vox--2020-05-28--China and India are in a dangerous standoff over a hotly contested border

India and China are currently engaged in a tense border fight that some fear could spark a military conflict — a precarious situation that President Donald Trump has haphazardly offered to mediate .
For about 80 years , India and China have quarreled over a roughly 2,200-mile frontier spanning the Himalayas , occasionally going to war over their competing claims .
Despite 20-plus rounds of negotiations , the world ’ s two most populous countries haven ’ t come close to agreeing on most of the boundaries , providing a continuous source of tension between Beijing and New Delhi .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , started this latest flare-up .
India ’ s government says that earlier this month , unprovoked Chinese troops threw rocks at Indian soldiers in the western Himalayas .
Beijing counters that claim , instead blaming Indian forces for illegally walking into Chinese territory .
Whatever the reason , a combined 100-plus soldiers from both sides sustained injuries during two skirmishes on May 5 and May 9 .
No shots were fired and no one was killed , but that hasn ’ t stopped both nuclear-armed nations from escalating the standoff since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now camped on either side of the Galwan Valley , a contentious territory in the high-altitude Ladakh region .
Chinese and Indian soldiers have dug new defenses and shipped more military equipment to their outposts .
With the harsh winter giving way to spring , experts fear it could be months before the two powers pull back , potentially rekindling violence that led to a large border war in 1962 .
“ An overzealous commander on the Chinese or Indian side could lead to an aggressive order , which could lead to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sumit Ganguly , an expert on India ’ s foreign policy at Indiana University Bloomington , told me .
But the current situation is about much more than the decades-long border dispute .
It ’ s also about the increasingly bitter rivalry for power in Asia .
China , especially under President Xi Jinping , frequently uses its military might to bully neighbors and claim more territory for itself , including along the mountainous frontier .
India , meanwhile , has been building roads and air strips along its border with China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , piquing Beijing in the process .
When it comes to the current impasse , then , “ Both sides think the other is the aggressor , ” said Adam Ni , a board director of the China Policy Center in Australia .
It ’ s perhaps for this reason that Trump on Wednesday offered to mediate an end to the standoff .
Experts note there ’ s still a long way to go before a shooting war begins .
They point to ongoing diplomatic efforts to solve the scuffle and say neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus raging .
The problem is that it could be a long time before either China or India decides to settle the matter peacefully — which means an already bad situation might get much worse .
The seeds of the current flare-up were planted during British colonial rule of India .
In the late 1800s , the British drew two borders to formalize the yet-undefined frontier between India and China , one in the “ Western Sector ” in Kashmir and the other thousands of miles away in the “ Eastern Sector.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tibet — didn ’ t agree to the British proposals , leaving demarcation an open question for decades .
After India gained independence from Britain in 1947 , its leaders said the British-drawn boundaries were firm and claimed some of the disputed territories — including the Aksai Chin region near the Galwan Valley — for itself .
Though it initially accepted some of India ’ s stances , China changed course over time .
In 1957 , for example , the Chinese built a road in the “ Western Sector ” through parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two countries remained cordial , but they frayed over the next few years in part due to the border problem .
Skirmishes between Indian and Chinese patrols first began in 1959 but grew more frequent and violent until October 1962 , when Chinese troops invaded India over the disputed border .
After 32 days of fighting , China had gained more control in the “ Western Sector ” and pushed the ill-trained and ill-equipped Indian troops back about 12 miles in the “ Eastern Sector.
” It was a humiliating loss for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
To semi-officially separate the two , a “ Line of Actual Control ” ( LAC ) was finally adopted by both countries , marking the disputed claims along the thousands of miles of land — but it was by no means definitive .
Much of the LAC was , and remains , porous , noncontiguous , and unmarked , and thus did little to resolve the competing claims between the two countries .
The two nations don ’ t even agree on the actual length of the LAC .
Simmering tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sometimes rising to a boil .
Just days before Xi ’ s first visit with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in September 2014 , over 200 Chinese troops entered Indian territory in the western Himalayas to build a road .
Indian troops challenged the Chinese soldiers , pushed them back , and reportedly destroyed the road .
In 2017 , Chinese engineers tried to build a road through the Dolkam plateau , also an area in the Himalayas claimed both by China and Bhutan , a small country wedged between the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of the border directly intervened and pushed the crew back .
Weeks of negotiations between Beijing and New Delhi finally ended with India agreeing to pull back troops from the area and China agreeing to end its project ( though Chinese leaders vowed to keep patrolling the area ) .
Satellite images released the following year by the independent intelligence firm Stratfor showed that both sides had continued to build up their forces near Dolkam , with India placing attack helicopters at an airfield and China deploying a fighter jet and missile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity continues to this day .
“ Both China and India are ramping up activities in the Himalayas — building infrastructure , sending military assets — to have more control in the region , ” said the China Policy Center ’ s Ni .
The incursions continue , too .
According to the Indian government , China ’ s forces crossed into Indian territory more than 1,000 times between 2016 and 2018 .
However , neither side has shot at the other since 1975 , abiding by agreements both countries signed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skirmishes .
Still , continuous provocations meant another fight was likely .
Michael Kugelman , an expert on South Asia at the Wilson Center think tank in Washington , DC , said he remains in the dark about what really happened at the disputed border earlier this month , as do regional analysts .
“ The reasons for this standoff aren ’ t completely clear , and as always , when it comes to border clashes in remote areas the truth tends to remain elusive , ” Kugelman told me .
Some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into focus .
On May 5 , Indian and Chinese forces scuffled by the Pangong Tso lake in Ladakh , near the site of the 1962 war .
Both countries have competing claims over the body of water , making it a flashpoint whenever one side patrols there .
That seems to have happened in this case , with Chinese troops unhappy about Indian soldiers in the area .
It ’ s still unclear , though , exactly how the squabble started or who acted first .
Four days later , Indian and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and got into a fistfight at the Naku La region near Tibet .
One Indian officer was airlifted to a hospital , while dozens of others sustained less serious injuries .
No one , as far as anyone knows , died .
According to Foreign Policy magazine , some reports indicate that the skirmish broke out because Chinese forces wanted Indian soldiers to go back to their outpost , but that largely remains unconfirmed .
Since then , the situation has escalated substantially .
China has placed at least 5,000 troops and armored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border , but India claims Beijing ’ s forces have done much more than that .
Unconfirmed reports say that up to 10,000 Chinese troops have pushed roughly 2 miles past the LAC into Indian territory .
There is also widespread speculation in India that China aims to invade the Galwan Valley , though there is no official confirmation of such plans yet .
However , new satellite imagery published this week in the Indian press appears to show construction work at a Chinese base only 120 miles away from the border , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ China is committed to safeguarding the security of its national territorial sovereignty , as well as safeguarding peace and stability in the China-India border areas , ” China ’ s foreign ministry said in a statement this week .
At the same time , India has added a similar number of forces as well as artillery guns .
Modi on Tuesday met with his defense staff to discuss “ bolstering India ’ s military preparedness to deal with external security challenges , ” government sources said in a statement .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is quite the escalation .
“ There ’ s a series of incursions that have taken place .
Both sides have taken to pretty aggressive patrolling , ” he said , adding that unnamed Indian sources have told him that Chinese troops have gone nearly 2 miles over the line .
“ It ’ s not a minor skirmish.
” Ashok K. Kantha , India ’ s former ambassador to China , made a similar case to the Guardian on Wednesday .
“ This escalation is serious ; I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ China ’ s behavior is more aggressive this time , backed up by a fairly large number of troops , which is not typical of this border where troop levels tend to be low on both sides .
“ It could be a territorial claim or part of a wider messaging to India that they need to be more mindful of China on sensitive geopolitical issues , ” the former top diplomat continued .
This is really all about China and India ’ s larger rivalry There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispute , according to the experts I spoke to .
Sure , it ’ s obviously about the years of animosity that has built up at the undefined frontier .
But it ’ s really about each side sending a larger message to the other .
China wants greater control along the LAC and parts of South Asia , but India ’ s size and coziness with the United States makes it hard for Beijing to achieve that .
Starting a fight along the border “ is a way for Chinese to signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life pretty bad , ” Ganguly said .
India , meanwhile , wants to send its own signal that it won ’ t be pushed around by its powerful neighbor , especially in the same area where it lost a brutal war just a few decades ago .
And New Delhi wants to stake its claim even further as the country invests billions in infrastructure in the region , aiming to build 66 roads along the Chinese border by 2022 .
One of those roads connects to a military base in the Galwan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rivalry continues and the border issues remain unsolved , skirmishes will likely persist .
“ This is a new normal that we ’ re likely to see play out a lot in the coming months and years , ” Kugelman said .
The good news , experts note , is that neither side actually wants a full-blown war .
Both nations , of course , have their hands full dealing with the coronavirus pandemic .
Beijing is also preoccupied with growing animosities with the US and seizing more control in Hong Kong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militarily would likely end badly for India .
Breaking such a stalemate could require America ’ s help , some analysts told me , especially if the US were to tell China to back off .
But those same people fear that Trump , who has offered to step in , is not the leader to take on such a challenge .
“ He ’ s just so fucking clueless , ” said Ganguly .
“ He ’ s made no headway with North Korea , and now he ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border is ?
