vox--2020-05-07--War and Peace is not hard, it’s just long, and other advice on how to read the classics

If you are the kind of person who likes to embark upon a project in times of stress , there are worse choices during quarantine than trying to read your way through a bunch of the classic great books .
Reading a book can take you out of yourself and your situation for a while , and nourish your mind in a way that more passive entertainment might not .
Plus , finishing a book you ’ ve always meant to read but never quite got around to will give you a warm glow of virtue .
But if your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaguely understand to be classics , the idea of starting can be overwhelming .
Where to begin ?
How much work are you committing to ?
Do you even have the attention span to read right now ?
So I ’ m here to offer you a strategy .
I ’ ve organized some of the go-to great books into a few different categories , based on how much work they ’ re asking of you .
Decide what level of concentration you ’ re ready to commit to right now , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you want something familiar and accessible If you want a classic that you can probably finish in about a day and still be able to get plenty out of , turn to the high school reading list staples : They won ’ t be very long or very dense , and plenty of them are damn good books .
1984 , The Red Badge of Courage , and Their Eyes Were Watching God are all decent options here , but for my money , your best bet in this category is The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinking a mint julep ( “ A crazy idea !
” ) and feeling it brace and refresh you as you swallow it down in long , lazy gulps .
In terms of the effort-to-payoff ratio , there ’ s a lot of bang for your buck with this one .
If you got through high school without reading it , now ’ s your chance .
If you haven ’ t read it since high school , now ’ s the time to refresh your memory .
Books for when you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still plenty accessible If you want a classic that ’ s straightforward enough to soothe your mind but won ’ t also give you flashbacks to 10th grade English , a reliable move is to turn to a canonical author , but choose one of the books that ’ s lighter than the one they ’ re famous for .
A Passage to India is how many of us first made acquaintance with E.M. Forster in the 11th grade , but maybe now is the time to read Maurice , the sweet and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never dared to publish within his own lifetime .
( Bonus : This one got made into a very beautiful Merchant Ivory film in which a young Hugh Grant grows a villainous mustache as soon as he turns his back on his relationship with another man and gets married to a woman .
But there ’ s a happy ending . )
Or try some Virginia Woolf !
Woolf wrote plenty of challenging modernist fiction , some of which will show up later on this list , but she also wrote Orlando , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in knowing that the hero is immortal and will periodically change gender for no apparent reason , and you will be absolutely fine .
Orlando reads like you ’ re eating a dish of raspberry sorbet .
If you ’ re out of practice reading denser books , the prose in these books might be challenging .
That ’ s okay !
You can practice !
There ’ s always a period of mental adjustment when you switch from 20th/21st-century mainstream American literary prose , with its clean , sparse lines , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more baroque .
I have bookworm friends who don ’ t like picking up any books written before 1920 because they find that transition taxing , but personally , I like to leave contemporary good taste behind every now and then .
I love a sentence so rich you can wrap yourself up in it like it ’ s a big velvet robe .
Still , if you are most used to reading books from a literary tradition that models itself after Hemingway ’ s voice , the mental adjustment that comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while .
Give it time .
Schedule yourself an uninterrupted period where you will do nothing but read — it doesn ’ t have to be long , even 20 minutes or so will do the trick — and let yourself relax into the language .
Don ’ t look at your phone .
Some people tell you to keep a dictionary next to you , but I find it counterproductive to pick one up every time I come across a new word .
Just keep reading .
You ’ re smart ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context .
And see how the language takes you once you ’ re used to it .
If you want to read back in time , to ease your way into the transition , start with Jane Austen .
Her language is very precise and specific and unornamented in a way that will help you learn how to read her era , and it ’ s likely that you ’ re familiar with the beats of most of her stories already , which will help you keep track of what ’ s happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for anyone to resist the charm offensive of Pride and Prejudice .
Just keep reminding yourself as you read that Austen is writing social satires , not just love stories , and assume that if something strikes you as inexplicably offensive , it is probably Austen being funny .
( That advice goes out to the multiple young men of my acquaintance who have long proclaimed they could not possibly read an author who believed that any man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife .
Learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Once you ’ ve got your feet under you enough to read Austen , you can make your way toward the rest of the 19th-century canon .
Skip forward a few decades to the Victorians and try the Brontës or Mary Shelley or Thomas Hardy or Henry James , or move all the way into the early 20th century and try Edith Wharton or Evelyn Waugh .
If you want to veer away from English-language authors and work your way into reading foreign classics in translation , the move is probably to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up One Hundred Years of Solitude in the Gregory Rabassa translation , which Márquez declared to be better than his original text , and let yourself get tangled up in the sentences and all the different generations with the same names .
Not knowing what ’ s happening at any given point is half the fun .
From there , may I suggest shaking things up with a little Clarice Lispector ?
She ’ s not widely read , and she should be .
When you want something long but easy People always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s the pinnacle of difficulty , but honestly , it ’ s a pretty easy and fun read ; it ’ s just long .
Roll your eyes if you must , but I would never lie to you about something as serious as textual difficulty : War and Peace is absolutely approachable and absorbing and lovely , and for long stretches at a time , it is just about who this really pretty girl should marry , a.k.a .
the best plot .
Also in the long-but-easy category are such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Vanity Fair .
You might feel intimidated by the number of pages , but I promise you that if you can read other 19th-century literature , these books are all well within your capabilities as a reader .
The big difficulty with 1,000-page-plus books is finding ways to keep track of all of the characters , many of whom have multiple names just to keep things interesting .
You might be tempted to have Wikipedia and one of its helpful character lists pulled up on your phone next to you as you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I ’ d recommend against that — it ’ s too easy to open up a social media app and get sucked in every time you turn to the phone to look up a character name , and that way lies chaos .
Books this long are only fun if you let yourself get fully lost in them every time you sit down to read .
If you find yourself getting frustrated and confused as you read , the best move is to create your own character list .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likes scribbling in the margins of your book , try drawing a square around the name of each character the very first time they ’ re introduced , and then maybe note in the margin if they go by other names .
You ’ ll be able to flip back easily every time you lose track and see who ’ s who .
If you are the kind of reader who can not abide marginalia , keep a notebook or a pad of paper next to you and jot down the names of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a note about nicknames and who is related to whom .
It ’ s annoying at the beginning , but it will pay off later when you ’ re trying to remember whether or not Nikolai is related to Natasha ( yes !
he is her brother ) .
Unlike War and Peace , Moby-Dick is a long book and also kind of a hard read .
It ’ s not a straightforward linear narrative ; there are scenes that are written as play scripts and chapters that are just Ishmael telling you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is actually pretty fun once you get into it , but I ’ m not going to sit here like an asshole and tell you it ’ s easy and accessible .
At a similar level of difficulty are books like Mrs. Dalloway or The Tale of Genji .
You can absolutely get through them , and they will reward the effort , but know going in that there will be a bit of effort required .
There ’ s no real secret to reading a book like this .
Just block off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ll be able to focus fully on the pages , and treat any confusion or disorientation as part of the process .
Don ’ t put pressure on yourself to read too quickly ; just linger and savor as you go .
No one is grading you on your speed reading , I promise .
Books that might make you call for backup If you want to really push your reading habits while you ’ re in quarantine , then , my friend , look no further than the high modernists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Waves !
Now is the time for Ulysses !
Now is the time for formal prose experiments that you ’ re not totally sure you ’ ll ever fully grasp but want to read anyway , just to see if you can !
These are tricky books , and there are a lot of resources out there to help you .
You can find annotated editions of most of the modernist classics ( Don Gifford ’ s Annotated Ulysses is the standard ) .
Even if you don ’ t have an annotated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduction that will give you a loose framework for reading : Make use of it .
Moral support is also your friend here .
Consider organizing a reading group so that you can at least feel that you are being confused with other people .
Remember that the whole concept of “ the classics ” is made up I ’ ve spent this whole article talking about “ the classics ” as though we all agree on what they are , but the truth is that there is no definitive and objective list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get canonized like saints do , after documented miracles — they get canonized by accident , after enough powerful people agree that they are good .
And for a long time , those powerful people were exclusively white men .
It ’ s often useful to be familiar with those books because they are part of our shared culture , and they can help you make sense of the many other works that reference them .
But they are not the only old good books in the world .
I like all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this article .
