vox--2020-06-04--Why Georgia’s reopening hasn’t led to a surge in coronavirus cases (so far)

Georgia was the first state to start reopening its economy after shutting down due to the coronavirus pandemic .
When the shelter-in-place order expired on April 30 , a lot of experts and much of the public worried about the worst : a sustained spike in Covid-19 cases that would overwhelm emergency rooms and lead to a surge in deaths .
Yet more than a month later , the worst hasn ’ t arrived .
Even as the state has increased its testing capacity , boosting its ability to pick up new coronavirus cases , the total of daily new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some ups and downs .
The state isn ’ t getting significantly better — dozens of Covid-19 deaths are still reported each day in Georgia — but it doesn ’ t seem to be getting much worse either .
It ’ s possible this data doesn ’ t tell the full story — maybe the state is underreporting or even manipulating the data to look better , which Georgia has already been caught doing at times .
But if that were the case , coronavirus would still show up in hospitals — by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention taken from hospitals , that doesn ’ t seem to be happening either : With about 6 percent of inpatient beds occupied by Covid-19 patients , Georgia is , again , not doing great .
But it ’ s not in the 10 worst states nationally , with several states that started to reopen later ahead .
I turned to experts with one question : Why isn ’ t Georgia , at least so far , experiencing the worst-case scenario that some expected ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ important not to conclude too much from the current data .
It ’ s still early in the process , given the coronavirus ’ s incubation period and how long it can take to spread .
It ’ s still possible that things will get worse .
“ What I and others were saying back at the end of April is we ’ re not going to really see anything until June , ” Eleanor Murray , an epidemiologist at Boston University , told me .
“ I think that ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real possibility of data manipulation .
Georgia has not proven itself to be above this .
Until recently , it was including a type of test into its test count that experts say shouldn ’ t be included .
It has also , for example , published a chart that switched dates in a way that , deliberately or not , made the state ’ s data look more favorable .
“ It is very difficult to sort out where we are in Georgia , ” Melanie Thompson , a principal investigator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told me .
“ We have some confusing issues with our data and the way they are reported by the state of Georgia on their website.
” Aside from that , experts said other factors could play a role .
Maybe people are staying home even though the shelter-in-place order is over .
Perhaps masks and other practices people have adopted as a result of the pandemic , like washing our hands more thoroughly , are playing a big role in driving down transmission even as people go out more .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help — or there could be some other factor we don ’ t know about , even just luck , that could play a driving role .
More than showing whether government-mandated lockdowns are necessary to suppress the coronavirus , Georgia ’ s experience so far seems to demonstrate how little we still know about this virus warping all of our lives .
How things progress from here , though , could teach us a lot about Covid-19 .
It ’ s been a month since Georgia ’ s shelter-in-place order .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus to spread and incubate in people .
But life doesn ’ t always work like theory , and there are several reasons new coronavirus cases could take longer than two weeks — maybe even months — to start going up after a government ends its shelter-in-place order .
People have to go out more .
They have to get infected , and , typically , symptoms have to show .
They have to get tested for the virus .
That sample then has to be processed before it ’ s reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to be reported to Georgia ’ s government .
The state then has to report the test results .
Deaths are even more delayed , since they take place up to weeks after the initial infection .
“ If a whole lot more people are being infected on one day , and I ’ m monitoring the death data , I ’ m not going to see that uptick in cases for maybe a month or more , ” Lauren Meyers , a mathematical biologist at the University of Texas at Austin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases do start to pick up at any particular point , a full outbreak can take time to get going .
Daily reported cases in Georgia initially sat below 100 for much of March before quickly shooting up to the hundreds through late March and early April .
The result is we may not know how the reopening has affected Georgia for weeks or even months after it began .
2 ) There might be some data manipulation At the least , one can say that the Georgia Department of Public Health has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data reporting .
At the worst , there could be some manipulation going on .
As Willoughby Mariano and J. Scott Trubey reported for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution , the state in May posted a chart that seemed to show that “ new confirmed cases in the counties with the most infections had dropped every single day for the past two weeks.
” Upon closer inspection , the chart was extremely misleading — displaying two Sundays in one week and putting data from May 2 before data for April 26 .
It seemed like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where there wasn ’ t one .
Georgia officials later apologized for the original version of the chart .
But this wasn ’ t the first or last time that Georgia got caught making a mess of its data .
Mariano and Trubey noted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution , “ This unforced error — at least the third in as many weeks — is confounding observers who have noted sloppiness in case counts , death counts and other measures that are fundamental to tracking a disease outbreak.
” More recently , Georgia was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its test count .