” Ganguly was nodding to a Trump-Modi meeting during which the US leader mistakenly said that India and China don ’ t share a frontier .
Asked about Trump ’ s offer on Thursday , External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Anurag Srivastava sidestepped the question , saying that the country is “ engaged with the Chinese side to peacefully resolve this issue.
” The hope is that the latest fire goes out on its own before it becomes a larger international concern .
But if it continues to roar , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to what could come next .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

India and China are currently engaged in a tense border fight that some fear could spark a military conflict — a precarious situation that President Donald Trump has haphazardly offered to mediate.
For about 80 years, India and China have quarreled over a roughly 2,200-mile frontier spanning the Himalayas, occasionally going to war over their competing claims. Despite 20-plus rounds of negotiations, the world’s two most populous countries haven’t come close to agreeing on most of the boundaries, providing a continuous source of tension between Beijing and New Delhi.
It’s unclear what, exactly, started this latest flare-up. India’s government says that earlier this month, unprovoked Chinese troops threw rocks at Indian soldiers in the western Himalayas. Beijing counters that claim, instead blaming Indian forces for illegally walking into Chinese territory. Whatever the reason, a combined 100-plus soldiers from both sides sustained injuries during two skirmishes on May 5 and May 9.
No shots were fired and no one was killed, but that hasn’t stopped both nuclear-armed nations from escalating the standoff since the initial squabbles.
Thousands of troops are now camped on either side of the Galwan Valley, a contentious territory in the high-altitude Ladakh region. Chinese and Indian soldiers have dug new defenses and shipped more military equipment to their outposts. With the harsh winter giving way to spring, experts fear it could be months before the two powers pull back, potentially rekindling violence that led to a large border war in 1962.
“An overzealous commander on the Chinese or Indian side could lead to an aggressive order, which could lead to a countermove resulting in a horrible spiral,” Sumit Ganguly, an expert on India’s foreign policy at Indiana University Bloomington, told me.
But the current situation is about much more than the decades-long border dispute. It’s also about the increasingly bitter rivalry for power in Asia.
China, especially under President Xi Jinping, frequently uses its military might to bully neighbors and claim more territory for itself, including along the mountainous frontier. India, meanwhile, has been building roads and air strips along its border with China in an attempt to exert more control, piquing Beijing in the process.
When it comes to the current impasse, then, “Both sides think the other is the aggressor,” said Adam Ni, a board director of the China Policy Center in Australia. It’s perhaps for this reason that Trump on Wednesday offered to mediate an end to the standoff.
We have informed both India and China that the United States is ready, willing and able to mediate or arbitrate their now raging border dispute. Thank you! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
Experts note there’s still a long way to go before a shooting war begins. They point to ongoing diplomatic efforts to solve the scuffle and say neither side actually wants a war with the coronavirus raging.
The problem is that it could be a long time before either China or India decides to settle the matter peacefully — which means an already bad situation might get much worse.
The long China-India border fight, briefly explained
The seeds of the current flare-up were planted during British colonial rule of India.
In the late 1800s, the British drew two borders to formalize the yet-undefined frontier between India and China, one in the “Western Sector” in Kashmir and the other thousands of miles away in the “Eastern Sector.” But China — along with a then-independent Tibet — didn’t agree to the British proposals, leaving demarcation an open question for decades.
The border skirmishes are not new to the 3,488km (2,167-mile) frontier between India and China, most of which remains disputed and undemarcated. | Great map work by @AliaChughtai pic.twitter.com/ScW0ai6LD0 — Saif Khalid (@msaifkhalid) May 27, 2020
After India gained independence from Britain in 1947, its leaders said the British-drawn boundaries were firm and claimed some of the disputed territories — including the Aksai Chin region near the Galwan Valley — for itself. Though it initially accepted some of India’s stances, China changed course over time. In 1957, for example, the Chinese built a road in the “Western Sector” through parts India said it controlled.
Ties between the two countries remained cordial, but they frayed over the next few years in part due to the border problem. Skirmishes between Indian and Chinese patrols first began in 1959 but grew more frequent and violent until October 1962, when Chinese troops invaded India over the disputed border.
After 32 days of fighting, China had gained more control in the “Western Sector” and pushed the ill-trained and ill-equipped Indian troops back about 12 miles in the “Eastern Sector.” It was a humiliating loss for India that haunts the country to this day.
To semi-officially separate the two, a “Line of Actual Control” (LAC) was finally adopted by both countries, marking the disputed claims along the thousands of miles of land — but it was by no means definitive. Much of the LAC was, and remains, porous, noncontiguous, and unmarked, and thus did little to resolve the competing claims between the two countries. The two nations don’t even agree on the actual length of the LAC.
Simmering tensions have persisted despite the pseudo-border in place, sometimes rising to a boil.
Just days before Xi’s first visit with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in September 2014, over 200 Chinese troops entered Indian territory in the western Himalayas to build a road. Indian troops challenged the Chinese soldiers, pushed them back, and reportedly destroyed the road.
In 2017, Chinese engineers tried to build a road through the Dolkam plateau, also an area in the Himalayas claimed both by China and Bhutan, a small country wedged between the two larger powers. Indian troops on their side of the border directly intervened and pushed the crew back.
Weeks of negotiations between Beijing and New Delhi finally ended with India agreeing to pull back troops from the area and China agreeing to end its project (though Chinese leaders vowed to keep patrolling the area). Satellite images released the following year by the independent intelligence firm Stratfor showed that both sides had continued to build up their forces near Dolkam, with India placing attack helicopters at an airfield and China deploying a fighter jet and missile system to its air bases.
That activity continues to this day. “Both China and India are ramping up activities in the Himalayas — building infrastructure, sending military assets — to have more control in the region,” said the China Policy Center’s Ni.
The incursions continue, too. According to the Indian government, China’s forces crossed into Indian territory more than 1,000 times between 2016 and 2018. However, neither side has shot at the other since 1975, abiding by agreements both countries signed in the 1990s to not use weapons in these skirmishes.
Still, continuous provocations meant another fight was likely.
“It’s not a minor skirmish”
Michael Kugelman, an expert on South Asia at the Wilson Center think tank in Washington, DC, said he remains in the dark about what really happened at the disputed border earlier this month, as do regional analysts. “The reasons for this standoff aren’t completely clear, and as always, when it comes to border clashes in remote areas the truth tends to remain elusive,” Kugelman told me.
Some of the fuzziness, though, is coming into focus.
On May 5, Indian and Chinese forces scuffled by the Pangong Tso lake in Ladakh, near the site of the 1962 war. Both countries have competing claims over the body of water, making it a flashpoint whenever one side patrols there. That seems to have happened in this case, with Chinese troops unhappy about Indian soldiers in the area. It’s still unclear, though, exactly how the squabble started or who acted first.
Four days later, Indian and Chinese soldiers threw rocks at each other and got into a fistfight at the Naku La region near Tibet. One Indian officer was airlifted to a hospital, while dozens of others sustained less serious injuries. No one, as far as anyone knows, died. According to Foreign Policy magazine, some reports indicate that the skirmish broke out because Chinese forces wanted Indian soldiers to go back to their outpost, but that largely remains unconfirmed.
Since then, the situation has escalated substantially.
China has placed at least 5,000 troops and armored vehicles along the Ladakh portion of the border, but India claims Beijing’s forces have done much more than that. Unconfirmed reports say that up to 10,000 Chinese troops have pushed roughly 2 miles past the LAC into Indian territory. There is also widespread speculation in India that China aims to invade the Galwan Valley, though there is no official confirmation of such plans yet.
However, new satellite imagery published this week in the Indian press appears to show construction work at a Chinese base only 120 miles away from the border, including a new runway for fighter jets.
There are now reportedly close to 10,000 PLA troops on Indian soil. PLA has upping the ante and claimed the entire Galwan River valley. If PLA can enforce that claim, India's new road to Daulet Beg Oldi will be unusable. Sub-Sector North will be isolated.https://t.co/kbuEHFS5pi — Ajai Shukla (@ajaishukla) May 26, 2020
“China is committed to safeguarding the security of its national territorial sovereignty, as well as safeguarding peace and stability in the China-India border areas,” China’s foreign ministry said in a statement this week.
At the same time, India has added a similar number of forces as well as artillery guns. Modi on Tuesday met with his defense staff to discuss “bolstering India’s military preparedness to deal with external security challenges,” government sources said in a statement.
For Indiana University’s Ganguly, this is quite the escalation. “There’s a series of incursions that have taken place. Both sides have taken to pretty aggressive patrolling,” he said, adding that unnamed Indian sources have told him that Chinese troops have gone nearly 2 miles over the line. “It’s not a minor skirmish.”
Ashok K. Kantha, India’s former ambassador to China, made a similar case to the Guardian on Wednesday. “This escalation is serious; I don’t think this is just a localized incident,” he said. “China’s behavior is more aggressive this time, backed up by a fairly large number of troops, which is not typical of this border where troop levels tend to be low on both sides.
“It could be a territorial claim or part of a wider messaging to India that they need to be more mindful of China on sensitive geopolitical issues,” the former top diplomat continued.
This is really all about China and India’s larger rivalry
There’s a lot more to this border dispute, according to the experts I spoke to. Sure, it’s obviously about the years of animosity that has built up at the undefined frontier. But it’s really about each side sending a larger message to the other.
