to eat indoors , acknowledging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all of the workers who make their food , serve them , and clean their dishes .
That means staying home if sick , and wearing a mask for as much of the dining experience as possible .
It means being gracious and understanding if reminded to put on a mask as a waiter approaches , or to move one ’ s chair farther away from a neighboring table .
It means , in short , treating workers with a level of respect they have always deserved , but which is even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their health .
“ We have to be really patient and thoughtful with everyone who ’ s working in these restaurants , because they are trying to provide a service at some degree of personal risk , ” says Buhr .
“ What I would really like to see is that everybody who decides to go out to eat — which is really a privilege — treats food-service people with the kind of care and respect that we treat our nurses with .
We need to shift a little bit away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ mentality to the ‘ we ’ re all in this together ’ mentality.
” Working together to contain the virus , and showing the utmost gratitude to those on the front lines each day , Buhr says , is the key to getting through this pandemic .
is a Filipino illustrator living and working out of Toronto .

Outdoor restaurant dining is perhaps the closest we’ve come to a return to normalcy since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: Sidewalk and patio setups offer a familiar service while, if approached responsibly, mitigate risk. These outdoor dining rooms have remade the landscape of major metropolitan centers and small towns, allowing people to spill into the streets, visit with friends and family, and — for an hour or two — forget about the looming threat of a deadly and highly contagious virus. Outdoor setups have also given restaurants a way to bring back some of their staff and to welcome customers eager for a break from their own kitchens. When restaurateurs and diners alike are mindful and cautious, eating outside has proven to be relatively low risk.
Indoor dining, however, is another story altogether, presenting considerably higher degrees of risk. As temperatures creep lower in parts of the country, and restrictions are loosened in others, dining rooms are reopening: some at a very limited capacity (in San Francisco and New York, for instance), and elsewhere, in states, like Florida and Indiana, with no capacity limits whatsoever. Diners in warmer cities may choose to head indoors simply for a change of scenery as restrictions lift, while those in colder climates won’t have many other options if they want to continue eating out when winter comes.
Indoor spaces create an ideal environment for the spread of COVID-19.
But a transition indoors should not be treated simply as a continuation of outdoor dining: Indoor reopenings often correlate with spikes in coronavirus cases. A CDC report published in early September found that adults who reported having dined at a restaurant — the report included both indoor and patio diners — were “approximately twice as likely” to have tested positive for COVID-19 as those who did not frequent restaurants. It’s impossible to pin the responsibility for these case spikes on the restaurant industry — nor should we — and in states where cases have risen, other factors may contribute to increased presence of the virus, such as the loosening of other preventative measures such as mandatory mask-wearing and limits on large gatherings. Though correlation doesn’t equal causation, at this point in the pandemic, there is no question that indoor restaurant dining is a high-risk activity, regardless of what controls are in place.
“Anytime you’re opting into sitting down and eating at a restaurant, particularly with people, you’re taking on increased risk,” says Marissa Baker, an assistant professor at the University of Washington’s Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences. And as your risk increases, so too does the risk for the waiters, bartenders, chefs, and dishwashing staff who make the wheels of a restaurant turn smoothly.
Is there a safe way to eat indoors if my state has lifted capacity restrictions and mask-wearing mandates?
To put it simply: no. Any indoor spaces — particularly those where mask-wearing mandates have been abandoned or were never enforced — create an ideal environment for the spread of COVID-19.
Why is indoor dining inherently riskier than eating outdoors?
To understand the risks associated with indoor dining, it’s important to first understand how COVID-19 is spread.
According to the CDC, the virus is predominantly thought to spread from person to person through droplets produced when someone infected with the virus coughs, sneezes, or talks — or, say, raises their voice as they split a bottle of wine over dinner. These droplets, as Penn Medicine explains, “fall quickly to earth,” meaning that, while there is a high risk of contracting the virus when speaking with or in close proximity to an infectious person, droplets alone do not present an extreme risk once that person is no longer present. Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story.
The CDC recently added an update to their coronavirus webpage, acknowledging that it’s also possible for the virus to be spread by airborne transmission. The update notes that infectious droplets and particles can “linger in the air for minutes to hours” and that past instances of airborne transmissions “occurred within enclosed spaces that had inadequate ventilation.” The virus is spread in this way through aerosols, tiny droplets that “remain infectious when suspended in air over long distances and time,” according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO points to a working theory that larger respiratory droplets generate the airborne aerosols when they evaporate, as well as when an infected person breathes and talks.