But because I ’ m drawing from a canon largely invented by old white men , these books are disproportionately written by old white men .
So as you build your quarantine reading list , spend some time hunting down some of the many worthwhile books that never quite made the canon .
Browse through Persephone Books , which specializes in reprints of forgotten books , mostly by women .
Read the Zora Canon , a list of the 100 greatest books by African American women writers .
Penguin Classics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half-built the canon , has been working to diversify its selections for the past couple of years ; check out one of their series , like Penguin Classics ’ Asian American Masterpieces or Penguin Vitae .
There are so many books out there waiting for you to read them , and so many of them are good .
Get to it .
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 .

If you are the kind of person who likes to embark upon a project in times of stress, there are worse choices during quarantine than trying to read your way through a bunch of the classic great books. Reading a book can take you out of yourself and your situation for a while, and nourish your mind in a way that more passive entertainment might not. Plus, finishing a book you’ve always meant to read but never quite got around to will give you a warm glow of virtue.
(It’s also absolutely fine to decide not to do anything productive right now. It’s a global emergency! Do whatever you have to do to get by! This article is just for people who respond to anxiety by giving themselves homework.)
But if your only plan is to read books you vaguely understand to be classics, the idea of starting can be overwhelming. Where to begin? How much work are you committing to? Do you even have the attention span to read right now? So I’m here to offer you a strategy.
I’ve organized some of the go-to great books into a few different categories, based on how much work they’re asking of you. Decide what level of concentration you’re ready to commit to right now, and then work from there.
Books for when you want something familiar and accessible
If you want a classic that you can probably finish in about a day and still be able to get plenty out of, turn to the high school reading list staples: They won’t be very long or very dense, and plenty of them are damn good books. 1984, The Red Badge of Courage, and Their Eyes Were Watching God are all decent options here, but for my money, your best bet in this category is The Great Gatsby.
Reading Gatsby is like drinking a mint julep (“A crazy idea!”) and feeling it brace and refresh you as you swallow it down in long, lazy gulps. In terms of the effort-to-payoff ratio, there’s a lot of bang for your buck with this one. If you got through high school without reading it, now’s your chance. If you haven’t read it since high school, now’s the time to refresh your memory.
Books for when you want something a tiny bit less familiar but still plenty accessible
If you want a classic that’s straightforward enough to soothe your mind but won’t also give you flashbacks to 10th grade English, a reliable move is to turn to a canonical author, but choose one of the books that’s lighter than the one they’re famous for.
A Passage to India is how many of us first made acquaintance with E.M. Forster in the 11th grade, but maybe now is the time to read Maurice, the sweet and dreamy queer love story Forster wrote and never dared to publish within his own lifetime. (Bonus: This one got made into a very beautiful Merchant Ivory film in which a young Hugh Grant grows a villainous mustache as soon as he turns his back on his relationship with another man and gets married to a woman. But there’s a happy ending.)
Or try some Virginia Woolf! Woolf wrote plenty of challenging modernist fiction, some of which will show up later on this list, but she also wrote Orlando, which is a romp. Just go in knowing that the hero is immortal and will periodically change gender for no apparent reason, and you will be absolutely fine. Orlando reads like you’re eating a dish of raspberry sorbet.
If you’re out of practice reading denser books, the prose in these books might be challenging. That’s okay! You can practice!
There’s always a period of mental adjustment when you switch from 20th/21st-century mainstream American literary prose, with its clean, sparse lines, to a book where the language is thicker and more baroque. I have bookworm friends who don’t like picking up any books written before 1920 because they find that transition taxing, but personally, I like to leave contemporary good taste behind every now and then. I love a sentence so rich you can wrap yourself up in it like it’s a big velvet robe.
Still, if you are most used to reading books from a literary tradition that models itself after Hemingway’s voice, the mental adjustment that comes with reading other styles might take a while. Give it time. Schedule yourself an uninterrupted period where you will do nothing but read — it doesn’t have to be long, even 20 minutes or so will do the trick — and let yourself relax into the language. Don’t look at your phone. Some people tell you to keep a dictionary next to you, but I find it counterproductive to pick one up every time I come across a new word. Just keep reading. You’re smart; you’ll get the gist from context. And see how the language takes you once you’re used to it.
If you want to read back in time, to ease your way into the transition, start with Jane Austen. Her language is very precise and specific and unornamented in a way that will help you learn how to read her era, and it’s likely that you’re familiar with the beats of most of her stories already, which will help you keep track of what’s happening. Plus, it’s hard for anyone to resist the charm offensive of Pride and Prejudice.
Just keep reminding yourself as you read that Austen is writing social satires, not just love stories, and assume that if something strikes you as inexplicably offensive, it is probably Austen being funny. (That advice goes out to the multiple young men of my acquaintance who have long proclaimed they could not possibly read an author who believed that any man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. Learn to take a joke, boys!)
Once you’ve got your feet under you enough to read Austen, you can make your way toward the rest of the 19th-century canon. Skip forward a few decades to the Victorians and try the Brontës or Mary Shelley or Thomas Hardy or Henry James, or move all the way into the early 20th century and try Edith Wharton or Evelyn Waugh.
If you want to veer away from English-language authors and work your way into reading foreign classics in translation, the move is probably to sample some Gabriel García Márquez. Pick up One Hundred Years of Solitude in the Gregory Rabassa translation, which Márquez declared to be better than his original text, and let yourself get tangled up in the sentences and all the different generations with the same names. Not knowing what’s happening at any given point is half the fun.
From there, may I suggest shaking things up with a little Clarice Lispector? She’s not widely read, and she should be.
When you want something long but easy
People always talk about War and Peace as though it’s the pinnacle of difficulty, but honestly, it’s a pretty easy and fun read; it’s just long. Roll your eyes if you must, but I would never lie to you about something as serious as textual difficulty: War and Peace is absolutely approachable and absorbing and lovely, and for long stretches at a time, it is just about who this really pretty girl should marry, a.k.a. the best plot.
Also in the long-but-easy category are such notables as Bleak House, Middlemarch, and Vanity Fair. You might feel intimidated by the number of pages, but I promise you that if you can read other 19th-century literature, these books are all well within your capabilities as a reader.
The big difficulty with 1,000-page-plus books is finding ways to keep track of all of the characters, many of whom have multiple names just to keep things interesting. You might be tempted to have Wikipedia and one of its helpful character lists pulled up on your phone next to you as you read to help you keep everything straight, but I’d recommend against that — it’s too easy to open up a social media app and get sucked in every time you turn to the phone to look up a character name, and that way lies chaos. Books this long are only fun if you let yourself get fully lost in them every time you sit down to read.
If you find yourself getting frustrated and confused as you read, the best move is to create your own character list. If you’re the kind of reader who likes scribbling in the margins of your book, try drawing a square around the name of each character the very first time they’re introduced, and then maybe note in the margin if they go by other names. You’ll be able to flip back easily every time you lose track and see who’s who.
If you are the kind of reader who cannot abide marginalia, keep a notebook or a pad of paper next to you and jot down the names of each character as you go, with a note about nicknames and who is related to whom. It’s annoying at the beginning, but it will pay off later when you’re trying to remember whether or not Nikolai is related to Natasha (yes! he is her brother).
When you’re feeling ambitious
Unlike War and Peace, Moby-Dick is a long book and also kind of a hard read. It’s not a straightforward linear narrative; there are scenes that are written as play scripts and chapters that are just Ishmael telling you various properties of whales. This stuff is actually pretty fun once you get into it, but I’m not going to sit here like an asshole and tell you it’s easy and accessible.
At a similar level of difficulty are books like Mrs. Dalloway or The Tale of Genji. You can absolutely get through them, and they will reward the effort, but know going in that there will be a bit of effort required.
There’s no real secret to reading a book like this. Just block off a chunk of time long enough that you’ll be able to focus fully on the pages, and treat any confusion or disorientation as part of the process. Don’t put pressure on yourself to read too quickly; just linger and savor as you go. No one is grading you on your speed reading, I promise.
Books that might make you call for backup
If you want to really push your reading habits while you’re in quarantine, then, my friend, look no further than the high modernists.
Now is the time for The Waves! Now is the time for Ulysses! Now is the time for formal prose experiments that you’re not totally sure you’ll ever fully grasp but want to read anyway, just to see if you can!