China wants greater control along the LAC and parts of South Asia, but India’s size and coziness with the United States makes it hard for Beijing to achieve that. Starting a fight along the border “is a way for Chinese to signal to the Indians that they can make life pretty bad,” Ganguly said.
India, meanwhile, wants to send its own signal that it won’t be pushed around by its powerful neighbor, especially in the same area where it lost a brutal war just a few decades ago.
And New Delhi wants to stake its claim even further as the country invests billions in infrastructure in the region, aiming to build 66 roads along the Chinese border by 2022. One of those roads connects to a military base in the Galwan Valley.
As long as the regional rivalry continues and the border issues remain unsolved, skirmishes will likely persist. “This is a new normal that we’re likely to see play out a lot in the coming months and years,” Kugelman said.
The good news, experts note, is that neither side actually wants a full-blown war. Both nations, of course, have their hands full dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. Beijing is also preoccupied with growing animosities with the US and seizing more control in Hong Kong, while New Delhi knows that challenging China militarily would likely end badly for India.
Breaking such a stalemate could require America’s help, some analysts told me, especially if the US were to tell China to back off. But those same people fear that Trump, who has offered to step in, is not the leader to take on such a challenge.
“He’s just so fucking clueless,” said Ganguly. “He’s made no headway with North Korea, and now he’s going to mediate this crisis without knowing where the border is?” Ganguly was nodding to a Trump-Modi meeting during which the US leader mistakenly said that India and China don’t share a frontier.
Asked about Trump’s offer on Thursday, External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Anurag Srivastava sidestepped the question, saying that the country is “engaged with the Chinese side to peacefully resolve this issue.”
The hope is that the latest fire goes out on its own before it becomes a larger international concern. But if it continues to roar, the start of this crisis will feel small compared to what could come next.


vox--2020-05-28--Older and immunocompromised people don’t deserve to be second-class citizens

Every time I call my grandmother , she asks me the same question : “ When is this going to be over ?
” She hasn ’ t left the house since the first rumblings of the coronavirus reached her in early March , and she misses shopping at the mall , playing with her bridge club , and receiving visits from her great-grandchildren .
“ This will be over by summer , ” she says , “ right ?
” I hate having to break it to her .
This will not be over by summer .
Not by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people who are , like her , especially vulnerable to severe Covid-19 .
The economy may be reopening in some places , and some people may be going back to work .
But that doesn ’ t mean it ’ ll soon be safe for those who ’ ve been enduring isolation and remain at high risk : seniors , those with compromised immune systems , and those with underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes .
In fact , the opposite is true : As some people go out , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re coming into contact with .
Particularly if they don ’ t take precautions like wearing a mask and maintaining 6 feet of distance , that increases the risk that they ’ ll pass on the virus to more vulnerable individuals .
Even if the latter group refuses visitors at home , they ’ ll occasionally have to go out for things like doctor ’ s appointments , and a more crowded world means more risk .
So , as they watch many US states beginning to reopen despite not actually being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these vulnerable individuals are scared .
The various roadmaps that have been devised for ending social distancing generally accept that older and immunocompromised people will have to self-isolate for longer than others — until community transmission of the virus dies down or a scientific discovery changes the calculus .
The great golden hope , of course , is that scientists will discover a vaccine that can prevent us all from getting the coronavirus .
Vaccine trials are moving at warp speed , and some healthy people are even volunteering to be exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a vaccine .
But making one that ’ s effective and safe enough to be delivered to millions of people is exquisitely complicated and time-consuming .
Experts estimate it could take 12 to 18 months , or even longer .
And in the meantime , the virus could continue spreading or resurge in big new waves .
This raises a distressing set of questions : Will those who are most vulnerable to the disease have to stay isolated for months or years , paying the price for everyone else ’ s reopened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will they become , in a sense , second-class citizens ?
And are we okay with that ?
“ As a culture , I think we unfortunately devalue the elderly and people who are infirm on a normal day , ” Carolyn Cannuscio , a social epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania , told me .
“ It may be hard for some people to dredge up compassion for them now.
” But if we collectively fail to dredge up that compassion — and fail to allocate the resources to improve prospects for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest moral tests posed by the coronavirus .
The coronavirus puts us all in a moral bind Almost from the beginning of this pandemic , we ’ ve known that the coronavirus is more dangerous for people who are elderly , immunocompromised , and who have underlying conditions .
Aging leads to decreased immune function , which makes people susceptible to more severe illness and even death .
Early data from China revealed that the coronavirus gets deadlier with each extra decade of life you ’ ve got under your belt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper shows that someone over the age of 80 is 180 times more likely to die of coronavirus than someone under 40 .
In the US , eight out of 10 people who have died of coronavirus were age 65 or older , and one-third of all Covid-19 deaths have been linked to nursing homes .
Preexisting health issues can also make it harder for the body to ward off infection .
Among the 105 patients who had died in Italy by March 4 , two-thirds had three or more conditions like heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China and published in The Lancet found that almost half of the 191 hospitalized patients in the study sample had a preexisting illness .
“ As a culture , I think we unfortunately devalue the elderly and people who are infirm ” It ’ s important to realize just how many people fall into these high-risk categories .
In the US alone , elderly people ( over age 65 ) number around 52 million , or 16 percent of the population .
An estimated 10 million people are immunocompromised due to conditions like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some 34.2 million people have diabetes , and 30.3 million adults have a diagnosed heart disease .
These categories are not mutually exclusive — some elderly people may also have heart disease , for example — but even so , the numbers are sobering .
Throughout the first couple months of the pandemic , these groups have been urged to stay home and rely on others to deliver necessities straight to their doorstep .
Even as some states reopen , these guidelines remain the same : Federal , state , and city reopening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shelter in place .
The idea of so many people being stuck at home for months or years while others get to return to some semblance of normal in a reopened economy feels morally odious .
Zeba Khan , an immunocompromised woman in Texas , told Vox she ’ s frustrated with Americans ’ rush to end social distancing .
“ Other people ’ s aversion to boredom can kill me , ” she said .
“ I don ’ t think that ’ s fair .
I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly is selfish .
And it ’ s disappointing that people only take the disease as seriously as it affects them personally.
” The problem is , if we delay reopening and stick to a strict stay-at-home policy , that won ’ t necessarily shorten the duration of this group ’ s isolation .
The point of all our social distancing was to delay the peak of the outbreak , buying us time to prepare and preventing hospital capacity from getting overwhelmed , thus saving lives .
But there ’ s no denying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The activities many of us are doing to keep individuals safe — social distancing , hygiene , etc .
— are meant to ‘ flatten the curve ’ and slow transmission of the virus , ” explained Tara Smith , a professor of epidemiology at Kent State University .
“ This also has the effect of lengthening the duration of the epidemic , meaning those at risk will need to be isolated even longer.
” Which leaves us in a terrible moral bind , with no great options to choose from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better and worse courses of action .
For example , if states reopen despite not being ready and community transmission of the virus spikes , that could undo some of the good work we ’ ve done by social distancing , setting us back and ultimately prolonging the pandemic .
A phased reopening that shields the elderly and immunocompromised is not necessarily wrong .
But it makes the moral burden of doing it right — reopening in a way that minimizes risk — that much heavier .
Albert Rizzo , a pulmonary physician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lung Association , told me many of his patients are anxious as some states begin to reopen their economies .
“ It ’ s individuals who are immunocompromised and have chronic lung diseases who are unfortunately going to be even more concerned about going out , and are going to remain shut in , ” he said .
“ They know they ’ re compromised , so they ’ re scared.
” Dina Elshinnawi , a video producer at Vice who has lupus , recently wrote a piece titled “ I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reopening.
” She ’ s been having nightmares : Elshinnawi , who envisions having to stay at home until a vaccine is available , added that it ’ s hard to hear her friends “ brag about what they ’ ll get to do when this is over .
I know telling them I resent that won ’ t make me feel any better.
” Her words highlight the fact that there is , and will continue to be , a fundamental unfairness in how the pandemic unfolds .
Whichever way you cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population will suffer longer .
At the very least , we should acknowledge this disparity , and then ask ourselves : When states meet the criteria for reopening safely , how can they do that as responsibly as possible ?
What will be the emotional toll on those left at home ?
And what can those of us who are more fortunate do to minimize the impact on them ?
Invest in the ways out : Testing and treatments We don ’ t have to wait for a vaccine if we want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolation sooner .
There are two other major avenues we can pursue , and researchers are hard at work on both of them : tests and treatments .
Experts say we need much more widespread testing before it ’ ll be safe to lift lockdowns .
The US is now performing more than 300,000 tests a day , but we still need lots more ( estimates range from 500,000 to tens of millions ) .
We also need better tests .
Ideally we ’ d have cheap , accessible , accurate tests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — if they ’ re positive , which would let them know whether or not they can visit their grandmother that day .
Right now , we ’ ve got three different types : molecular tests , antibody tests , and antigen tests .
Each comes with its own drawbacks .
The most common is a molecular test like an RT-PCR test , which can detect the genetic material of the virus .
However , that virus is not necessarily still active , so the test can yield a false positive : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus even if your body has already beat the infection .