“Being in an enclosed space where air is recirculated means that if there are viruses suspended in those aerosols in a room, the longer you spend time unmasked in an enclosed space, the higher the risk of contracting the virus,” says Dr. Russell G. Buhr, a pulmonary and critical care physician at UCLA Health. “It’s tough because the type of non-medical face coverings that we use don’t protect well against aerosols; the particles in aerosols are smaller than the pores between the fabric. The way that people get infected is a combination of how long they are in close proximity to an infectious source, coupled with how much virus they are exposed to.”
Even in restaurant settings featuring spaced-apart tables and barriers between diners, the potential for airborne transmission raises some serious concerns. Restaurants’ often-tiny kitchens place cooks shoulder to shoulder, and those in the space can share the same air for hours. The reality is, restaurant employees will spend hours indoors with one another, and with people who take off their masks to eat.
Some restaurants are touting their HVAC systems as safety measures. Do they work?
On its website, the Environmental Protection Agency stresses the importance of air circulation and filtration in helping to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in indoor spaces: “Although improvements to ventilation and air cleaning cannot on their own eliminate the risk of airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, EPA recommends precautions to reduce the potential for airborne transmission of the virus. These precautions include increasing ventilation with outdoor air and air filtration as part of a larger strategy.”
Ideally, a restaurant offering indoor dining will at the very least have a powerful HVAC system pulling air out of the restaurant, and pumping fresh air in — not a foolproof solution, but one that does help. But as Baker points out, unless these upgrades are being touted on social media or a restaurant’s website, it’s nearly impossible for a diner to know whether a dining room is being filled with fresh air or is simply pumping recycled air back into the dining room and kitchen.
Some restaurants in New York that have enough capital have invested in ultraviolet lamps and MERV-13 HVAC units (an air filtration measure several degrees less powerful than the ones present in hospitals). Le Bernardin, one of New York’s three Michelin-starred establishments, installed a “Needlepoint BiPolar Ionization system tested and proven effective in independent laboratory tests against COVID-19 virus particles,” according to the restaurant’s Resy page. Photojournalist Gary He reported on Eater NY that the Financial District restaurant Crown Shy spent $40,000 adding a bi-polar ionization system to their HVAC units. He notes that because there are still very few peer-reviewed studies on the technology, the efficacy of bi-polar ionization systems is “still up for debate.”
These kinds of measures will assure some diners, but Baker says others will place more trust in the mom-and-pop restaurants they already know and love, where they feel safer despite potentially limited resources to upgrade air filtration and ventilation. “Especially for eating at restaurants, risk perception plays a really big role as to what actions people are going to take,” she says. “And I don’t think that the average person is very influenced by ventilation in their risk calculation. Things like familiarity are going to drive their decision making.”
I’m only going to restaurants without table service. Why are those places still high risk for workers?
To understand the risks of indoor dining, Buhr says to picture a restaurant as a large cube, which contains a certain number of cubic feet of air. Say, for instance, a restaurant contains 1,000 cubic feet of air: “That same 1,000 cubic feet of air is then being stirred through the air conditioner, and recirculated in the space over and over and over again.” A strong and effective filtration system will filter and circulate fresh air, but even the best air filtration system won’t entirely eliminate risk. The remaining risk, while not insignificant for diners, is even more concerning for restaurant workers.
“Although masks are protective, over a long period of time and over multiple exposure events, they are not 100 percent foolproof.”
A diner might be exposed to virus particles in the air, or particles expelled by an infected person nearby, during the hour or two while they’re eating their meal. For an employee who spends hours in the restaurant, the risk is exponentially higher. “It’s not like the same 20 people sit in a restaurant for nine hours,” says Buhr. “One restaurant worker may be exposed to 200 or 300 people [every day] who by necessity of dining don’t have their faces covered.”
In protecting workers, it’s crucial that employers provide masks, and that employees properly and consistently wear them. But even this, Baker says, is not enough to negate all risk associated with working indoors. “The worker is encountering multiple people over the course of their shift. … You’re really upping the chance of coming into contact with somebody who may be asymptomatically, or even symptomatically, carrying the virus,” says Baker. “Most of the time we see workers in cloth masks or maybe surgical masks. And although those are protective, over a long period of time and over multiple exposure events, they are not 100 percent foolproof.”