These are tricky books, and there are a lot of resources out there to help you. You can find annotated editions of most of the modernist classics (Don Gifford’s Annotated Ulysses is the standard). Even if you don’t have an annotated edition, your copy should have an introduction that will give you a loose framework for reading: Make use of it. Moral support is also your friend here. Consider organizing a reading group so that you can at least feel that you are being confused with other people.
Remember that the whole concept of “the classics” is made up
I’ve spent this whole article talking about “the classics” as though we all agree on what they are, but the truth is that there is no definitive and objective list of classics. Books don’t get canonized like saints do, after documented miracles — they get canonized by accident, after enough powerful people agree that they are good. And for a long time, those powerful people were exclusively white men.
It’s often useful to be familiar with those books because they are part of our shared culture, and they can help you make sense of the many other works that reference them. But they are not the only old good books in the world.
I like all the books I’ve talked about in this article. But because I’m drawing from a canon largely invented by old white men, these books are disproportionately written by old white men. So as you build your quarantine reading list, spend some time hunting down some of the many worthwhile books that never quite made the canon.
Browse through Persephone Books, which specializes in reprints of forgotten books, mostly by women. Read the Zora Canon, a list of the 100 greatest books by African American women writers. Penguin Classics of the iconic orange-and-black spine, which half-built the canon, has been working to diversify its selections for the past couple of years; check out one of their series, like Penguin Classics’ Asian American Masterpieces or Penguin Vitae.
There are so many books out there waiting for you to read them, and so many of them are good. Get to it.


What day is it today?

Today is Thursday , May 7 , 2020 , at least in the continental United States .
It is already Friday , May 8 , in some parts of the world .
To some degree , time is an illusion .
We are bound by its forward passage , being the third-dimensional creatures we are , but the perceptions we have placed upon time have been invented .
Humans invented the year .
Humans invented the month .
Humans invented the day , the hour , the minute , the second .
These distinctions are not arbitrary — it really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth to orbit the sun — but their creation was not inevitable .
Our numerical system is likely base-10 because we have 10 fingers ; the way we understand time is almost entirely dependent on the fact that we evolved on this planet , circling this sun .
Time , at least as we understand it , is also a byproduct of capitalism .
In his seminal 1967 economic paper “ Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism , ” E. P. Thompson notes that in early human cultures , delineations of time were broad understandings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went down , when the seasons changed .
But as industrialization became the norm , time became a mechanized system that no longer served those who ’ d invented it .
We increasingly served at the beck and call of time , for that is how those who possessed capital could best regulate those who performed the labor .
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “ problem ” of leisure .
And a part of the problem is : how did it come to be a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convenience with industrial capitalism , was the agent which converted men to new valuations of time ; which taught children even in their infancy to improve each shining hour ; and which saturated men ’ s minds with the equation , time is money .
One recurrent form of revolt within Western industrial capitalism , whether bohemian or beatnik , has often taken the form of flouting the urgency of respectable timevalues .
And the interesting question arises : if Puritanism was a necessary part of the work-ethos which enabled the industrialized world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the past , will the Puritan valuation of time begin to decompose as the pressures of poverty relax ?
Is it decomposing already ?
Will men begin to lose that restless urgency , that desire to consume time purposively , which most people carry just as they carry a watch on their wrists ?
But it remains that on some base level , we will always understand time .
The sun comes up , the sun goes down .
Though we might be inside , where that process is more difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not obscure the day and night cycle .
What is lost , as each day blends into the next , in vaguely similar ways , is the mechanistic definition of time , the capitalist definition of time , the industrial definition of time .
We do not know what day it is , but we do know when there is a new day .
To live inside is to lose distinction .
There is a numbing effect that occurs when each day is the same , when our schedules are subsumed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undifferentiated time .
And yet isn ’ t this how so many of the less privileged around the world , forced to work jobs involving menial labor , day after day after day , already live ?
Isn ’ t this why we invented the weekend ?
Has this quarantine simply shown to those of us with more economic privilege that our “ free time ” was always a mirage , which could disappear before our eyes , by giving us so much “ free ” time ?
I have a wall calendar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I need to orient myself in time , I look at it .
But even the usefulness of my calendar has started to fray around the edges .
I began writing this story because I couldn ’ t quite believe it was a Thursday , even as I knew it had to be a Thursday .
But it might as well not be .
A cycle that bears the sun across our sky until it sets in the west is a reality ; “ Thursday ” is an invention .
Is it still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I will update this article daily until we don ’ t need it anymore .
I hope there is a time when we know it is Thursday or Tuesday or June 17 without having to look at a calendar or ask each other or Google .
I hope there is a time when going outside to see the sun doesn ’ t feel like exposing yourself to toxic levels of radiation .
( I know I should be taking walks ; every time , I feel like I ’ m risking everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in which all this “ free ” time no longer feels like a period we must exploit for maximum value .
I hope there is a time when I remember what it ’ s like to grab lunch with a friend , to watch dogs play in the surf , to breathe in the air and just be .
Until then , find a way to make time have meaning for you .
Read a long book .
Cook an elaborate meal .
Take up knitting .
Write an epic poem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ always meant to get to .
Sleep .
Remember that time doesn ’ t own you , and that you own time .
This will be over someday , a part of the past .
It will someday be a memory .
Hang on to that .
I ’ ll see you outside again .
For now , it is Thursday , May 7 , 2020 .
In some parts of the world , it is Friday , May 8 , 2020 .
Are you a “ What day is it today ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ theme song .
It ’ s written by composer Laura Stratford , and it is wonderful .

Today is Wednesday, July 1, 2020, at least in the continental United States. It is already Thursday, July 2, 2020, in some parts of the world. Life isn’t resuming gracefully, but the herky jerky train wreck of America’s reopening certainly speaks to some desire to exit this quarantine period. And so “What Day Is It Today” will exit the stage, too. For now, at least.
To some degree, time is an illusion. We are bound by its forward passage, being the third-dimensional creatures we are, but the perceptions we have placed upon time have been invented. Humans invented the year. Humans invented the month. Humans invented the day, the hour, the minute, the second.
These distinctions are not arbitrary — it really does take about 365 days for the Earth to orbit the sun — but their creation was not inevitable. Our numerical system is likely base-10 because we have 10 fingers; the way we understand time is almost entirely dependent on the fact that we evolved on this planet, circling this sun.
Time, at least as we understand it, is also a byproduct of capitalism. In his seminal 1967 economic paper “Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism,” E. P. Thompson notes that in early human cultures, delineations of time were broad understandings of when the sun came up and went down, when the seasons changed. But as industrialization became the norm, time became a mechanized system that no longer served those who’d invented it. We increasingly served at the beck and call of time, for that is how those who possessed capital could best regulate those who performed the labor.
Thompson writes:
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “problem” of leisure. And a part of the problem is: how did it come to be a problem ? Puritanism, in its marriage of convenience with industrial capitalism, was the agent which converted men to new valuations of time; which taught children even in their infancy to improve each shining hour; and which saturated men’s minds with the equation, time is money. One recurrent form of revolt within Western industrial capitalism, whether bohemian or beatnik, has often taken the form of flouting the urgency of respectable timevalues. And the interesting question arises: if Puritanism was a necessary part of the work-ethos which enabled the industrialized world to break out of the poverty-stricken economies of the past, will the Puritan valuation of time begin to decompose as the pressures of poverty relax? Is it decomposing already? Will men begin to lose that restless urgency, that desire to consume time purposively, which most people carry just as they carry a watch on their wrists?
But it remains that on some base level, we will always understand time. The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Though we might be inside, where that process is more difficult to witness, the fact of our insideness does not obscure the day and night cycle. What is lost, as each day blends into the next, in vaguely similar ways, is the mechanistic definition of time, the capitalist definition of time, the industrial definition of time. We do not know what day it is, but we do know when there is a new day.
To live inside is to lose distinction. There is a numbing effect that occurs when each day is the same, when our schedules are subsumed by what feels like an endless gulf of undifferentiated time. And yet isn’t this how so many of the less privileged around the world, forced to work jobs involving menial labor, day after day after day, already live? Isn’t this why we invented the weekend? Has this quarantine simply shown to those of us with more economic privilege that our “free time” was always a mirage, which could disappear before our eyes, by giving us so much “free” time?