Plus , these tests have run up against lots of supply-chain problems , they ’ re only offered at certain sites , and it can take days to get a result .
Then there are antibody tests , also known as serological tests .
Using a blood sample , they search for antibodies to the virus , which would indicate that you had Covid-19 .
However , it can take days or weeks after infection for your body to produce these antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misleading negative result : It might say you ’ ve got no antibodies even if the virus is present .
And , if prevalence of the virus is low to begin with , this test can produce a lot of false positives .
Note that even if you do test positive for antibodies , that doesn ’ t necessarily mean that you ’ re immune or that you can ’ t spread the virus to others .
On May 8 , the FDA authorized a new type of test : antigen tests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surface of the coronavirus , using a nasal or throat swab .
They ’ re cheap to manufacture and could theoretically be performed at home ( though at-home versions aren ’ t available yet ) .
That makes them very appealing : “ If we had home-based antigen testing as we do for pregnancy tests , potentially we could know quickly if individuals were infected or if they were ‘ safe ’ to be around those who were at risk , ” Smith said .
Unfortunately , antigen tests are less accurate than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d ideally want to design more accurate versions before rolling them out en masse .
However , Michael Mina , a professor of epidemiology at Harvard , told me it may make sense to accept a lower level of accuracy if it means we can test ourselves and visit vulnerable people more frequently .
“ We ’ ve been so focused on developing the most sensitive test that we can get , which will detect one molecule of the virus in somebody ’ s saliva or nasal swab , and that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
“ But if you could relax some of the requirements of the test and say , ‘ We just need to make sure that someone isn ’ t floridly positive today ; we can tolerate a test that ’ s less sensitive but cheap enough to use every single day ’ — then somebody could actually just carry around a carton of these tests , and before they walk into their parents ’ house , they test themselves.
” But what if the person is positive , and the not-very-accurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
“ Maybe even if they ’ re positive , if they ’ re positive at such a low level that the test doesn ’ t detect it , then maybe for that day it won ’ t be the end of the world , ” Mina said .
“ But if they find out they ’ re positive the next day , they won ’ t go in to see their parents that day.
” Designing tests that are specific to daily use may not be a far-off dream .
“ Four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I suspect we ’ ll have pretty good test strips that people will be able to buy like a pack and test themselves every few days or if they ’ re considering going back to school or work , ” David R. Walt , a diagnostics expert from Harvard Medical School and doctor at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital , told CNBC .
However , Eleanor Murray , a professor of epidemiology at Boston University , was dubious about how quickly the supply chain could accommodate this vision .
“ The amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be manufactured for everyone to test every day would be astronomical , ” she said .
But the problem of how to manufacture tests at scale is something we can devote resources to figuring out right now .
Investing more in helping companies scale up manufacturing would be one way to show that we care about shortening the duration of vulnerable citizens ’ isolation .
Another way would be to invest heavily in the army of contact tracers that will be needed as part of any massive testing program : If someone tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who they ’ ve come into contact with so they can isolate themselves .
Aside from testing , the other major hope lies in therapeutic treatments .
Treatments generally only help people once they ’ re already ill , and in that regard , they ’ re less appealing than tests .
But they could make some elderly and immunocompromised people feel less nervous about socializing before a vaccine becomes available .
“ If we have a decent therapy in our pocket , we can use that if someone really starts to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ That really does change the equation in terms of what level of risk at a population level we ’ re willing to take .
So in some ways I ’ m really rooting for the therapies.
” There are a few different types of treatments in development .
First , there are antiviral drugs , which inhibit the replication of the virus .
Remdesivir , for example , has already been given to some Covid-19 patients , showing some early promise , but more rigorous study is needed to determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufactured antibodies — similar to what your body would produce in response to the virus but created in a lab .
Mina said he ’ s hopeful that we ’ ll see such antibodies being used by the end of the year .
“ That ’ s an attractive product for a number of reasons : First , it can be used as a treatment early in the disease , ” Scott Gottlieb , a public health expert who served as President Trump ’ s first FDA commissioner , told Vox .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prophylaxis — as a bridge to a vaccine .
You might be able to give a monthly injection or bi-monthly injection to people that would prevent them from getting infections.
” While the first doses of such a product would go to Covid-19 patients and health care workers , they could also go to elderly and immunocompromised people once we ’ re manufacturing them at scale .
Manufacturing is going to be a big obstacle , but again , Gottlieb said , that ’ s something we should be solving for “ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if one of them does work , we ’ re able to turn on the spigot and produce millions of doses a month.
” Scientists are also working on another strategy : gathering convalescent plasma — the liquid part of blood — from Covid-19 survivors .
Since it contains antibodies to the virus , it might help people with active infections get better , or even serve as a prophylactic to prevent infection in the first place .
None of these options is likely to be a silver bullet .
But a combination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting sick , treatments for those who are already infected , and widespread testing to identify who ’ s infection-free — could make it safer for elderly and immunocompromised people to socialize .
“ I think the answers are likely to be not in one strategy that produces a watershed in the near term but many strategies that , when layered on top of one another , offer a greater degree of protection than we have right now , ” Cannuscio said .
Other things we can all do to help in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to consider the needs of the most vulnerable and to make sure reopening is as low-risk for these groups as possible .
Many of the measures that will be most effective at protecting them are things that only scientists , government officials , or policymakers can enact .
We need researchers to work on better tests and treatments , and funding to keep them going .
We need federal and state leaders to coordinate with each other , not stage internecine fights over resources .
We need policies that ensure vulnerable adults can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll get laid off as a result and lose health insurance precisely when they need it most .
But there are also some things the rest of us can do .
Murray pointed out that some grocery stores are reserving certain hours exclusively for elderly shoppers .
Various small businesses could do the same , making sure to do extra cleaning before that group of shoppers comes in .
Nursing homes and long-term care facilities are in immediate need of more resources : more PPE , more tests , universal masking , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have to work multiple jobs at different sites .
The AARP and other groups are advocating for such changes in the US , where one-third of all coronavirus deaths are residents or workers in these facilities , and in Canada , where it ’ s a whopping 81 percent .
“ I don ’ t see any evidence that we ’ ve diverted sufficient resources into actually protecting the vulnerable .
We ’ ve still seen infections flourish in nursing homes .
That to me is very troubling , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilities safer by improving their ventilation systems .
“ That might be very expensive , but the cost of keeping these people safe right now is essentially the shutdown of the economy — and that ’ s trillions of dollars .
So can we take some fraction of that and start to really revamp the structure of the locations where senior citizens live ?
” “ I don ’ t see any evidence that we ’ ve diverted sufficient resources into actually protecting the vulnerable ” For her part , Cannuscio said everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This is a marathon , not a sprint , and we are absolutely in the early miles of the marathon .
The most important thing is for people to accommodate the idea that we need to settle into — and therefore plan to survive in — this altered state for a long time , ” she said .
“ Every family should be making a plan for what life will look like over the coming months.
” For some families , she specified , that might mean that a student moves back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide care if needed .
Other families might designate one person who lives separately but who ’ s limiting their social contact ( ideally someone who can work from home ) to be on standby in case they need to drive a grandparent to the hospital .
Ultimately , Cannuscio ’ s simplest piece of advice may also be the most effective : “ Every single person who has decision latitude should still — regardless of whether states declare that we ’ re now open for business again — keep holding back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from home if we can , so we reduce the likelihood that people who are elderly or infirm will get Covid-19.
” Viewed one way , this is a big ask : We ’ re all eager to get out and have fun with our friends and colleagues again .
But viewed another way , some measure of continued sacrifice may be everyone ’ s moral responsibility toward the most vulnerable .
Are we so eager to return to normal that we ’ re willing to make others disposable ?
Is that even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Every time I call my grandmother, she asks me the same question: “When is this going to be over?”
She hasn’t left the house since the first rumblings of the coronavirus reached her in early March, and she misses shopping at the mall, playing with her bridge club, and receiving visits from her great-grandchildren. “This will be over by summer,” she says, “right?”
I hate having to break it to her. This will not be over by summer. Not by a long shot — at least not for people who are, like her, especially vulnerable to severe Covid-19.
The economy may be reopening in some places, and some people may be going back to work. But that doesn’t mean it’ll soon be safe for those who’ve been enduring isolation and remain at high risk: seniors, those with compromised immune systems, and those with underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes.
In fact, the opposite is true: As some people go out, they increase the number of human beings they’re coming into contact with. Particularly if they don’t take precautions like wearing a mask and maintaining 6 feet of distance, that increases the risk that they’ll pass on the virus to more vulnerable individuals.
Even if the latter group refuses visitors at home, they’ll occasionally have to go out for things like doctor’s appointments, and a more crowded world means more risk. So, as they watch many US states beginning to reopen despite not actually being ready to do that safely, many of these vulnerable individuals are scared.
The various roadmaps that have been devised for ending social distancing generally accept that older and immunocompromised people will have to self-isolate for longer than others — until community transmission of the virus dies down or a scientific discovery changes the calculus.
The great golden hope, of course, is that scientists will discover a vaccine that can prevent us all from getting the coronavirus. Vaccine trials are moving at warp speed, and some healthy people are even volunteering to be exposed to the virus to accelerate the development of a vaccine. But making one that’s effective and safe enough to be delivered to millions of people is exquisitely complicated and time-consuming. Experts estimate it could take 12 to 18 months, or even longer. And in the meantime, the virus could continue spreading or resurge in big new waves.