According to experts , the main test for the daily counts should be diagnostic tests .
Those gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is , therefore , sick right at the moment of the test .
Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been sick in the past .
Since diagnostic tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection , they ’ re seen as much more reliable for evaluating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a state .
“ We need to understand that there is a new case of a new disease happening in our community , ” Pia MacDonald , an epidemiologist at the research institute RTI International , told me .
“ There are public health interventions that need to happen around that.
” But Georgia was among several states including antibody tests in its count .
Only later in May did it start separating out antibody tests from the total — showing that the antibody tests were inflating the overall number by nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When all of these events are taken together , it ’ s enough to make experts ask if Georgia is more interested in making the numbers look favorable than it is in reporting them truthfully .
And that might create a warped view of how exactly the state is doing after reopening .
“ The virus isn ’ t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable ; it ’ s going to continue to spread , ” Crystal Watson , a senior scholar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security , told me .
“ It ’ s better to really understand what ’ s going on and report that accurately.
” A Georgia Department of Public Health spokesperson said , “ There have been several improvements to the COVID-19 Daily Status Report on the Georgia Department of Public Health ’ s ( DPH ) website .
These changes are designed to make the dashboard more user-friendly while providing an accurate picture of COVID-19 in Georgia.
” The spokesperson added , “ DPH will regularly review and update features of the dashboard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Before governments told people to stay home , many people were staying home anyway .
Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp didn ’ t issue a shelter-in-place order until April 2 — making the state among the last to shut down .
But OpenTable data indicates that dine-in seating fell by more than 90 percent by the end of March compared to the previous year .
A mix of individual behavioral changes , local and other state government actions , federal advisories , and other factors led people to stay home , shelter-in-place order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s shelter-in-place order expired , dining in has remained suppressed : As of June 4 , it ’ s down more than 75 percent compared to the year before .
That ’ s more people out than several weeks prior , when dining in was down by 80 to 90 percent , but it ’ s still a lot of empty restaurant seats .
Thompson , who lives in Atlanta , vouched for this .
When Georgia began to reopen , she said , “ Traffic was still very low .
… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people were not going to get haircuts.
” “ The virus isn ’ t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable ; it ’ s going to continue to spread ” Data from Google , which tracks people ’ s movement through their Google accounts , tells a similar story : Georgians are starting to trickle out more , but they ’ re still going out less than they were before .
As of May 29 , retail and recreation outings are down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on activity before the coronavirus .
Transit stations are down 38 percent .
Workplaces are down 36 percent , and grocery stores and pharmacies are down 4 percent .
Meanwhile , residential places — meaning , where people stay home — are up 13 percent .
Only parks , which have a relatively low risk of transmission , are up 44 percent .
Again , this is slowly changing ; people are trickling out more , bit by bit .
The past week of protests over police brutality have led to a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including in Atlanta .
This speaks to why it ’ s too early to judge Georgia ’ s experience : Things could change as more people get out more .
“ If at some point people do decide this is over and opening up didn ’ t do anything [ bad ] , and they go out to concerts and crowded parks and whatever , then we ’ ll probably start to see an increase in cases again , ” Murray said .
4 ) Masks , good hygiene , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staying at home , other behavioral changes could be putting a dent in Covid-19 spread as well .
Compared to just several months ago , Americans are more likely to wash their hands , avoid touching their faces , wear a mask , and keep at least 6 feet from each other .
They ’ re also probably less likely to go out when they do feel sick .
We don ’ t know how much all of these things are helping , but experts suspect that these practices are reducing how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Consider masks .
Just a few months ago , the idea that many Americans would go out with one was unthinkable .
Today , polls show that the great majority of Americans are wearing masks sometimes if not always when they go out .
The research on masks isn ’ t great , but there ’ s some suggestive evidence : As long as people actually wear the masks and use them properly , studies indicate that they have some effect in reducing disease transmission overall .
Some experts hypothesize — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played a significant role in containing Covid-19 outbreaks in several Asian countries where their use is widespread , like South Korea and Japan .
Experts say they wouldn ’ t be surprised if masks play a bigger role than previously expected .
As we ’ ve learned more about the coronavirus , we ’ ve gotten more and more evidence that it spreads through respiratory droplets .
A mask quite literally stops those respiratory droplets .
And that ’ s only one of the things people have changed .
From no longer shaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , we have done a lot to make sure this virus doesn ’ t spread as easily as it did when we first learned of it .
This applies not just to individuals but to institutions too — workplaces , restaurants , public services , and so on .
“ Companies are also increasingly taking responsibility for making sure their workforce stays safe , ” MacDonald said .