I have a wall calendar hanging above my desk, and when I need to orient myself in time, I look at it. But even the usefulness of my calendar has started to fray around the edges. I began writing this story because I couldn’t quite believe it was a Thursday, even as I knew it had to be a Thursday. But it might as well not be. A cycle that bears the sun across our sky until it sets in the west is a reality; “Thursday” is an invention. Is it still necessary? I don’t know.
What’s important to remember is that time doesn’t own you. You own time. This will be over someday, a part of the past. It will someday be a memory. Hang on to that. I’ll see you outside again.
This story was originally published Friday, March 27, 2020.
Are you a “What day is it today?” superfan? Check out our official theme song. It’s written by composer Laura Stratford, and it is wonderful.


vox--2020-05-07--The US has a Covid-19 test shortage. Who should get them?

Testing is the sine qua non of resolving the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic .
It ’ s essential to determining who has the virus , which can spread from people who may not exhibit any symptoms at all , sometimes for weeks .
These unwitting spreaders are prolonging the pandemic , forcing the government to enact costly economic shutdowns .
The way to relax these measures is to test people , sometimes repeatedly , and isolate the infected .
But since there still aren ’ t enough tests in the US to go around , who should be tested ?
Current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Prevention ( CDC ) put hospitalized patients with symptoms ; health care workers and first responders with symptoms ; and nursing home residents and prisoners at the top of the list — and people who don ’ t have any Covid-19 symptoms much lower .
However , some researchers say the focus right now should be on finding people with the virus who don ’ t have symptoms because they are driving new infections .
People who are starting to experience fever , shortness of breath , and a loss of smell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested and should be treated as if they are already infected .
It ’ s a debate that exposes the tension between treating individual patients and protecting the public at large .
But it ’ s not a hypothetical ; these are decisions that have to be made now .
Experts estimate we should be deploying upward of millions of tests per day .
Yet the United States is barely getting above 220,000 daily tests .
And it ’ s forcing many health districts into the unfamiliar territory of rationing tests , forcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who does and who does not get swabbed .
The number of tests and how they ’ re deployed will shape the trajectory of this pandemic .
The case against testing people with Covid-19 symptoms There are several different therapies for Covid-19 under investigation .
Some , like remdesivir , are being used to treat patients under compassionate use guidelines or emergency use guidelines .
But right now , there isn ’ t a specific drug for Covid-19 for broad use , so a positive diagnostic test for the illness doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other words , if you have symptoms , a diagnosis won ’ t affect how you ’ re treated by doctors .
In addition , by the time an infected person has symptoms like fever and breathing difficulty , the virus is often quite far into its replication cycle and may be in decline , so a diagnostic test may not even pick up the disease .
And at that point , many of the symptoms stem from the body ’ s immune response to the virus , like inflammation and fever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus itself .
France ’ s health minister Olivier Véran told the French broadcaster LCI on April 30 that testing people with symptoms wouldn ’ t have done much to control the pandemic .
“ A test does not cure .
A test doesn ’ t change the treatment .
A test doesn ’ t change isolation [ protocol ] , ” he said .
“ If we had tested absolutely everyone , everyone with symptoms , we would have had more or less the same number of cases.
” Since it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how patients are treated , Paul Romer , an economist at New York University , argues that testing such patients doesn ’ t make sense .
Romer co-authored an article for the Atlantic with bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel laying out his case for not testing patients with symptoms .
“ To safely reopen closed businesses and revive American social life , we need to perform many more tests — and focus them on the people most likely to spread Covid-19 , not sick patients , ” wrote Romer and Emanuel .
Romer explained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Covid-19 , the diagnostic test doesn ’ t provide much more useful information .
For instance , a patient may show up with a very low blood oxygen saturation , fever , congested lungs , and may have been exposed to someone else with Covid-19 .
“ Suppose you run the test .
If it comes back positive , you ’ re going to treat it like they ’ re positive .
If it comes back negative , you ’ re probably going to say ‘ it was a false negative and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive ’ and do the same thing , ” Romer said .
“ So what ’ s the point of the test ?
” The better approach , according to Romer , is to presume that people with symptoms have the virus and are infectious .
And rather than testing again to confirm the virus is gone , hospitals should establish a standard isolation period after the last date symptoms are present .
( The CDC recommends 10 days of precautions after symptoms first appear or three days after recovery . )
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trace the contacts of the presumed infected , some of whom might not have symptoms and could be contagious .
Those that test positive for Covid-19 , even without symptoms , can then be directed to isolate themselves until the infection passes , limiting further spread of the disease .
This pattern of repeated testing and isolation will eventually extinguish the pandemic .
The case for testing patients that have Covid-19 symptoms Tests aren ’ t the only scarce resource in the Covid-19 pandemic ; there also aren ’ t enough gowns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personnel to go around .
That ’ s why some experts say we need to make sure critical resources , like personal protective equipment ( PPE ) , are reserved for health workers dealing directly with the highly infectious virus .
Some Covid-19 patients need to be treated for weeks , and everyone entering their room needs fresh protective gear every time they enter , so treating a single patient can consume a lot of scarce resources .
“ Right now , we ’ re sort of in the midst of shortages of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and one thing our institution is really trying to do is save on PPE , ” said David Pride , an infectious disease specialist at UC San Diego Health .
“ And to do that we ’ ve had to do a protocol where we are testing every single person that gets admitted to our hospital system.
” Pride added that another issue is that the isolation regulations around Covid-19 patients mean that they can ’ t see their families , which is a huge emotional burden .
“ If we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rounds of testing , that they are not shedding the virus , they can come off of these precautions , which means that they can actually have their loved ones there , ” he said .
Robert Atmar , an infectious disease physician at the Baylor College of Medicine , said that it ’ s also worth considering how the information from a test can be used for public health .
“ The main question is how the health department responds to a positive test , ” Atmar said in an email .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ then it might make sense to presume infections in patients to save tests .
But if everyone who is presumed infected is traced , then contact tracers will waste valuable time and resources following the footsteps of people who may not have been infected .
Christine Mitchell , the executive director at the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School , noted that while finding asymptomatic spreaders is essential to slowing the pandemic , identifying the infected can help limit the spread inside hospitals .
For instance , testing can help determine whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 patient .
If they were uninfected , this could expose them to the virus and add new complications .
“ I don ’ t know why it ’ s necessary to advocate not testing patients , ” Mitchell said .
“ You do need to know these things to create a safe environment for patients as well as a safe environment for other patients.
” How should we prioritize Covid-19 testing for everyone else Aside from whether or not to test patients who have symptoms for Covid-19 , most experts do agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for testing , namely health workers and first responders on the front lines of the pandemic .
Doctors , nurses , and hospital staff face a greater risk of exposure to the virus , and because they are in a health setting , they run the risk of infecting others as they move from patient to patient .
If they ’ re sidelined with an infection , they aren ’ t easily replaced , adding more strain on the health system as the number of caregivers declines .
So it ’ s crucial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early , which may mean testing as frequently as every day .
Other workers in essential , high-exposure roles like grocery store clerks , aides in assisted care facilities , and delivery personnel should also be tested regularly .
Mitchell said another high priority should be testing people in situations where Covid-19 infections can run rampant .
“ Nursing homes , senior living facilities , prisons , immigrants in these big camps who are in very , very close quarters , ” Mitchell said .
Another important category is people who could benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those with preexisting health conditions , like high blood pressure or compromised immune systems .
Mitchell added that testing should not just center on diagnosing patients , but some resources should also be used to estimate the prevalence of the virus in the population .
This information can be valuable for public health officials , providing population-level data that can help them interpret individual tests .
Data can be gathered with diagnostic tests as well as serological tests for antibodies to the virus , which can identify people who were previously infected but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That protocol could mix random tests with contact traces .
“ That ’ s easily justified under a ‘ greater good ’ rationale , ” Mitchell said .
“ That would allow us to take a look overall at the country in a way that has some scientific support for choosing where to lighten up on physical distancing or being at home all the time.
” But as long as testing capacity is limited , there will be people who want tests who can ’ t get them .
Without a massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions about allocating tests lie ahead .
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 .

Testing is an essential part of resolving the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic.
It’s essential to determining who has the virus, which can spread from people who may not exhibit any symptoms at all, sometimes for weeks. These unwitting spreaders are prolonging the pandemic, forcing the government to enact costly economic shutdowns. The way to relax these measures is to test people, sometimes repeatedly, and isolate the infected.