This raises a distressing set of questions: Will those who are most vulnerable to the disease have to stay isolated for months or years, paying the price for everyone else’s reopened economies and reasserted sense of normalcy? Will they become, in a sense, second-class citizens? And are we okay with that?
“As a culture, I think we unfortunately devalue the elderly and people who are infirm on a normal day,” Carolyn Cannuscio, a social epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, told me. “It may be hard for some people to dredge up compassion for them now.”
But if we collectively fail to dredge up that compassion — and fail to allocate the resources to improve prospects for this population — we fail one of the biggest moral tests posed by the coronavirus.
The coronavirus puts us all in a moral bind
Almost from the beginning of this pandemic, we’ve known that the coronavirus is more dangerous for people who are elderly, immunocompromised, and who have underlying conditions.
Aging leads to decreased immune function, which makes people susceptible to more severe illness and even death. Early data from China revealed that the coronavirus gets deadlier with each extra decade of life you’ve got under your belt. In the UK, a new preprint paper shows that someone over the age of 80 is 180 times more likely to die of coronavirus than someone under 40. In the US, eight out of 10 people who have died of coronavirus were age 65 or older, and one-third of all Covid-19 deaths have been linked to nursing homes.
Preexisting health issues can also make it harder for the body to ward off infection. Among the 105 patients who had died in Italy by March 4, two-thirds had three or more conditions like heart disease or diabetes. Research conducted in China and published in The Lancet found that almost half of the 191 hospitalized patients in the study sample had a preexisting illness.
“As a culture, I think we unfortunately devalue the elderly and people who are infirm”
It’s important to realize just how many people fall into these high-risk categories. In the US alone, elderly people (over age 65) number around 52 million, or 16 percent of the population. An estimated 10 million people are immunocompromised due to conditions like cancer, lupus, or HIV/AIDS. Some 34.2 million people have diabetes, and 30.3 million adults have a diagnosed heart disease. These categories are not mutually exclusive — some elderly people may also have heart disease, for example — but even so, the numbers are sobering.
Throughout the first couple months of the pandemic, these groups have been urged to stay home and rely on others to deliver necessities straight to their doorstep. Even as some states reopen, these guidelines remain the same: Federal, state, and city reopening plans generally say these groups should continue to shelter in place.
The idea of so many people being stuck at home for months or years while others get to return to some semblance of normal in a reopened economy feels morally odious.
Zeba Khan, an immunocompromised woman in Texas, told Vox she’s frustrated with Americans’ rush to end social distancing. “Other people’s aversion to boredom can kill me,” she said. “I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t think that’s right. And it certainly is selfish. And it’s disappointing that people only take the disease as seriously as it affects them personally.”
The problem is, if we delay reopening and stick to a strict stay-at-home policy, that won’t necessarily shorten the duration of this group’s isolation.
The point of all our social distancing was to delay the peak of the outbreak, buying us time to prepare and preventing hospital capacity from getting overwhelmed, thus saving lives. But there’s no denying it comes with a downside, too.
“The activities many of us are doing to keep individuals safe — social distancing, hygiene, etc. — are meant to ‘flatten the curve’ and slow transmission of the virus,” explained Tara Smith, a professor of epidemiology at Kent State University. “This also has the effect of lengthening the duration of the epidemic, meaning those at risk will need to be isolated even longer.”
Which leaves us in a terrible moral bind, with no great options to choose from.
That said, there are still better and worse courses of action. For example, if states reopen despite not being ready and community transmission of the virus spikes, that could undo some of the good work we’ve done by social distancing, setting us back and ultimately prolonging the pandemic.
A phased reopening that shields the elderly and immunocompromised is not necessarily wrong. But it makes the moral burden of doing it right — reopening in a way that minimizes risk — that much heavier.
Albert Rizzo, a pulmonary physician and chief medical officer at the American Lung Association, told me many of his patients are anxious as some states begin to reopen their economies. “It’s individuals who are immunocompromised and have chronic lung diseases who are unfortunately going to be even more concerned about going out, and are going to remain shut in,” he said. “They know they’re compromised, so they’re scared.”
Dina Elshinnawi, a video producer at Vice who has lupus, recently wrote a piece titled “I’m Immunocompromised and Freaking Out About the World Reopening.” She’s been having nightmares:
I almost always dream of everyday scenarios like waking up in my childhood home, but with strangers crowding every room. They coughed and sneezed on me and laughed at the terror on my face. I begged them to leave and they ignored me. In another dream, people followed me as I nervously ran through a parking garage looking for my car. Once, I even dreamt I was abducted by aliens but then realized I was safer with them than on Earth.
Elshinnawi, who envisions having to stay at home until a vaccine is available, added that it’s hard to hear her friends “brag about what they’ll get to do when this is over. I know telling them I resent that won’t make me feel any better.”
Her words highlight the fact that there is, and will continue to be, a fundamental unfairness in how the pandemic unfolds. Whichever way you cut it, the most vulnerable in our population will suffer longer.
At the very least, we should acknowledge this disparity, and then ask ourselves: When states meet the criteria for reopening safely, how can they do that as responsibly as possible? What will be the emotional toll on those left at home? And what can those of us who are more fortunate do to minimize the impact on them?
Invest in the ways out: Testing and treatments
We don’t have to wait for a vaccine if we want to get the most vulnerable people out of isolation sooner. There are two other major avenues we can pursue, and researchers are hard at work on both of them: tests and treatments.
Experts say we need much more widespread testing before it’ll be safe to lift lockdowns. The US is now performing more than 300,000 tests a day, but we still need lots more (estimates range from 500,000 to tens of millions).
We also need better tests. Ideally we’d have cheap, accessible, accurate tests that allow people to figure out — quickly — if they’re positive, which would let them know whether or not they can visit their grandmother that day.
Right now, we’ve got three different types: molecular tests, antibody tests, and antigen tests. Each comes with its own drawbacks.
The most common is a molecular test like an RT-PCR test, which can detect the genetic material of the virus. However, that virus is not necessarily still active, so the test can yield a false positive: It might say you’ve got the coronavirus even if your body has already beat the infection. Plus, these tests have run up against lots of supply-chain problems, they’re only offered at certain sites, and it can take days to get a result.
Then there are antibody tests, also known as serological tests. Using a blood sample, they search for antibodies to the virus, which would indicate that you had Covid-19. However, it can take days or weeks after infection for your body to produce these antibodies, so the test can yield a misleading negative result: It might say you’ve got no antibodies even if the virus is present. And, if prevalence of the virus is low to begin with, this test can produce a lot of false positives. Note that even if you do test positive for antibodies, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re immune or that you can’t spread the virus to others.
On May 8, the FDA authorized a new type of test: antigen tests, which detect viral proteins on the outer surface of the coronavirus, using a nasal or throat swab. They’re cheap to manufacture and could theoretically be performed at home (though at-home versions aren’t available yet). That makes them very appealing: “If we had home-based antigen testing as we do for pregnancy tests, potentially we could know quickly if individuals were infected or if they were ‘safe’ to be around those who were at risk,” Smith said.
Unfortunately, antigen tests are less accurate than molecular tests or antibody tests. We’d ideally want to design more accurate versions before rolling them out en masse. However, Michael Mina, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard, told me it may make sense to accept a lower level of accuracy if it means we can test ourselves and visit vulnerable people more frequently.
“We’ve been so focused on developing the most sensitive test that we can get, which will detect one molecule of the virus in somebody’s saliva or nasal swab, and that’s useful in some ways,” he said. “But if you could relax some of the requirements of the test and say, ‘We just need to make sure that someone isn’t floridly positive today; we can tolerate a test that’s less sensitive but cheap enough to use every single day’ — then somebody could actually just carry around a carton of these tests, and before they walk into their parents’ house, they test themselves.”
But what if the person is positive, and the not-very-accurate test just doesn’t show it?
“Maybe even if they’re positive, if they’re positive at such a low level that the test doesn’t detect it, then maybe for that day it won’t be the end of the world,” Mina said. “But if they find out they’re positive the next day, they won’t go in to see their parents that day.”
Designing tests that are specific to daily use may not be a far-off dream. “Four or six months down the road, I suspect we’ll have pretty good test strips that people will be able to buy like a pack and test themselves every few days or if they’re considering going back to school or work,” David R. Walt, a diagnostics expert from Harvard Medical School and doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told CNBC.
However, Eleanor Murray, a professor of epidemiology at Boston University, was dubious about how quickly the supply chain could accommodate this vision. “The amount of those tests that would have to be manufactured for everyone to test every day would be astronomical,” she said.
But the problem of how to manufacture tests at scale is something we can devote resources to figuring out right now. Investing more in helping companies scale up manufacturing would be one way to show that we care about shortening the duration of vulnerable citizens’ isolation. Another way would be to invest heavily in the army of contact tracers that will be needed as part of any massive testing program: If someone tests positive, tracers will need to ascertain who they’ve come into contact with so they can isolate themselves.
Aside from testing, the other major hope lies in therapeutic treatments. Treatments generally only help people once they’re already ill, and in that regard, they’re less appealing than tests. But they could make some elderly and immunocompromised people feel less nervous about socializing before a vaccine becomes available.