It’s not just diners who pose a threat to the health of restaurant workers: Coworkers may also put each other at risk of infection. In an industry that provides paltry health care and often low pay, many restaurant workers return to the tight confines of dining rooms and kitchens because they can not afford to stay home, even if they are symptomatic or have been recently exposed to the virus. “You could be working shoulder to shoulder on the line or shoulder to shoulder washing dishes,” Baker says. “It can be fairly physical work, so you’re breathing heavily, which is increasing not only any particles coming out of your mouth, but the number of particles that you are potentially breathing in.”
The risk exists whether a restaurant is offering indoor dining or not, but Baker points out that indoor dining inevitably leads to a higher density of customers, and a more rushed kitchen environment. A higher number of orders and table turnovers are “only going to increase the speed in the back of house both for food preparation, and for dishwashing,” she says. “So you’re either going to increase the speed, or you’re going to increase the number of people [needed to work a shift], both of which are related to increased exposure.”
This puts restaurants — and as a result, their workers — in an impossible position: The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to limit both staff and customers in a restaurant. But the most viable way to meet razor-thin margins and keep a restaurant afloat is to fill a dining room back up with hungry diners as soon as local mandates allow.
When will indoor dining be safe again? How will I know that moment has come?
Diners should make informed decisions about the risk of indoor dining by looking at the rate of community spread in their neighborhood or city. The CDC describes community spread as the number of people who have “been infected with the virus in an area, including some who are not sure how or where they became infected.” The health experts who spoke with Eater agreed that — until a vaccine is widely available and has been distributed throughout the country — an extremely low rate of community spread is the only way to ensure a truly safe indoor dining experience.
The risk of community spread presents a unique challenge when it comes to restaurant dining. “You don’t only go out to eat in your own neighborhood,” Buhr says of most diners during “normal” times. “You go across town to the restaurant that you really want to go to. And so maybe there isn’t an outbreak in Downtown Los Angeles, but there is an outbreak in Beverly Hills, where you happen to live. And so now you’ve taken somebody who’s coming from a high-probability-of-transmission area, and moved them temporarily to a low-probability area. The problems come when people are mixing, and you have people that are shedding the virus interacting with people who are not infected.” The difficulty of containing COVID-19 hot spots can already be seen in cities like New York, where some neighborhoods have been ordered to shut down indoor dining following upticks in coronavirus cases, while others remain open for business as usual.
Diners who keep an eye on community spread as a measure of indoor dining’s safety should be cognizant of the fact that residents in COVID-19 hot spots could be visiting neighborhoods with otherwise-low community spread. The inherently communal nature of restaurants, coupled with the fact that people will gladly travel across town for a good meal, renders community spread an only somewhat trusty reflection of risk level in any given area.
What will it take to make indoor dining as safe as possible?
For restaurants that do choose to reopen, Dr. Elizabeth Noth, a researcher in environmental and occupational exposure science at UC Berkeley, echoes Buhr and Baker in emphasizing the importance of airflow and ventilation to the relative safety of indoor spaces. “Ventilation and clean air is my biggest concern when it comes to what’s going to make an indoor dining experience risky or less risky,” she says.
Beyond ensuring a restaurant has a powerful HVAC system, Noth says the proper distancing of tables and mask wearing by employees is a good indicator of how seriously an establishment is taking both employee and diner safety. “If [a restaurant] is not doing the basics — places that don’t make you wear a mask while you’re waiting in the lobby, if they don’t have their own servers in masks — then you can’t really expect them to be doing much more.” Noth says these are easier signs to look for when evaluating a restaurant’s safety protocol than, say, snooping around to find the HVAC system and trying to figure out how powerful it is. To protect workers, Noth says proper ventilation and safety measures including diligent mask wearing must extend to worker break rooms and communal spaces, pointing to reports of the increased spread of COVID-19 in a hospital break room, where windows were absent and health care workers were less likely to observe the same precautions they did while working.
To enforce proper ventilation, and ensure employers are providing their employees with protective equipment, Baker hopes to see increased government involvement. “We need regulations from federal and state OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to protect workers at work. That’s the only way that we can ensure that the workers in restaurants are getting the adequate personal protective equipment that they need,” she says.