But since there still aren’t enough tests in the US to go around, who should be tested?
Current guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) put hospitalized patients with symptoms; health care workers and first responders with symptoms; and nursing home residents and prisoners at the top of the list — and people who don’t have any Covid-19 symptoms much lower.
However, some researchers say the focus right now should be on finding people with the virus who don’t have symptoms because they are driving new infections. People who are starting to experience fever, shortness of breath, and a loss of smell, they say, should not be tested and should be treated as if they are already infected.
It’s a debate that exposes the tension between treating individual patients and protecting the public at large. But it’s not a hypothetical; these are decisions that have to be made now. Experts estimate we should be deploying upward of millions of tests per day. Yet the United States is barely getting above 220,000 daily tests. And it’s forcing many health districts into the unfamiliar territory of rationing tests, forcing them to confront the prickly question of who does or does not get swabbed.
The number of tests and how they’re deployed will shape the trajectory of this pandemic.
The case against testing people with Covid-19 symptoms
There are several therapies for Covid-19 under investigation. Some, like remdesivir, are being used to treat patients under compassionate use guidelines or emergency use guidelines.
But right now, there isn’t a specific drug for Covid-19 for broad use, so a positive diagnostic test for the illness doesn’t change how most patients are treated. In other words, if you have symptoms, a diagnosis won’t affect how you’re treated by doctors.
In addition, by the time an infected person has symptoms like fever and breathing difficulty, the virus is often quite far into its replication cycle and may be in decline, so a diagnostic test may not even pick up the disease. And at that point, many of the symptoms stem from the body’s immune response to the virus, like inflammation and fever, rather than the direct damage from the virus itself.
France’s health minister Olivier Véran told the French broadcaster LCI on April 30 that testing people with symptoms wouldn’t have done much to control the pandemic.
“A test does not cure. A test doesn’t change the treatment. A test doesn’t change isolation [protocol],” he said. “If we had tested absolutely everyone, everyone with symptoms, we would have had more or less the same number of cases.”
Since it doesn’t make a difference in how patients are treated, Paul Romer, an economist at New York University, argues that testing such patients doesn’t make sense. Romer co-authored an article for the Atlantic with bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel laying out his case for not testing patients with symptoms.
“To safely reopen closed businesses and revive American social life, we need to perform many more tests — and focus them on the people most likely to spread Covid-19, not sick patients,” wrote Romer and Emanuel.
Romer explained that by the time a patient has symptoms of Covid-19, the diagnostic test doesn’t provide much more useful information. For instance, a patient may show up with a very low blood oxygen saturation, fever, and congested lungs, and may have been exposed to someone else with Covid-19.
“Suppose you run the test. If it comes back positive, you’re going to treat it like they’re positive. If it comes back negative, you’re probably going to say ‘it was a false negative and we gotta presume this person is positive’ and do the same thing,” Romer said. “So what’s the point of the test?”
The better approach, according to Romer, is to presume that people with symptoms have the virus and are infectious. And rather than testing again to confirm the virus is gone, hospitals should establish a standard isolation period after the last date symptoms are present. (The CDC recommends 10 days of precautions after symptoms first appear and three days after recovery.) Those saved tests can then be deployed to trace the contacts of the presumed infected, some of whom might not have symptoms and could be contagious.
Those who test positive for Covid-19, even without symptoms, can then be directed to isolate themselves until the infection passes, limiting further spread of the disease. This pattern of repeated testing and isolation will eventually extinguish the pandemic.
The case for testing patients that have Covid-19 symptoms
Tests aren’t the only scarce resource in the Covid-19 pandemic; there also aren’t enough gowns, masks, beds, and health care personnel to go around.
That’s why some experts say we need to make sure critical resources, like personal protective equipment (PPE), are reserved for health workers dealing directly with the highly infectious virus. Some Covid-19 patients need to be treated for weeks, and everyone entering their room needs fresh protective gear every time they enter, so treating a single patient can consume a lot of scarce resources.
“Right now, we’re sort of in the midst of shortages of so many different materials around the country, and one thing our institution is really trying to do is save on PPE,” said David Pride, an infectious disease specialist at UC San Diego Health. “And to do that we’ve had to do a protocol where we are testing every single person that gets admitted to our hospital system.”
Pride added that another issue is that the isolation regulations around Covid-19 patients mean that they can’t see their families, which is a huge emotional burden. “If we can demonstrate through successive testing, meaning multiple rounds of testing, that they are not shedding the virus, they can come off of these precautions, which means that they can actually have their loved ones there,” he said.
Robert Atmar, an infectious disease physician at the Baylor College of Medicine, said that it’s also worth considering how the information from a test can be used for public health.
“The main question is how the health department responds to a positive test,” Atmar said in an email. If no contacts are being traced, then it might make sense to presume infections in patients to save tests. But if everyone who is presumed infected is traced, then contact tracers will waste valuable time and resources following the footsteps of people who may not have been infected.
Christine Mitchell, the executive director at the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School, noted that while finding asymptomatic spreaders is essential to slowing the pandemic, identifying the infected can help limit the spread inside hospitals. For instance, testing can help determine whether someone can share a room with another Covid-19 patient. If they were uninfected, this could expose them to the virus and add new complications.
“I don’t know why it’s necessary to advocate not testing patients,” Mitchell said. “You do need to know these things to create a safe environment for patients as well as a safe environment for other patients.”
How should we prioritize Covid-19 testing for everyone else?
Aside from whether to test patients who have symptoms for Covid-19, most experts do agree on who else should be ranked high for testing, namely health workers and first responders on the front lines of the pandemic.
Doctors, nurses, and hospital staff face a greater risk of exposure to the virus, and because they are in a health setting, they run the risk of infecting others as they move from patient to patient. If they’re sidelined with an infection, they aren’t easily replaced, adding more strain on the health system as the number of caregivers declines. So it’s crucial to catch any infection in their ranks early, which may mean testing as frequently as every day.
Other workers in essential, high-exposure roles like grocery store clerks, aides in assisted care facilities, and delivery personnel should also be tested regularly.
Mitchell said another high priority should be testing people in situations where Covid-19 infections can run rampant. “Nursing homes, senior living facilities, prisons, immigrants in these big camps who are in very, very close quarters,” Mitchell said.
Another important category is people who could benefit from early detection and treatment, particularly those with preexisting health conditions, like high blood pressure or compromised immune systems.
Mitchell added that testing should not just center on diagnosing patients, but some resources should also be used to estimate the prevalence of the virus in the population. This information can be valuable for public health officials, providing population-level data that can help them interpret individual tests. Data can be gathered with diagnostic tests as well as serological tests for antibodies to the virus, which can identify people who were previously infected but don’t have an active infection. That protocol could mix random tests with contact traces.
“That’s easily justified under a ‘greater good’ rationale,” Mitchell said. “That would allow us to take a look overall at the country in a way that has some scientific support for choosing where to lighten up on physical distancing or being at home all the time.”
But as long as testing capacity is limited, there will be people who want tests who can’t get them. Without a massive scale-up in testing capacity, more difficult decisions about allocating tests lie ahead.


vox--2020-05-07--These images show the workers who were always “essential”

The subway is New York ’ s lifeline .
It ’ s what connects us to work and school and family dinners and late-night celebrations ; it ’ s what ties Coney Island to Yankee Stadium , the ponds of Central Park to the boardwalks of the Rockaways .
For $ 2.75 , New Yorkers can get to just about every nook and cranny of the five boroughs , though there are some exceptions .
The city ’ s buses and subways are just as essential as the people who are still riding them right now , in the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city has ever weathered .
While the city ’ s transit system looks different these days — ridership is down 90 percent from this time last year , as millions of people now work from home or are unemployed — there are still millions of New Yorkers who never stopped commuting to work .
Photographer Jorge Garcia captured these workers riding the trains and traversing the streets in late April , as the rest of the city had been sheltering in place for more than a month .
They ’ re the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping dozens of sick people a shift .
They ’ re the subway conductors and bus drivers making sure these people get to their jobs , and the MTA workers who keep the tracks clean and schedules reliable .
They ’ re the grocery store employees who ensure shelves are stocked with bags of rice and cans of beans , the government employees who process applications for benefits , and the undocumented New Yorkers who were excluded from the stimulus bill .