“If we have a decent therapy in our pocket, we can use that if someone really starts to go downhill in a hospital,” Mina said. “That really does change the equation in terms of what level of risk at a population level we’re willing to take. So in some ways I’m really rooting for the therapies.”
There are a few different types of treatments in development. First, there are antiviral drugs, which inhibit the replication of the virus. Remdesivir, for example, has already been given to some Covid-19 patients, showing some early promise, but more rigorous study is needed to determine its true effectiveness.
Another option is manufactured antibodies — similar to what your body would produce in response to the virus but created in a lab. Mina said he’s hopeful that we’ll see such antibodies being used by the end of the year.
“That’s an attractive product for a number of reasons: First, it can be used as a treatment early in the disease,” Scott Gottlieb, a public health expert who served as President Trump’s first FDA commissioner, told Vox. “It can also be used as a prophylaxis — as a bridge to a vaccine. You might be able to give a monthly injection or bi-monthly injection to people that would prevent them from getting infections.”
While the first doses of such a product would go to Covid-19 patients and health care workers, they could also go to elderly and immunocompromised people once we’re manufacturing them at scale. Manufacturing is going to be a big obstacle, but again, Gottlieb said, that’s something we should be solving for “in time for the fall, so that if one of them does work, we’re able to turn on the spigot and produce millions of doses a month.”
Scientists are also working on another strategy: gathering convalescent plasma — the liquid part of blood — from Covid-19 survivors. Since it contains antibodies to the virus, it might help people with active infections get better, or even serve as a prophylactic to prevent infection in the first place.
None of these options is likely to be a silver bullet. But a combination — antibodies to prevent healthy people from getting sick, treatments for those who are already infected, and widespread testing to identify who’s infection-free — could make it safer for elderly and immunocompromised people to socialize.
“I think the answers are likely to be not in one strategy that produces a watershed in the near term but many strategies that, when layered on top of one another, offer a greater degree of protection than we have right now,” Cannuscio said.
Other things we can all do to help in the meantime
We all have a moral obligation to consider the needs of the most vulnerable and to make sure reopening is as low-risk for these groups as possible.
Many of the measures that will be most effective at protecting them are things that only scientists, government officials, or policymakers can enact. We need researchers to work on better tests and treatments, and funding to keep them going. We need federal and state leaders to coordinate with each other, not stage internecine fights over resources. We need policies that ensure vulnerable adults can stay home without worrying that they’ll get laid off as a result and lose health insurance precisely when they need it most.
But there are also some things the rest of us can do. Murray pointed out that some grocery stores are reserving certain hours exclusively for elderly shoppers. Various small businesses could do the same, making sure to do extra cleaning before that group of shoppers comes in.
Nursing homes and long-term care facilities are in immediate need of more resources: more PPE, more tests, universal masking, and more money to pay staff so they don’t have to work multiple jobs at different sites. The AARP and other groups are advocating for such changes in the US, where one-third of all coronavirus deaths are residents or workers in these facilities, and in Canada, where it’s a whopping 81 percent.
“I don’t see any evidence that we’ve diverted sufficient resources into actually protecting the vulnerable. We’ve still seen infections flourish in nursing homes. That to me is very troubling,” Mina said. He suggested making these facilities safer by improving their ventilation systems. “That might be very expensive, but the cost of keeping these people safe right now is essentially the shutdown of the economy — and that’s trillions of dollars. So can we take some fraction of that and start to really revamp the structure of the locations where senior citizens live?”
“I don’t see any evidence that we’ve diverted sufficient resources into actually protecting the vulnerable”
For her part, Cannuscio said everyone needs to accept a difficult reality: “This is a marathon, not a sprint, and we are absolutely in the early miles of the marathon. The most important thing is for people to accommodate the idea that we need to settle into — and therefore plan to survive in — this altered state for a long time,” she said. “Every family should be making a plan for what life will look like over the coming months.”
For some families, she specified, that might mean that a student moves back in with his parents so he can provide care if needed. Other families might designate one person who lives separately but who’s limiting their social contact (ideally someone who can work from home) to be on standby in case they need to drive a grandparent to the hospital.
Ultimately, Cannuscio’s simplest piece of advice may also be the most effective: “Every single person who has decision latitude should still — regardless of whether states declare that we’re now open for business again — keep holding back on our social engagements and continue to work from home if we can, so we reduce the likelihood that people who are elderly or infirm will get Covid-19.”
Viewed one way, this is a big ask: We’re all eager to get out and have fun with our friends and colleagues again. But viewed another way, some measure of continued sacrifice may be everyone’s moral responsibility toward the most vulnerable.
Are we so eager to return to normal that we’re willing to make others disposable? Is that even a normal worth having?


vox--2020-05-28--Pennsylvania Democratic lawmakers accuse their GOP colleagues of secretly exposing them to coronavir

Pennsylvania Democratic lawmakers accuse their GOP colleagues of secretly exposing them to coronavirus

Pennsylvania state Rep. Brian Sims , a Democrat , posted an explosive Twitter thread Wednesday evening warning that he may have been exposed to the coronavirus by his Republican colleagues — and that those colleagues kept him in the dark .
Shortly before Sims ’ s tweets , a Republican representative , Andrew Lewis , released a statement admitting that he “ was tested for COVID-19 and on Wednesday , May 20 , I was notified that my test came back positive.
” Lewis said that he self-isolated , and that he “ contacted the House of Representatives , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also claims that he worked to determine “ exactly who I may have been in contact with , and who I may have possibly exposed to the virus.
” The Pennsylvania House of Representatives conducted in-person sessions while Democrats say they were unaware of Lewis ’ s diagnosis .
And yet , while Lewis tested positive on May 20 , Democrats say they did not learn that one of their colleagues may have exposed them to the virus until Wednesday , May 27 .
According to Rep. Dan Frankel , the top Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Democratic caucus learned on Wednesday “ that four members of the Republican Caucus have been in self quarantine after one of those four tested positive for COVID-19 a week ago.
” One of those four members , Republican Rep. Russ Diamond , posted a lengthy statement on Facebook Wednesday evening attacking the very idea that public health officials should engage in contact tracing to determine who may have been exposed to the virus .
Diamond says he made the decision to self-isolate “ because I wanted to provide an example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the need for heavy-handed government mandates , ” before claiming the real problem is that someone might erroneously be advised to quarantine : There ’ s a lot to object to about contact tracing of this sort .
I was offered no proof the person I was in “ contact ” with had already contracted , and was an asymptomatic carrier , of COVID-19 on May 14 .
And what if this notice had been sent to me in error ?
I happen to know someone else who received a similar notice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to be able to clarify and get the record corrected and avoid self-quarantine .
However , if a government agency with enforcement authority would be sending out these notices , would one be able to obtain such a correction ?
I highly doubt it .
As the Washington Post notes , Diamond is a “ vocal opponent of wearing masks.
” On the same day that Diamond began his self-quarantine , he spoke before a Pennsylvania House committee without wearing a mask .
Yet despite his behavior , Diamond is right about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a perfect system .
Contact tracers are a kind of public health detective ; they interview people diagnosed with the virus and try to uncover who they may have exposed to the disease .
But respiratory viruses such as the novel coronavirus are difficult to track because many people infected with the virus won ’ t remember everyone they may have been in contact with , and they might not even be aware of individuals that could have entered a room shortly after the infected person left .
That is why Republicans should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s infection .
Even if Lewis and his Republican colleagues did make every reasonable effort to uncover who Lewis might have exposed to the virus , such efforts are not 100 percent reliable .
And if Lewis did unknowingly infect someone before he went into isolation , that person could also spread the disease throughout the state legislature and beyond .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Pennsylvania state Rep. Brian Sims, a Democrat, posted an explosive Twitter thread Wednesday evening warning that he may have been exposed to the coronavirus by his Republican colleagues — and that those colleagues kept him in the dark.
RESIGN: Today we learned that House Speaker @MikeTurzai has known that Republican Members have either tested positive, or been quarantined, and withheld this information from Democrats including those of us who serve on the committees with those members! — Brian Sims (@BrianSimsPA) May 27, 2020
Shortly before Sims’s tweets, a Republican representative, Andrew Lewis, released a statement admitting that he “was tested for COVID-19 and on Wednesday, May 20, I was notified that my test came back positive.” Lewis said that he self-isolated, and that he “contacted the House of Representatives, and our caucus Human Resources department.” Lewis also claims that he worked to determine “exactly who I may have been in contact with, and who I may have possibly exposed to the virus.”
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives conducted in-person sessions while Democrats say they were unaware of Lewis’s diagnosis.
In this picture, one state rep was tested positive and the other is in self quarantine. I’m in the middle with my eyes “closed” or kept in the dark. The Democratic caucus should have been notified. https://t.co/dV8dOVKJXZ pic.twitter.com/cOROHa1Sl8 — Rep. Patty Kim (@RepPattyKim) May 28, 2020
And yet, while Lewis tested positive on May 20, Democrats say they did not learn that one of their colleagues may have exposed them to the virus until Wednesday, May 27. According to Rep. Dan Frankel, the top Democrat on the House Health Committee, members of the Democratic caucus learned on Wednesday “that four members of the Republican Caucus have been in self quarantine after one of those four tested positive for COVID-19 a week ago.”