But making indoor dining as safe as possible isn’t just up to government regulators. It’s a matter of personal choice and good judgement for consumers, too. “It isn’t as simple as just being like, ‘I’m comfortable going out to a bar or a restaurant because I think even if I get sick, I’ll probably be fine,’” says Buhr. “That doesn’t work in public health, because you may be exposing other people to your own unknown infection. We’ve unfortunately gotten to a place where I think the number of deaths has gotten so high that we’ve become a little desensitized to it. As if it’s a little bit more inevitable. And it’s just not really the case.”
Diners have a responsibility to follow every possible safety precaution if they choose to eat indoors, acknowledging the risk not just to themselves, but to all of the workers who make their food, serve them, and clean their dishes. That means staying home if sick, and wearing a mask for as much of the dining experience as possible. It means being gracious and understanding if reminded to put on a mask as a waiter approaches, or to move one’s chair farther away from a neighboring table. It means, in short, treating workers with a level of respect they have always deserved, but which is even more crucial now that it is tied to their health.
“We have to be really patient and thoughtful with everyone who’s working in these restaurants, because they are trying to provide a service at some degree of personal risk,” says Buhr. “What I would really like to see is that everybody who decides to go out to eat — which is really a privilege — treats food-service people with the kind of care and respect that we treat our nurses with. We need to shift a little bit away from this ‘customer’s always right’ mentality to the ‘we’re all in this together’ mentality.” Working together to contain the virus, and showing the utmost gratitude to those on the front lines each day, Buhr says, is the key to getting through this pandemic.
Glenn Harvey is a Filipino illustrator living and working out of Toronto.


vox--2020-10-20--Silicon Valley megadonors unleash a last-minute, $100 million barrage of ads against Trump

A little-known Democratic super PAC backed by some of Silicon Valley ’ s biggest donors is quietly unleashing a torrent of television spending in the final weeks of the presidential campaign in a last-minute attempt to oust President Donald Trump , Recode has learned .
The barrage of late money — which includes at least $ 22 million from Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz — figures among one of the most expensive and aggressive plays yet by tech billionaires , who have spent years studying how to maximize the return they get from each additional dollar they spend on politics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bet yet on the evidence that TV ads that come just before Election Day are the best way to do that .
The super PAC , called Future Forward , has remained under the radar but is spending more than $ 100 million on television and digital in the final month of the campaign — more than any other group — on behalf of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden outside of the Biden campaign itself .
And it has been leading a separate , previously unreported $ 28 million proposed campaign to elect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas , Recode has learned .
Future Forward ’ s size and strategy is now moving more into the public view .
It plans to report to the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday that it raised $ 66 million in just the 45 days between September 1 and October 15 — a haul powered by Silicon Valley billionaires like Twilio founder Jeff Lawson , longtime Google CEO Eric Schmidt , and Moskovitz , who has been one of the most enigmatic Democratic megadonors of the Trump era .
Moskovitz ’ s team has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the year that it has been preparing to make a splash late in the game and that they were a big believer in late television specifically .
( Moskovitz ’ s chief adviser , Otis Reid , has been publicly skeptical about wasting money on ads early in the cycle . )
The group has been closely associated with Moskovitz in Democratic fundraising circles for much of the calendar year , although his first donation to the group didn ’ t materialize until this summer .
Like other Silicon Valley donors new to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has sought to bring the brainy , data-driven approach that he has pioneered in his philanthropy to his political program in 2020 .
He has tried to calculate the “ cost-per-net-Democratic-vote , ” combing through academic literature to mathematically determine where each marginal dollar from him can make the biggest difference .
Other significant Moskovitz bets this cycle have included millions to the Voter Participation Center , a voter-turnout organization that has been supercharged by tech money over the last two years , and Vote Tripling , a “ relational organizing ” approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lead conclusion from Moskovitz ’ s research has been to invest in late TV ads that come just before Election Day , when the ads are still fresh on the minds of voters .
And in Future Forward , Moskovitz has found his perfect vehicle .
Future Forward ’ s signature message in its conversations with donors and other Democratic officials has been its focus on what it calls “ content testing.
” While it ’ s not unusual for an ad maker to test the results of a spot before airing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these conversations that it has unique abilities to measure and predict an ad ’ s effectiveness by deploying clever experiments ( although some TV veterans are skeptical of a secret sauce ) .
The group has worked with other Democratic ad makers and its in-house team to make more than 100 different ads , although only about a dozen have made it to the airwaves .
The group spent much of 2020 testing and developing various ads — while barely spending a penny on TV before late September .