Whether it ’ s masks or something else , a large beneficial effect from behavioral changes while going out would be very good news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s safe to ease at least some social distancing as long as people follow certain practices .
That might let Americans go out and about more — and stay safe — even without strict shelter-in-place orders in effect .
“ It ’ s possible that those kinds of measures can slow transmission , can reduce transmission , ” Meyers said .
“ I ’ m certainly hopeful that they do.
” But , she added , “ the jury is still out.
” 5 ) Maybe luck , or something else we don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a role There ’ s another answer for why coronavirus cases aren ’ t increasing in Georgia : We don ’ t know .
The reality is we ’ re still learning a lot about the coronavirus , its spread , and how humans behave as a result of the virus .
There likely are factors we haven ’ t anticipated that influence its spread .
It could even come down to sheer luck .
Although there are myriad factors that affect the coronavirus — the virus ’ s characteristics , population density @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behave , and more — whether all these factors come together to create an event that leads to explosive spread of the virus does come a bit down to chance .
Does that flight with a person who ’ s infected land in Atlanta or New York City ?
Does that person who ’ s , for whatever reason , more likely to shed the virus live in south Georgia or across the border in north Florida ?
Do several people who are sick end up at a concert in South Carolina or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to mitigate these events — stop flights , discourage travel , prohibit large gatherings , encourage good hygiene and mask use , and so on .
But chaos can play a major role .
“ There ’ s absolutely an element of chance and a lot of uncertainty about what ’ s going to happen in every single community and every single country , ” Meyers said .
And especially because there ’ s so much about the coronavirus we don ’ t know , some of the steps we could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That adds more chance to the equation , along with more uncertainty as to why one place suffered a big outbreak but not another .
Of course , luck and uncertainty aren ’ t something you want to rely on to keep the public safe .
That ’ s why experts focus on how what we do know can help stop the spread of Covid-19 .
And they worry that by reopening too early — before they build up systems to test , trace , and isolate the coronavirus — states like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we do know helps .
We ’ ll find out if the concerns are warranted in the coming weeks and months .
“ We can do a lot to reduce our risk , ” Murray said .
“ Then we can also hopefully have good chance outcomes as well.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Georgia was the first state to start reopening its economy after shutting down due to the coronavirus pandemic. When the shelter-in-place order expired on April 30, a lot of experts and much of the public worried about the worst: a sustained spike in Covid-19 cases that would overwhelm emergency rooms and lead to a surge in deaths.
Yet more than a month later, the worst hasn’t arrived.
Even as the state has increased its testing capacity, boosting its ability to pick up new coronavirus cases, the total of daily new cases has remained relatively flat, despite some ups and downs. The state isn’t getting significantly better — dozens of Covid-19 deaths are still reported each day in Georgia — but it doesn’t seem to be getting much worse either.
It’s possible this data doesn’t tell the full story — maybe the state is underreporting or even manipulating the data to look better, which Georgia has already been caught doing at times.
But if that were the case, coronavirus would still show up in hospitals — by way of sick patients. Based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention taken from hospitals, that doesn’t seem to be happening either: With about 6 percent of inpatient beds occupied by Covid-19 patients, Georgia is, again, not doing great. But it’s not in the 10 worst states nationally, with several states that started to reopen later ahead.
I turned to experts with one question: Why isn’t Georgia, at least so far, experiencing the worst-case scenario that some expected?
Most experts agreed that it’s important not to conclude too much from the current data. It’s still early in the process, given the coronavirus’s incubation period and how long it can take to spread. It’s still possible that things will get worse.
“What I and others were saying back at the end of April is we’re not going to really see anything until June,” Eleanor Murray, an epidemiologist at Boston University, told me. “I think that’s still the case.”
There’s also the real possibility of data manipulation. Georgia has not proven itself to be above this. Until recently, it was including a type of test into its test count that experts say shouldn’t be included. It has also, for example, published a chart that switched dates in a way that, deliberately or not, made the state’s data look more favorable.
“It is very difficult to sort out where we are in Georgia,” Melanie Thompson, a principal investigator at the AIDS Research Consortium of Atlanta, told me. “We have some confusing issues with our data and the way they are reported by the state of Georgia on their website.”
Aside from that, experts said other factors could play a role. Maybe people are staying home even though the shelter-in-place order is over. Perhaps masks and other practices people have adopted as a result of the pandemic, like washing our hands more thoroughly, are playing a big role in driving down transmission even as people go out more. It’s possible the warmer weather could help — or there could be some other factor we don’t know about, even just luck, that could play a driving role.
More than showing whether government-mandated lockdowns are necessary to suppress the coronavirus, Georgia’s experience so far seems to demonstrate how little we still know about this virus warping all of our lives. How things progress from here, though, could teach us a lot about Covid-19.