They are , overwhelmingly , working-class people of color .
Millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the line every day by going to work , not necessarily because they want to but because they have to .
Sometimes the train cars are eerily deserted , save for a few masked faces staring at their shoes .
Other times , especially during rush hour , there are still plenty of bodies standing and sitting side by side , turning what would otherwise be a normal trip to work into a health hazard .
Their commutes haven ’ t necessarily changed , but the stakes have .
No longer sandwiched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of people whose labor the city has always relied on are more visible than ever .
At the same time , as the majority of the city ’ s residents shelter in place — either in their apartments or , for some , their Hamptons or country houses — it ’ s never been easier to look away .
It ’ s also never been more critical not to .
Step off the train , up the stairs being cleaned by an MTA worker , out into the moody spring weather , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are pedestrians in masks and harried parents running errands , trying to get back home as quickly as possible .
There are also plenty of people doing their jobs : bike messengers making Postmates deliveries , doormen opening doors for tenants so they don ’ t have to touch germy handles .
People toiling away so the city can keep running , so people sheltering in place can feel comfortable , so things don ’ t fall apart more than they already have .
There ’ s this notion that we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re all shouldering responsibility in our own ways .
Under that logic , many New Yorkers are staying indoors ; the essential workers , that 10 percent of commuters who must still go to work every day , are continuing to show up .
Politicians and public service announcements refer to them in ominously militaristic terms .
The virus is a foreign enemy and the essential workers are the troops .
And therefore , the logic goes , their sacrifice is not only noble but expected .
It ’ s true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to work from home can do is stay where we are .
It ’ s true that by staying home , we ’ re doing what we can do to protect those who can ’ t .
But the sacrifices we ’ re making are by no means equal .
New York ’ s essential workers — mail carriers and gig economy couriers , janitors and cashiers , nursing assistants and hospital clerks — are being asked to put themselves at risk .
We ’ re being asked to sit back and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers have tested positive for Covid-19 so far ; at least 68 have died .
Grocery store workers are dying , too .
So are doctors , nurses , and other health care workers .
A map of Covid-19 cases by zip code shows that the virus has somehow avoided most of Manhattan , as well as the wealthier — and whiter — parts of Brooklyn and Queens .
Meanwhile , black and Latino New Yorkers are dying at twice the rate of their white counterparts .
The same people who are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today are getting sick , and they ’ re largely working-class people of color .
They are risking their health , their families ’ health , to hold the city together .
They aren ’ t making a noble sacrifice ; they ’ re working so they can keep paying rent in a city that gets more expensive by the day .
When this is all over , things can ’ t go back to the way they were before .
Acknowledging the sacrifices made by essential workers isn ’ t enough .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people than it is to protect them .
It ’ s one thing to thank essential workers for their sacrifice — it ’ s another to pay them fairly for their work , ensure they can afford housing and health care , and build a city where all New Yorkers are cared for .
And to do that , we need to address the root causes of the inequality that has caused this virus to disproportionately affect people who were already struggling .
We can ’ t pretend accolades are a substitute for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York City-based photographer and founder of the NYC Street Photography Collective .
He spends most of his time wandering sidewalks looking for interesting spontaneous moments .
These photos were taken April 20 to 28 , around parts of Manhattan , Brooklyn , and Queens .
Gaby de Valle is a freelance reporter who primarily covers immigration and labor .
Her work has appeared in Vox , the Nation , the Baffler , and other publications .
She ’ s the co-founder of Border/Lines , a weekly newsletter about immigration policy .

The subway is New York’s lifeline. It’s what connects us to work and school and family dinners and late-night celebrations; it’s what ties Coney Island to Yankee Stadium, the ponds of Central Park to the boardwalks of the Rockaways. For $2.75, New Yorkers can get to just about every nook and cranny of the five boroughs, though there are some exceptions. The city’s buses and subways are just as essential as the people who are still riding them right now, in the middle of one of the most devastating crises the city has ever weathered.
While the city’s transit system looks different these days — ridership is down 90 percent from this time last year, as millions of people now work from home or are unemployed — there are still millions of New Yorkers who never stopped commuting to work. Photographer Jorge Garcia captured these workers riding the trains and traversing the streets in late April, as the rest of the city had been sheltering in place for more than a month. They’re the doctors and nurses and hospital support staff helping dozens of sick people a shift. They’re the subway conductors and bus drivers making sure these people get to their jobs, and the MTA workers who keep the tracks clean and schedules reliable. They’re the grocery store employees who ensure shelves are stocked with bags of rice and cans of beans, the government employees who process applications for benefits, and the undocumented New Yorkers who were excluded from the stimulus bill. They are, overwhelmingly, working-class people of color.
Millions of New Yorkers are putting their lives on the line every day by going to work, not necessarily because they want to but because they have to. Sometimes the train cars are eerily deserted, save for a few masked faces staring at their shoes. Other times, especially during rush hour, there are still plenty of bodies standing and sitting side by side, turning what would otherwise be a normal trip to work into a health hazard. Their commutes haven’t necessarily changed, but the stakes have.
No longer sandwiched between bankers and office workers, the millions of people whose labor the city has always relied on are more visible than ever. At the same time, as the majority of the city’s residents shelter in place — either in their apartments or, for some, their Hamptons or country houses — it’s never been easier to look away. It’s also never been more critical not to.
Step off the train, up the stairs being cleaned by an MTA worker, out into the moody spring weather, and the city looks almost apocalyptic. There are pedestrians in masks and harried parents running errands, trying to get back home as quickly as possible. There are also plenty of people doing their jobs: bike messengers making Postmates deliveries, doormen opening doors for tenants so they don’t have to touch germy handles. People toiling away so the city can keep running, so people sheltering in place can feel comfortable, so things don’t fall apart more than they already have.
There’s this notion that we’re all in this together, that we’re all shouldering responsibility in our own ways. Under that logic, many New Yorkers are staying indoors; the essential workers, that 10 percent of commuters who must still go to work every day, are continuing to show up. Politicians and public service announcements refer to them in ominously militaristic terms. The virus is a foreign enemy and the essential workers are the troops. And therefore, the logic goes, their sacrifice is not only noble but expected.
It’s true that the least those of us lucky enough to work from home can do is stay where we are. It’s true that by staying home, we’re doing what we can do to protect those who can’t. But the sacrifices we’re making are by no means equal. New York’s essential workers — mail carriers and gig economy couriers, janitors and cashiers, nursing assistants and hospital clerks — are being asked to put themselves at risk. We’re being asked to sit back and let them.
More than 2,400 MTA workers have tested positive for Covid-19 so far; at least 68 have died. Grocery store workers are dying, too. So are doctors, nurses, and other health care workers. A map of Covid-19 cases by zip code shows that the virus has somehow avoided most of Manhattan, as well as the wealthier — and whiter — parts of Brooklyn and Queens. Meanwhile, black and Latino New Yorkers are dying at twice the rate of their white counterparts. The same people who are being asked to keep showing up to work today are getting sick, and they’re largely working-class people of color. They are risking their health, their families’ health, to hold the city together. They aren’t making a noble sacrifice; they’re working so they can keep paying rent in a city that gets more expensive by the day.
When this is all over, things can’t go back to the way they were before. Acknowledging the sacrifices made by essential workers isn’t enough. It’s easier to lionize vulnerable people than it is to protect them. It’s one thing to thank essential workers for their sacrifice — it’s another to pay them fairly for their work, ensure they can afford housing and health care, and build a city where all New Yorkers are cared for. And to do that, we need to address the root causes of the inequality that has caused this virus to disproportionately affect people who were already struggling. We can’t pretend accolades are a substitute for equity.
Jorge Garcia is an independent New York City-based photographer and founder of the NYC Street Photography Collective. He spends most of his time wandering sidewalks looking for interesting spontaneous moments. These photos were taken April 20 to 28, around parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.
Gaby de Valle is a freelance reporter who primarily covers immigration and labor. Her work has appeared in Vox, the Nation, the Baffler, and other publications. She’s the co-founder of Border/Lines, a weekly newsletter about immigration policy.


vox--2020-05-07--A sexual assault allegation hasn’t hurt Biden’s poll numbers — yet

Tara Reade ’ s sexual assault accusation hasn ’ t made a noticeable dent in Joe Biden ’ s poll numbers against President Donald Trump — yet .