Then it dropped the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day , Future Forward aired or booked about $ 106 million worth of TV ads , according to Advertising Analytics , a media-tracking firm — almost four times as much as the next closest pro-Biden outside group , Independence USA , during that period .
The super PAC , which was created in 2018 , is at the forefront of a new wave of outside groups that are trying to bring social science methods and randomized controlled trials — the gold standard of experimental design — to modern campaigns .
A new class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s leaders Chauncey McLean , have trained their eyes on television advertising , one of the biggest expenses in presidential politics .
They are conducting large-scale field experiments where an actual TV spot airs in the real world — instead of traditional survey experiments where a proposed spot is presented to test subjects — to assess and optimize an ad ’ s impact .
Unlike other groups such as the Lincoln Project , which have taken a more caustic approach toward Trump in their television campaigns to hammer on his flaws , Future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely positive , implicit contrast campaign tests more effectively .
As part of its experimental approach , the group also prides itself on its willingness to go wide when it comes to testing creative messaging — essentially throwing lots of ideas against the wall to see what sticks .
The group plans to report on Tuesday that it raised about $ 20 million in September and another $ 46 million in the first 15 days of October .
Major donations during that period include $ 6 million in total from Lawson and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from crypto trader Sam Bankman-Fried ; and three-quarters of a million more from Schmidt , bringing his total donation to the group to $ 2.5 million .
$ 29 million of the October money came from the super PAC ’ s affiliated nonprofit that isn ’ t required to disclose its donors .
The group has also been recommended in private communications by the team of Reid Hoffman , another Silicon Valley megadonor .
Despite that windfall , the group has intentionally adopted a low profile , especially relative to other pro-Biden super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Despite spending more than any other outside group in the homestretch , this is the first detailed article about it .
The group is also not limiting its ambitions to the presidential race .
In a “ confidential ” four-page memo circulated to major donors last week and obtained by Recode , Future Forward and four other Democratic outside groups — Senate Majority PAC , the Strategic Victory Fund , Way to Win , and Mind the Gap — planned $ 28 million in advertising to boost MJ Hegar , the Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uphill race .
$ 10 million of that money was expected to come from a Senate Majority PAC , according to the memo , while another $ 18 million needed to be raised as of last week for the groups to pull the trigger .
Since that memo , Senate Majority PAC announced an $ 8.6 million campaign — it made no mention of the rest of the big-donor cavalry joining them .
The memo stated that Future Forward was raising the rest to implement the home run play , which began with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state on Tuesday .
“ Based on an extensive analysis undertaken by Future Forward PAC and Senate Majority PAC ( SMP ) , we believe that Democrats have a plausible chance to flip the TX Senate seat with a major financial investment in the race over the next week , ” the groups wrote to donors last week .
“ We can push the odds of victory up significantly—from 23 % to 35-55 % —by blitzing the airwaves in the final two weeks.
” That ’ s the sort of mathy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big player in Silicon Valley — all behind the scenes .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

A little-known Democratic super PAC backed by some of Silicon Valley’s biggest donors is quietly unleashing a torrent of television spending in the final weeks of the presidential campaign in a last-minute attempt to oust President Donald Trump, Recode has learned.
The barrage of late money — which includes at least $22 million from Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz — figures among one of the most expensive and aggressive plays yet by tech billionaires, who have spent years studying how to maximize the return they get from each additional dollar they spend on politics. Moskovitz is placing his single biggest public bet yet on the evidence that TV ads that come just before Election Day are the best way to do that.
The super PAC, called Future Forward, has remained under the radar but is spending more than $100 million on television and digital in the final month of the campaign — more than any other group — on behalf of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden outside of the Biden campaign itself. And it has been leading a separate, previously unreported $28 million proposed campaign to elect a Democrat to the US Senate from Texas, Recode has learned.
Future Forward’s size and strategy is now moving more into the public view. It plans to report to the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday that it raised $66 million in just the 45 days between September 1 and October 15 — a haul powered by Silicon Valley billionaires like Twilio founder Jeff Lawson, longtime Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and Moskovitz, who has been one of the most enigmatic Democratic megadonors of the Trump era.
Moskovitz’s team has told some allies over the course of the year that it has been preparing to make a splash late in the game and that they were a big believer in late television specifically. (Moskovitz’s chief adviser, Otis Reid, has been publicly skeptical about wasting money on ads early in the cycle.) The group has been closely associated with Moskovitz in Democratic fundraising circles for much of the calendar year, although his first donation to the group didn’t materialize until this summer.