1) It’s too early
It’s been a month since Georgia’s shelter-in-place order. In theory, that gives enough time for the virus to spread and incubate in people.
But life doesn’t always work like theory, and there are several reasons new coronavirus cases could take longer than two weeks — maybe even months — to start going up after a government ends its shelter-in-place order.
People have to go out more. They have to get infected, and, typically, symptoms have to show. They have to get tested for the virus. That sample then has to be processed before it’s reported as a completed test. That test has to be reported to Georgia’s government. The state then has to report the test results.
Deaths are even more delayed, since they take place up to weeks after the initial infection. “If a whole lot more people are being infected on one day, and I’m monitoring the death data, I’m not going to see that uptick in cases for maybe a month or more,” Lauren Meyers, a mathematical biologist at the University of Texas at Austin, told me.
And even if cases do start to pick up at any particular point, a full outbreak can take time to get going. Daily reported cases in Georgia initially sat below 100 for much of March before quickly shooting up to the hundreds through late March and early April.
The result is we may not know how the reopening has affected Georgia for weeks or even months after it began.
2) There might be some data manipulation
At the least, one can say that the Georgia Department of Public Health has had some major glitches with its coronavirus data reporting. At the worst, there could be some manipulation going on.
As Willoughby Mariano and J. Scott Trubey reported for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the state in May posted a chart that seemed to show that “new confirmed cases in the counties with the most infections had dropped every single day for the past two weeks.” Upon closer inspection, the chart was extremely misleading — displaying two Sundays in one week and putting data from May 2 before data for April 26. It seemed like an attempt to create a downward slope where there wasn’t one.
Georgia officials later apologized for the original version of the chart.
But this wasn’t the first or last time that Georgia got caught making a mess of its data. Mariano and Trubey noted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “This unforced error — at least the third in as many weeks — is confounding observers who have noted sloppiness in case counts, death counts and other measures that are fundamental to tracking a disease outbreak.”
More recently, Georgia was caught including the wrong kind of test in its test count.
According to experts, the main test for the daily counts should be diagnostic tests. Those gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is, therefore, sick right at the moment of the test. Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been sick in the past. Since diagnostic tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection, they’re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state.
“We need to understand that there is a new case of a new disease happening in our community,” Pia MacDonald, an epidemiologist at the research institute RTI International, told me. “There are public health interventions that need to happen around that.”
But Georgia was among several states including antibody tests in its count. Only later in May did it start separating out antibody tests from the total — showing that the antibody tests were inflating the overall number by nearly 16 percent as of June 4.
When all of these events are taken together, it’s enough to make experts ask if Georgia is more interested in making the numbers look favorable than it is in reporting them truthfully. And that might create a warped view of how exactly the state is doing after reopening.
“The virus isn’t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable; it’s going to continue to spread,” Crystal Watson, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “It’s better to really understand what’s going on and report that accurately.”
A Georgia Department of Public Health spokesperson said, “There have been several improvements to the COVID-19 Daily Status Report on the Georgia Department of Public Health’s (DPH) website. These changes are designed to make the dashboard more user-friendly while providing an accurate picture of COVID-19 in Georgia.” The spokesperson added, “DPH will regularly review and update features of the dashboard to improve data quality and accuracy.”
3) People are staying home anyway
Before governments told people to stay home, many people were staying home anyway.
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp didn’t issue a shelter-in-place order until April 2 — making the state among the last to shut down. But OpenTable data indicates that dine-in seating fell by more than 90 percent by the end of March compared to the previous year. A mix of individual behavioral changes, local and other state government actions, federal advisories, and other factors led people to stay home, shelter-in-place order or not.
Similarly, after Georgia’s shelter-in-place order expired, dining in has remained suppressed: As of June 4, it’s down more than 75 percent compared to the year before. That’s more people out than several weeks prior, when dining in was down by 80 to 90 percent, but it’s still a lot of empty restaurant seats.
Thompson, who lives in Atlanta, vouched for this. When Georgia began to reopen, she said, “Traffic was still very low. … Businesses were still not open. Most people were not going to get haircuts.”
“The virus isn’t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable; it’s going to continue to spread”
Data from Google, which tracks people’s movement through their Google accounts, tells a similar story: Georgians are starting to trickle out more, but they’re still going out less than they were before. As of May 29, retail and recreation outings are down 16 percent compared to a baseline based on activity before the coronavirus. Transit stations are down 38 percent. Workplaces are down 36 percent, and grocery stores and pharmacies are down 4 percent. Meanwhile, residential places — meaning, where people stay home — are up 13 percent.