One of those four members, Republican Rep. Russ Diamond, posted a lengthy statement on Facebook Wednesday evening attacking the very idea that public health officials should engage in contact tracing to determine who may have been exposed to the virus.
Diamond says he made the decision to self-isolate “because I wanted to provide an example of how responsible adults can conduct their lives without the need for heavy-handed government mandates,” before claiming the real problem is that someone might erroneously be advised to quarantine:
There’s a lot to object to about contact tracing of this sort. I was offered no proof the person I was in “contact” with had already contracted, and was an asymptomatic carrier, of COVID-19 on May 14. And what if this notice had been sent to me in error? I happen to know someone else who received a similar notice in error. That person was fortunate enough to be able to clarify and get the record corrected and avoid self-quarantine. However, if a government agency with enforcement authority would be sending out these notices, would one be able to obtain such a correction? I highly doubt it.
As the Washington Post notes, Diamond is a “vocal opponent of wearing masks.” On the same day that Diamond began his self-quarantine, he spoke before a Pennsylvania House committee without wearing a mask.
Yet despite his behavior, Diamond is right about one thing. Contact tracing is not a perfect system. Contact tracers are a kind of public health detective; they interview people diagnosed with the virus and try to uncover who they may have exposed to the disease. But respiratory viruses such as the novel coronavirus are difficult to track because many people infected with the virus won’t remember everyone they may have been in contact with, and they might not even be aware of individuals that could have entered a room shortly after the infected person left.
That is why Republicans should have notified their Democratic counterparts of Lewis’s infection. Even if Lewis and his Republican colleagues did make every reasonable effort to uncover who Lewis might have exposed to the virus, such efforts are not 100 percent reliable. And if Lewis did unknowingly infect someone before he went into isolation, that person could also spread the disease throughout the state legislature and beyond.


vox--2020-05-29--Democrats’ risky plan to ensure Congress can vote during the pandemic, explained

Earlier this month , the House voted , almost entirely along party lines , to permit members of Congress to cast votes by proxy so long as the coronavirus pandemic makes it dangerous for many members of Congress to travel to Washington .
On Tuesday , 21 House Republicans filed a lawsuit claiming that the new House rule permitting proxy voting is unconstitutional .
Under the new rule , a member of the House who is present in the Capitol may cast proxy votes on behalf of up to 10 colleagues , provided that those colleagues give the member written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and provided that those colleagues give the member instructions on how to vote .
Members must notify the clerk of the House if they intend to vote by proxy , and they must identify who they ’ ve designated as their proxy .
But is such a process constitutional ?
The honest answer to this question is that no one knows .
Last March , at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s direction , the House Rules Committee ’ s Democrats prepared a report laying out the challenges the House will need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remotely .
It warned that “ the constitutionality of remote voting is an untested principle , ” and that “ if challenged , remote voting would be a novel question for a court and there is no guarantee of a favorable ruling affirming its constitutionality.
” Similar things can be said about proxy voting .
The House Republicans ’ lawsuit begins with a bold declaration : “ In the 231-year existence of the United States Congress , neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate has ever permitted a Member to vote by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That doesn ’ t make proxy voting unconstitutional , but it does mean that federal courts , which are not allowed to weigh in on hypothetical cases , have never had the opportunity to consider whether proxy voting is constitutional .
House Democrats , in other words , are playing with fire .
By authorizing a constitutionally uncertain method of casting votes , they ’ ve created a real risk that the judiciary — a judiciary controlled by Republicans — will nullify any legislation that passes the House via proxy voting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ understandable that House Democrats want to be able to do their jobs effectively and safely in the middle of a historic crisis .
But , at least for now , Democrats are stuck with a Supreme Court that ’ s no less susceptible to partisan polarization than any other political body .
And that means that even sensible and well-meaning efforts by House Democrats are potentially in danger of being struck down .
There are good legal arguments on both sides of the proxy voting debate .
As the 21 Republicans note in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like “ meeting , ” “ assemble , ” “ attendance , ” and “ present ” to describe how members of Congress should gather in order to conduct business .
The Constitution provides that Congress “ shall assemble at least once in every Year.
” It protects members from being arrested while they are traveling to and from the place where Congress meets .
Moreover , the Constitution doesn ’ t simply provide that a majority of the House shall form a quorum to do business , it also allows the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members ” in order to form a quorum .
All of this language suggests that the Constitution envisions a physical gathering of lawmakers , all in a single location , whenever Congress meets to conduct business .
At the same time , however , the Constitution also provides that “ each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.
” This language indicates that the House of Representatives — and only the House of Representatives — may determine what rules the House uses to conduct votes .
If the House decides to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that decision .
This more permissive reading of the Constitution is bolstered by the Supreme Court ’ s decision in United States v. Ballin ( 1892 ) , which concerned the Constitution ’ s provision stating that a “ majority ” of the House “ shall constitute a quorum to do business.
” At issue was whether members who are present for a vote , but do not actually cast a vote , count toward this quorum .
Rather than resolving this issue by judicial decree , however , Ballin concluded such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House to resolve .
As the Court explained , “ the Constitution has prescribed no method of making this determination , and it is therefore within the competency of the house to prescribe any method which shall be reasonably certain to ascertain the fact.
” A similar logic could apply to proxy voting .
If the two parties disagree about the constitutionality of such voting , that disagreement should be resolved by the House itself , and not by the judiciary .
Yet , while Ballin is a strong precedent supporting proxy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airtight one , and there is no guarantee that a GOP-controlled judiciary will follow that precedent — especially if the two parties polarize on the question of whether proxy voting is constitutional .
According to Washington University political science professor James Spriggs , the Roberts Court is far more likely than previous Supreme Courts to overrule existing law in an ideologically divided decision .
“ About 71 % of [ decisions overruling a prior precendent ] are 5-4 under Roberts , compared to about 31 % under Rehnquist , ” Spriggs told Law360 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a court that is deeply divided along clear ideological lines and on most salient issues with big political stakes.
” The legal question in McCarthy is thorny — or , at least , thorny enough that judges acting in good faith could reasonably land on either side of this dispute .
But the fact that McCarthy presents a tricky question opens the door to partisanship .
If a reasonable judge could come down on either side of a legal question , then a partisan judge will have little trouble writing a plausible-sounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not clear that the courts can decide if proxy voting is constitutional until the stakes are high Suppose that the Supreme Court takes up the McCarthy case , agrees with the 21 Republicans , and swiftly decrees that proxy voting violates the Constitution .
That ’ s not an especially bad outcome for Democrats , because it will resolve the uncertainty about whether proxy voting is legal .
Just as importantly , such a decision could resolve that uncertainty before Congress enacts any major legislation using proxy voting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stakes in the McCarthy case are fairly low .
For the moment , at least , McCarthy is a fight about some hypothetical legislation passed with proxy votes that might become law at some point in the future .
But recall that federal courts generally are not allowed to decide hypothetical cases .
Ordinarily , no one is allowed to challenge a federal law ( or , for that matter , a legislative rule ) unless they can show that they ’ ve been injured in some way by that law — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21 Republicans behind the McCarthy lawsuit claim that they are injured by proxy voting because a vote cast by proxy “ dilutes the voting power ” of members who are present on the floor to cast their vote .
But the Supreme Court rejected a similar claim in Raines v. Byrd ( 1997 ) .
In Raines , six lawmakers who opposed legislation that would have weakened the power of Congress sued to challenge that legislation .
But the Supreme Court concluded that these lawmakers lack standing to sue .
The six lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not been singled out for specially unfavorable treatment as opposed to other Members of their respective bodies.
” Moreover , their “ claim of standing [ was ] based on a loss of political power , not loss of any private right , which would make the injury more concrete.
” Such claims , the Court explained , were not sufficient reason to permit individual lawmakers to challenge a federal law .
Similar things could be said about the 21 lawmakers behind McCarthy .
Like the plaintiffs in Raines , the McCarthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfavorable treatment — they may cast proxy votes just like any other member of the House .
And their claim that proxy voting dilutes their voting power is no different than the “ claim of standing ... based on a loss of political power ” that was deemed insufficient in Raines .
So it is likely that the courts will dismiss the McCarthy case because its plaintiffs lack standing to sue .
But that doesn ’ t mean that no one will ever have standing to challenge proxy voting .
Suppose , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax , and that the House approves this new tax using proxy voting .
Anyone required to pay the tax would have standing to sue .
Similarly , if Congress enacts a new law regulating a particular industry , anyone regulated by that law would have standing to challenge it .
It is unlikely , then , that the courts will tell us whether proxy voting is constitutional or not until Congress passes a law using proxy voting .
And if that law proves to be politically contentious , the GOP-controlled Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proxy voting is constitutional as an excuse to strike down the law .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Earlier this month, the House voted, almost entirely along party lines, to permit members of Congress to cast votes by proxy so long as the coronavirus pandemic makes it dangerous for many members of Congress to travel to Washington. On Tuesday, 21 House Republicans filed a lawsuit claiming that the new House rule permitting proxy voting is unconstitutional.
The case is McCarthy v. Pelosi.