The presumptive Democratic nominee has “ unequivocally ” denied sexual assault allegations from Reade , a former Senate staffer of his , for an incident she says happened in 1993 .
While some are calling for Biden to step down or be replaced at the Democratic convention , polling so far shows Democrats and independent voters are still largely behind the former vice president .
A new national poll by Monmouth University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 3.6 percent shows Biden leading Trump 50-41 .
The same poll showed voters evenly split on whether they believed Reade ’ s allegation : 37 percent of voters said it is “ probably true , ” while 32 percent said it is “ probably not true ” and another 31 percent had no opinion .
Other polls out this week paint a similar picture : Even if some voters think the Reade allegations are true , that may not be enough to turn some them off of Biden unless more corroboration or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Vox .
“ I think basically the news itself in terms of its impact is not enough to override what is the underlying fundamental of this election , which is a referendum on the president , ” Monmouth polling director Patrick Murray told Vox .
“ The alternative has to be really something unacceptable .
I think in a different situation in a different time with different candidates , this would have a much more significant impact for Biden.
” While the Monmouth poll shows Biden ’ s approval rating dipping slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Trump remain relatively stable — even growing a bit from past Monmouth polls .
It should be noted that Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct ranging from harassment to assault by more than 20 women , and was elected president in 2016 a month after a tape emerged of him bragging about assaulting women .
Two other polls released this week suggest the Reade allegations are causing a minority of Democratic voters to rethink the party ’ s choice for nominee , with women and younger voters more skeptical of Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consult poll found about 25 percent of Democrats wanted Biden to be replaced as the Democratic nominee after watching his denial of the Reade allegations , while another poll by Politico and Morning Consult found 32 percent of voters from all parties said Reade ’ s allegations made them less likely to vote for Biden .
Fracturing party unity and slipping poll numbers with young voters in particular could spell trouble for Biden down the line .
But at this point in the campaign , these numbers may in part reflect that Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these voters weren ’ t excited about Biden to begin with , pollsters told Vox .
“ If I ’ m on the Biden campaign and I see that one in four Democrats want Biden replaced at this point , I ’ m thinking that number is not that bad , ” said Cameron Easley , senior editor at Morning Consult .
“ In fact , I might expect it to be a little bit higher .
Unless you see some other details emerge , some other Democratic elites and leaders come off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wouldn ’ t expect these numbers to get much higher.
” As he runs against Trump — a man whose response to sexual assault allegations has been to attack his accusers — Biden has leaned heavily into his image as a champion of women ’ s rights and a moral authority .
Whether or not Reade ’ s allegations are ever proven , they could get in the way of the contrast Biden wants to draw .
A Morning Consult tracking poll conducted May 2-3 with a 2 percent margin of error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ton of daylight between the two men on the issue of sexual harassment and misconduct .
The poll showed 44 percent of voters said it ’ s a “ major issue ” for Trump , while 37 percent said the same for Biden .
The Trump campaign has already seized on the Reade allegations , and the coming weeks will set up a key test of how Biden and his campaign continue to respond .
“ How he handles this is really important , ” said Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened and more about how Vice President Biden will deal with it.
” What the polls tell us about how voters view the Reade allegations Three polls from Morning Consult , Politico , and Monmouth University released this week paint an overall picture that suggests even if voters believe Reade ’ s allegations , it may not be enough for them to dump Biden .
“ It doesn ’ t change the underlying fundamental , ” Murray said of what the results suggest .
“ That could change , we could get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But right now , it ’ s not enough — even for people who believe it , it ’ s not enough.
” The Monmouth national poll of 739 registered voters showed a clear partisan split : 50 percent of Republicans said the allegation was probably true , compared to 17 percent who said it probably was not true ; 55 percent of Democrats said it was probably not true compared to 20 percent who believed it was true .
Independents were more likely than not to believe Reid ’ s claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was true compared to 22 percent who said it was not true .
Another 35 percent of voters said they had no opinion .
“ There are Democratic-leaning independents in there — this is the group that says , ‘ I believe this but I ’ m still voting for Biden , ’ ” Murray said .
“ They ’ re not hardcore Democrats , but they ’ re anti-Trump people.
” A Monday Morning Consult poll of 1,991 registered voters nationwide with a 2 percentage point margin of error found 26 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ select a different nominee after watching Biden ’ s denial of the allegations in an MSNBC interview , while 61 percent said Biden should remain the Democratic nominee .
Overall , 41 percent of voters of all parties in the Morning Consult poll said they found Biden ’ s denial credible , while 38 percent said it was not credible ( another 22 percent said they didn ’ t know ) .
Morning Consult found 61 percent of Democrats consider Biden ’ s denials credible , compared to just 19 percent who said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also found a noticeable gender and generational split on the issue ; Democratic women were 12 percentage points less likely to believe Biden ’ s denial than Democratic men .
Similarly , Democrats under the age of 45 were 14 points less likely to believe Biden than Democrats 45 and up .
But when it came to the question of actually replacing Biden as the nominee ticket , just 24 percent of Democratic men and 28 percent of Democratic women said yes .
There was a much bigger generational split on this question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polled said Biden should be replaced , while just 15 percent of Democrats ages 45 and older said he should be .
The finding that younger voters were more likely to want Biden replaced matches up with Suffolk pollster Paleologos ’ s recent USA Today poll of more than 600 Sanders voters , which found 22 percent of those voters said they ’ d vote for a third-party candidate and 60 percent said they were “ not very or not excited at all ” about Biden ’ s nomination .
Sanders largely captured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while Biden did well with older voters .
“ That ’ s the Democratic wheelhouse for volunteers , ” Paleologos said .
“ And here they are saying by a clear majority that they ’ re not excited .
So Biden needs to be mindful of that , too.
” The Tuesday Morning Consult and Politico poll ( also with a 2-point margin of error ) found 32 percent of voters said the Reade allegations made it somewhat or much less likely they ’ d vote for Biden , while 42 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That poll also found 36 percent of voters said the Democratic Party should “ definitely ” or “ probably ” select a different nominee , compared to 40 percent who said “ definitely ” or “ probably ” not .
“ Right now he ’ s doing well in the polling , but that could turn on a dime , ” Paleologos said .
“ If there is other information that ’ s sitting out there that contradicts that , then I think his approach to the issue is going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How the Biden campaign is responding to the allegations Biden ’ s campaign was already making outreach to women a substantial part of its operation , well before Reade ’ s allegations surfaced .
Now , Biden is walking a tightrope .
The former vice president has stated that “ unequivocally , this claim is simply not true , ” but he has also encouraged journalists to further investigate and vet Reade ’ s claims .
Biden ’ s campaign recently wrote to the secretary of the US Senate asking to make public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him ( the Senate has denied Biden ’ s request ) .
“ My knowledge that it isn ’ t true does nothing to shake my belief that women have to be able to be heard and that all the claims be taken seriously , ” Biden said at a recent fundraiser .
“ I know that this claim has no merit .
But as a candidate for president , I ’ m accountable to the American people .
And I welcome that accountability and the scrutiny of the press as well.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him in order to win in November ; as a voting bloc , they can ’ t be underestimated .
Women are far more likely to consider themselves Democrats or leaning Democratic than men , and the gap between women and men has consistently grown since 2012 , when women voted for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by 11 percentage points .
In 2016 , that gap widened to 13 points for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump , and increased to 19 points for Democratic House candidates over Republican ones in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d pick a woman for his running mate and promised to appoint a black woman to the US Supreme Court if elected president .
His pledge to select a woman vice president was a tacit recognition of how big a role women have in the Democratic Party ; the 2016 nominee was a woman , and women candidates and voters alike powered Democratic wins in the 2018 midterms .
Not only do Reade ’ s claims put a question mark over Biden ’ s record on women ’ s issues , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the waters on the central theme to Biden ’ s candidacy : restoring “ the soul of the country , the character of our people.
” It ’ s far too early to tell whether Republicans will be successful in that attempt , Murray said .
“ We just don ’ t have enough information yet in the polling data to suggest where a tipping point might be where it may start swinging voters against Biden on that issue or neutralize that campaign strategy for Biden , ” he told Vox .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 will enable our staff to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Tara Reade’s sexual assault accusation hasn’t made a noticeable dent in Joe Biden’s poll numbers against President Donald Trump — yet.