Like other Silicon Valley donors new to politics in the Trump era, Moskovitz has sought to bring the brainy, data-driven approach that he has pioneered in his philanthropy to his political program in 2020. He has tried to calculate the “cost-per-net-Democratic-vote,” combing through academic literature to mathematically determine where each marginal dollar from him can make the biggest difference. Other significant Moskovitz bets this cycle have included millions to the Voter Participation Center, a voter-turnout organization that has been supercharged by tech money over the last two years, and Vote Tripling, a “relational organizing” approach to encourage friends to vote.
But the lead conclusion from Moskovitz’s research has been to invest in late TV ads that come just before Election Day, when the ads are still fresh on the minds of voters.
And in Future Forward, Moskovitz has found his perfect vehicle.
Future Forward’s signature message in its conversations with donors and other Democratic officials has been its focus on what it calls “content testing.” While it’s not unusual for an ad maker to test the results of a spot before airing it, Future Forward has stressed in these conversations that it has unique abilities to measure and predict an ad’s effectiveness by deploying clever experiments (although some TV veterans are skeptical of a secret sauce). The group has worked with other Democratic ad makers and its in-house team to make more than 100 different ads, although only about a dozen have made it to the airwaves.
The group spent much of 2020 testing and developing various ads — while barely spending a penny on TV before late September. Then it dropped the hammer.
Between September 29 and Election Day, Future Forward aired or booked about $106 million worth of TV ads, according to Advertising Analytics, a media-tracking firm — almost four times as much as the next closest pro-Biden outside group, Independence USA, during that period.
The super PAC, which was created in 2018, is at the forefront of a new wave of outside groups that are trying to bring social science methods and randomized controlled trials — the gold standard of experimental design — to modern campaigns. A new class of operatives, including Future Forward’s leaders Chauncey McLean, have trained their eyes on television advertising, one of the biggest expenses in presidential politics. They are conducting large-scale field experiments where an actual TV spot airs in the real world — instead of traditional survey experiments where a proposed spot is presented to test subjects — to assess and optimize an ad’s impact.
Unlike other groups such as the Lincoln Project, which have taken a more caustic approach toward Trump in their television campaigns to hammer on his flaws, Future Forward gleaned from its research that a largely positive, implicit contrast campaign tests more effectively. As part of its experimental approach, the group also prides itself on its willingness to go wide when it comes to testing creative messaging — essentially throwing lots of ideas against the wall to see what sticks.
The group plans to report on Tuesday that it raised about $20 million in September and another $46 million in the first 15 days of October. Major donations during that period include $6 million in total from Lawson and his wife, Erica; $5 million from crypto trader Sam Bankman-Fried; and three-quarters of a million more from Schmidt, bringing his total donation to the group to $2.5 million. $29 million of the October money came from the super PAC’s affiliated nonprofit that isn’t required to disclose its donors. The group has also been recommended in private communications by the team of Reid Hoffman, another Silicon Valley megadonor.
Despite that windfall, the group has intentionally adopted a low profile, especially relative to other pro-Biden super PACs. It maintains a bare-bones website. Despite spending more than any other outside group in the homestretch, this is the first detailed article about it.
The group is also not limiting its ambitions to the presidential race. In a “confidential” four-page memo circulated to major donors last week and obtained by Recode, Future Forward and four other Democratic outside groups — Senate Majority PAC, the Strategic Victory Fund, Way to Win, and Mind the Gap — planned $28 million in advertising to boost MJ Hegar, the Democrat challenging Texas Sen. John Cornyn in an uphill race. $10 million of that money was expected to come from a Senate Majority PAC, according to the memo, while another $18 million needed to be raised as of last week for the groups to pull the trigger.
Since that memo, Senate Majority PAC announced an $8.6 million campaign — it made no mention of the rest of the big-donor cavalry joining them. The memo stated that Future Forward was raising the rest to implement the home run play, which began with a buy worth a few million dollars in the state on Tuesday.
“Based on an extensive analysis undertaken by Future Forward PAC and Senate Majority PAC (SMP), we believe that Democrats have a plausible chance to flip the TX Senate seat with a major financial investment in the race over the next week,” the groups wrote to donors last week. “We can push the odds of victory up significantly—from 23% to 35-55%—by blitzing the airwaves in the final two weeks.”
That’s the sort of mathy appeal that has made Future Forward a big player in Silicon Valley — all behind the scenes.