Under the new rule, a member of the House who is present in the Capitol may cast proxy votes on behalf of up to 10 colleagues, provided that those colleagues give the member written authorization to act as their proxy, and provided that those colleagues give the member instructions on how to vote. Members must notify the clerk of the House if they intend to vote by proxy, and they must identify who they’ve designated as their proxy.
But is such a process constitutional? The honest answer to this question is that no one knows.
Last March, at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s direction, the House Rules Committee’s Democrats prepared a report laying out the challenges the House will need to overcome in order to let members vote remotely. It warned that “the constitutionality of remote voting is an untested principle,” and that “if challenged, remote voting would be a novel question for a court and there is no guarantee of a favorable ruling affirming its constitutionality.”
Similar things can be said about proxy voting. The House Republicans’ lawsuit begins with a bold declaration: “In the 231-year existence of the United States Congress, neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate has ever permitted a Member to vote by proxy from the floor of the chamber.” That doesn’t make proxy voting unconstitutional, but it does mean that federal courts, which are not allowed to weigh in on hypothetical cases, have never had the opportunity to consider whether proxy voting is constitutional.
House Democrats, in other words, are playing with fire. By authorizing a constitutionally uncertain method of casting votes, they’ve created a real risk that the judiciary — a judiciary controlled by Republicans — will nullify any legislation that passes the House via proxy voting.
It is, of course, completely understandable that House Democrats want to be able to do their jobs effectively and safely in the middle of a historic crisis. But, at least for now, Democrats are stuck with a Supreme Court that’s no less susceptible to partisan polarization than any other political body. And that means that even sensible and well-meaning efforts by House Democrats are potentially in danger of being struck down.
The uncertain constitutionality of proxy voting
There are good legal arguments on both sides of the proxy voting debate.
As the 21 Republicans note in their lawsuit, the Constitution uses words like “meeting,” “assemble,” “attendance,” and “present” to describe how members of Congress should gather in order to conduct business. The Constitution provides that Congress “shall assemble at least once in every Year.” It protects members from being arrested while they are traveling to and from the place where Congress meets.
Moreover, the Constitution doesn’t simply provide that a majority of the House shall form a quorum to do business, it also allows the House to “compel the attendance of absent members” in order to form a quorum.
All of this language suggests that the Constitution envisions a physical gathering of lawmakers, all in a single location, whenever Congress meets to conduct business.
At the same time, however, the Constitution also provides that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” This language indicates that the House of Representatives — and only the House of Representatives — may determine what rules the House uses to conduct votes. If the House decides to use proxy voting, courts may not second-guess that decision.
This more permissive reading of the Constitution is bolstered by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Ballin (1892), which concerned the Constitution’s provision stating that a “majority” of the House “shall constitute a quorum to do business.” At issue was whether members who are present for a vote, but do not actually cast a vote, count toward this quorum.
Rather than resolving this issue by judicial decree, however, Ballin concluded such a question of House procedure was up to the House to resolve. As the Court explained, “the Constitution has prescribed no method of making this determination, and it is therefore within the competency of the house to prescribe any method which shall be reasonably certain to ascertain the fact.”
A similar logic could apply to proxy voting. If the two parties disagree about the constitutionality of such voting, that disagreement should be resolved by the House itself, and not by the judiciary.
Yet, while Ballin is a strong precedent supporting proxy voting, it’s not an airtight one, and there is no guarantee that a GOP-controlled judiciary will follow that precedent — especially if the two parties polarize on the question of whether proxy voting is constitutional.
According to Washington University political science professor James Spriggs, the Roberts Court is far more likely than previous Supreme Courts to overrule existing law in an ideologically divided decision. “About 71% of [decisions overruling a prior precendent] are 5-4 under Roberts, compared to about 31% under Rehnquist,” Spriggs told Law360. “That’s a function of a court that is deeply divided along clear ideological lines and on most salient issues with big political stakes.”
The legal question in McCarthy is thorny — or, at least, thorny enough that judges acting in good faith could reasonably land on either side of this dispute. But the fact that McCarthy presents a tricky question opens the door to partisanship. If a reasonable judge could come down on either side of a legal question, then a partisan judge will have little trouble writing a plausible-sounding opinion supporting the outcome that judge prefers.
It’s not clear that the courts can decide if proxy voting is constitutional until the stakes are high
Suppose that the Supreme Court takes up the McCarthy case, agrees with the 21 Republicans, and swiftly decrees that proxy voting violates the Constitution. That’s not an especially bad outcome for Democrats, because it will resolve the uncertainty about whether proxy voting is legal. Just as importantly, such a decision could resolve that uncertainty before Congress enacts any major legislation using proxy voting.
Until such legislation actually becomes law, the stakes in the McCarthy case are fairly low. For the moment, at least, McCarthy is a fight about some hypothetical legislation passed with proxy votes that might become law at some point in the future.
But recall that federal courts generally are not allowed to decide hypothetical cases. Ordinarily, no one is allowed to challenge a federal law (or, for that matter, a legislative rule) unless they can show that they’ve been injured in some way by that law — a requirement known as standing.
The 21 Republicans behind the McCarthy lawsuit claim that they are injured by proxy voting because a vote cast by proxy “dilutes the voting power” of members who are present on the floor to cast their vote. But the Supreme Court rejected a similar claim in Raines v. Byrd (1997). In Raines, six lawmakers who opposed legislation that would have weakened the power of Congress sued to challenge that legislation. But the Supreme Court concluded that these lawmakers lack standing to sue.
The six lawmakers, the Supreme Court noted, “have not been singled out for specially unfavorable treatment as opposed to other Members of their respective bodies.” Moreover, their “claim of standing [was] based on a loss of political power, not loss of any private right, which would make the injury more concrete.” Such claims, the Court explained, were not sufficient reason to permit individual lawmakers to challenge a federal law.
Similar things could be said about the 21 lawmakers behind McCarthy. Like the plaintiffs in Raines, the McCarthy plaintiffs have not been singled out for unfavorable treatment — they may cast proxy votes just like any other member of the House. And their claim that proxy voting dilutes their voting power is no different than the “claim of standing ... based on a loss of political power” that was deemed insufficient in Raines.
So it is likely that the courts will dismiss the McCarthy case because its plaintiffs lack standing to sue.
But that doesn’t mean that no one will ever have standing to challenge proxy voting. Suppose, for example, that Congress enacts a new tax, and that the House approves this new tax using proxy voting. Anyone required to pay the tax would have standing to sue. Similarly, if Congress enacts a new law regulating a particular industry, anyone regulated by that law would have standing to challenge it.
It is unlikely, then, that the courts will tell us whether proxy voting is constitutional or not until Congress passes a law using proxy voting. And if that law proves to be politically contentious, the GOP-controlled Supreme Court could potentially use the uncertainty about whether proxy voting is constitutional as an excuse to strike down the law.


vox--2020-05-29--CNN reporter Omar Jimenez arrested live on the air in Minneapolis

Early this morning , Minnesota State Police officers dispatched to the scene of riots in Minneapolis arrested CNN report Omar Jimenez while he was live on camera doing a news broadcast .
The footage , which was beamed into American living rooms in real time , shows a calm and polite Jimenez repeatedly offering to relocate if he ’ s in officers ’ way .
But instead of receiving any kind of clear instructions , he ’ s simply placed under arrest for no clear reason .
Jimenez was released from custody relatively quickly and returned to the airwaves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of comfort knowing that you guys saw what was happening , I was living what was happening and the country was seeing what was happening unfold in real-time before their eyes.
” The disturbing and as-yet-unexplained incident was resolved rapidly during a phone call between CNN President Jeff Zucker and Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz , who apologized for Jimenez ’ detention .
Arrests of journalists who were attempting to cover protests in Ferguson , Missouri emerged as a major theme of the drama that played out in that city in 2014 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the kinds of conduct that concerned protestors .

Early this morning, Minnesota state police officers dispatched to the scene of riots in Minneapolis arrested CNN reporter Omar Jimenez while he was live on camera doing a news broadcast. The footage, which was beamed into American living rooms in real time, shows a calm and polite Jimenez repeatedly offering to relocate if he’s in officers’ way. But instead of receiving clear instructions, he’s simply placed under arrest.
Minnesota police arrest CNN reporter and camera crew as they report from protests in Minneapolis https://t.co/IY0H1Lc77E pic.twitter.com/s9XmwVfabP — New Day (@NewDay) May 29, 2020
Jimenez was released from custody relatively quickly and returned to the airwaves to say, “That gave me a little bit of comfort knowing that you guys saw what was happening, I was living what was happening and the country was seeing what was happening unfold in real time before their eyes.”
The disturbing and as-yet-unexplained incident was resolved rapidly during a phone call between CNN president Jeff Zucker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who apologized for Jimenez’s detention.
Live now on CNN as reported by @JohnBerman: CNN president Jeff Zucker spoke to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz who apologized for State Police’s arrest of @OmarJimenez and our team. He is working to get them released. Walz said he takes full responsibility for what happened. — Abby D. Phillip (@abbydphillip) May 29, 2020
Arrests of journalists who were attempting to cover protests in Ferguson, Missouri, emerged as a major theme of the events that played out in that city in 2014 — directly exposing people with large platforms to some of the kind of conduct that concerned protesters.