The presumptive Democratic nominee has “unequivocally” denied sexual assault allegations from Reade, a former Senate staffer of his, for an incident she says happened in 1993. While some are calling for Biden to step down or be replaced at the Democratic convention, polling so far shows Democrats and independent voters are still largely behind the former vice president.
A new national poll by Monmouth University released Wednesday with a margin of error of 3.6 percent shows Biden leading Trump 50-41. The same poll showed voters evenly split on whether they believed Reade’s allegation: 37 percent of voters said it is “probably true,” while 32 percent said it is “probably not true” and another 31 percent had no opinion.
Other polls out this week paint a similar picture: Even if some voters think the Reade allegations are true, that may not be enough to turn some them off of Biden unless more corroboration or additional accusers come forward, numerous pollsters told Vox.
“I think basically the news itself in terms of its impact is not enough to override what is the underlying fundamental of this election, which is a referendum on the president,” Monmouth polling director Patrick Murray told Vox. “The alternative has to be really something unacceptable. I think in a different situation in a different time with different candidates, this would have a much more significant impact for Biden.”
While the Monmouth poll shows Biden’s approval rating dipping slightly, his numbers in a head-to-head matchup against Trump remain relatively stable — even growing a bit from past Monmouth polls. It should be noted that Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct ranging from harassment to assault by more than 20 women, and was elected president in 2016 a month after a tape emerged of him bragging about assaulting women.
Two other polls released this week suggest the Reade allegations are causing a minority of Democratic voters to rethink the party’s choice for nominee, with women and younger voters more skeptical of Biden’s denial. A Monday Morning Consult poll found about 25 percent of Democrats wanted Biden to be replaced as the Democratic nominee after watching his denial of the Reade allegations, while another poll by Politico and Morning Consult found 32 percent of voters from all parties said Reade’s allegations made them less likely to vote for Biden.
Fracturing party unity and slipping poll numbers with young voters in particular could spell trouble for Biden down the line. But at this point in the campaign, these numbers may in part reflect that Democrats recently finished a divisive primary — and these voters weren’t excited about Biden to begin with, pollsters told Vox.
“If I’m on the Biden campaign and I see that one in four Democrats want Biden replaced at this point, I’m thinking that number is not that bad,” said Cameron Easley, senior editor at Morning Consult. “In fact, I might expect it to be a little bit higher. Unless you see some other details emerge, some other Democratic elites and leaders come off the sidelines and turn on Biden, I wouldn’t expect these numbers to get much higher.”
As he runs against Trump — a man whose response to sexual assault allegations has been to attack his accusers — Biden has leaned heavily into his image as a champion of women’s rights and a moral authority. Whether or not Reade’s allegations are ever proven, they could get in the way of the contrast Biden wants to draw.
A Morning Consult tracking poll conducted May 2-3 with a 2 percent margin of error showed voters don’t see a ton of daylight between the two men on the issue of sexual harassment and misconduct. The poll showed 44 percent of voters said it’s a “major issue” for Trump, while 37 percent said the same for Biden. The Trump campaign has already seized on the Reade allegations, and the coming weeks will set up a key test of how Biden and his campaign continue to respond.
“How he handles this is really important,” said Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos. “I think it’s less about what happened and more about how Vice President Biden will deal with it.”
What the polls tell us about how voters view the Reade allegations
Three polls from Morning Consult, Politico, and Monmouth University released this week paint an overall picture that suggests even if voters believe Reade’s allegations, it may not be enough for them to dump Biden.
“It doesn’t change the underlying fundamental,” Murray said of what the results suggest. “That could change, we could get more allegations [from] more women. But right now, it’s not enough — even for people who believe it, it’s not enough.”
The Monmouth national poll of 739 registered voters showed a clear partisan split: 50 percent of Republicans said the allegation was probably true, compared to 17 percent who said it probably was not true; 55 percent of Democrats said it was probably not true compared to 20 percent who believed it was true. Independents were more likely than not to believe Reid’s claim; 43 percent said they believed it was true compared to 22 percent who said it was not true. Another 35 percent of voters said they had no opinion.
“There are Democratic-leaning independents in there — this is the group that says, ‘I believe this but I’m still voting for Biden,’” Murray said. “They’re not hardcore Democrats, but they’re anti-Trump people.”
A Monday Morning Consult poll of 1,991 registered voters nationwide with a 2 percentage point margin of error found 26 percent of voters said the Democratic Party should select a different nominee after watching Biden’s denial of the allegations in an MSNBC interview, while 61 percent said Biden should remain the Democratic nominee.
Overall, 41 percent of voters of all parties in the Morning Consult poll said they found Biden’s denial credible, while 38 percent said it was not credible (another 22 percent said they didn’t know). Morning Consult found 61 percent of Democrats consider Biden’s denials credible, compared to just 19 percent who said they didn’t.
The poll also found a noticeable gender and generational split on the issue; Democratic women were 12 percentage points less likely to believe Biden’s denial than Democratic men. Similarly, Democrats under the age of 45 were 14 points less likely to believe Biden than Democrats 45 and up. But when it came to the question of actually replacing Biden as the nominee ticket, just 24 percent of Democratic men and 28 percent of Democratic women said yes.
There was a much bigger generational split on this question: 40 percent of Democrats under 45 polled said Biden should be replaced, while just 15 percent of Democrats ages 45 and older said he should be.
The finding that younger voters were more likely to want Biden replaced matches up with Suffolk pollster Paleologos’s recent USA Today poll of more than 600 Sanders voters, which found 22 percent of those voters said they’d vote for a third-party candidate and 60 percent said they were “not very or not excited at all” about Biden’s nomination. Sanders largely captured the youth vote during the 2020 primaries, while Biden did well with older voters.
“That’s the Democratic wheelhouse for volunteers,” Paleologos said. “And here they are saying by a clear majority that they’re not excited. So Biden needs to be mindful of that, too.”
The Tuesday Morning Consult and Politico poll (also with a 2-point margin of error) found 32 percent of voters said the Reade allegations made it somewhat or much less likely they’d vote for Biden, while 42 percent said it made no difference either way. That poll also found 36 percent of voters said the Democratic Party should “definitely” or “probably” select a different nominee, compared to 40 percent who said “definitely” or “probably” not.
“Right now he’s doing well in the polling, but that could turn on a dime,” Paleologos said. “If there is other information that’s sitting out there that contradicts that, then I think his approach to the issue is going to be key, especially among swing voters.”
How the Biden campaign is responding to the allegations
Biden’s campaign was already making outreach to women a substantial part of its operation, well before Reade’s allegations surfaced.
Now, Biden is walking a tightrope. The former vice president has stated that “unequivocally, this claim is simply not true,” but he has also encouraged journalists to further investigate and vet Reade’s claims. Biden’s campaign recently wrote to the secretary of the US Senate asking to make public any records of a sexual harassment complaint against him (the Senate has denied Biden’s request).
“My knowledge that it isn’t true does nothing to shake my belief that women have to be able to be heard and that all the claims be taken seriously,” Biden said at a recent fundraiser. “I know that this claim has no merit. But as a candidate for president, I’m accountable to the American people. And I welcome that accountability and the scrutiny of the press as well.”
Biden needs women to turn out for him in order to win in November; as a voting bloc, they can’t be underestimated. Women are far more likely to consider themselves Democrats or leaning Democratic than men, and the gap between women and men has consistently grown since 2012, when women voted for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by 11 percentage points. In 2016, that gap widened to 13 points for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, and increased to 19 points for Democratic House candidates over Republican ones in 2018.
In March, Biden announced he’d pick a woman for his running mate and promised to appoint a black woman to the US Supreme Court if elected president. His pledge to select a woman vice president was a tacit recognition of how big a role women have in the Democratic Party; the 2016 nominee was a woman, and women candidates and voters alike powered Democratic wins in the 2018 midterms.
Not only do Reade’s claims put a question mark over Biden’s record on women’s issues, they could also give Republicans ammunition to muddy the waters on the central theme to Biden’s candidacy: restoring “the soul of the country, the character of our people.”
It’s far too early to tell whether Republicans will be successful in that attempt, Murray said.
“We just don’t have enough information yet in the polling data to suggest where a tipping point might be where it may start swinging voters against Biden on that issue or neutralize that campaign strategy for Biden,” he told Vox.