Only parks, which have a relatively low risk of transmission, are up 44 percent.
Again, this is slowly changing; people are trickling out more, bit by bit. The past week of protests over police brutality have led to a lot of people showing up in large gatherings, including in Atlanta. This speaks to why it’s too early to judge Georgia’s experience: Things could change as more people get out more.
“If at some point people do decide this is over and opening up didn’t do anything [bad], and they go out to concerts and crowded parks and whatever, then we’ll probably start to see an increase in cases again,” Murray said.
4) Masks, good hygiene, and other behavioral changes may make a difference
Besides staying at home, other behavioral changes could be putting a dent in Covid-19 spread as well. Compared to just several months ago, Americans are more likely to wash their hands, avoid touching their faces, wear a mask, and keep at least 6 feet from each other. They’re also probably less likely to go out when they do feel sick.
We don’t know how much all of these things are helping, but experts suspect that these practices are reducing how much transmission happens when people do go out.
Consider masks. Just a few months ago, the idea that many Americans would go out with one was unthinkable. Today, polls show that the great majority of Americans are wearing masks sometimes if not always when they go out.
The research on masks isn’t great, but there’s some suggestive evidence: As long as people actually wear the masks and use them properly, studies indicate that they have some effect in reducing disease transmission overall. Some experts hypothesize — and preliminary research suggests — that masks have played a significant role in containing Covid-19 outbreaks in several Asian countries where their use is widespread, like South Korea and Japan.
Experts say they wouldn’t be surprised if masks play a bigger role than previously expected. As we’ve learned more about the coronavirus, we’ve gotten more and more evidence that it spreads through respiratory droplets. A mask quite literally stops those respiratory droplets.
And that’s only one of the things people have changed. From no longer shaking hands to appreciating the power of soap more, we have done a lot to make sure this virus doesn’t spread as easily as it did when we first learned of it.
This applies not just to individuals but to institutions too — workplaces, restaurants, public services, and so on. “Companies are also increasingly taking responsibility for making sure their workforce stays safe,” MacDonald said.
Whether it’s masks or something else, a large beneficial effect from behavioral changes while going out would be very good news. It would suggest that it’s safe to ease at least some social distancing as long as people follow certain practices. That might let Americans go out and about more — and stay safe — even without strict shelter-in-place orders in effect.
“It’s possible that those kinds of measures can slow transmission, can reduce transmission,” Meyers said. “I’m certainly hopeful that they do.” But, she added, “the jury is still out.”
5) Maybe luck, or something else we don’t fully understand, is playing a role
There’s another answer for why coronavirus cases aren’t increasing in Georgia: We don’t know.
The reality is we’re still learning a lot about the coronavirus, its spread, and how humans behave as a result of the virus. There likely are factors we haven’t anticipated that influence its spread.
It could even come down to sheer luck. Although there are myriad factors that affect the coronavirus — the virus’s characteristics, population density, public transportation use, how people behave, and more — whether all these factors come together to create an event that leads to explosive spread of the virus does come a bit down to chance.
Does that flight with a person who’s infected land in Atlanta or New York City? Does that person who’s, for whatever reason, more likely to shed the virus live in south Georgia or across the border in north Florida? Do several people who are sick end up at a concert in South Carolina or Georgia?
There are things places can do to mitigate these events — stop flights, discourage travel, prohibit large gatherings, encourage good hygiene and mask use, and so on. But chaos can play a major role. “There’s absolutely an element of chance and a lot of uncertainty about what’s going to happen in every single community and every single country,” Meyers said.
And especially because there’s so much about the coronavirus we don’t know, some of the steps we could be taking to prevent its spread are unknowable. That adds more chance to the equation, along with more uncertainty as to why one place suffered a big outbreak but not another.
Of course, luck and uncertainty aren’t something you want to rely on to keep the public safe. That’s why experts focus on how what we do know can help stop the spread of Covid-19. And they worry that by reopening too early — before they build up systems to test, trace, and isolate the coronavirus — states like Georgia may not be doing enough of what we do know helps. We’ll find out if the concerns are warranted in the coming weeks and months.
“We can do a lot to reduce our risk,” Murray said. “Then we can also hopefully have good chance outcomes as well.”


vox--2020-06-04--A US lawmaker says using troops against protesters will harm the military’s legitimacy

President Donald Trump continues to signal he will use active-duty military forces to quash riots that spring up alongside peaceful protests against police brutality .
If he does that , it ’ s possible he could ruin the US military ’ s reputation for a generation .
Demonstrations have continued and grown in every American state and many cities , most dramatically outside the White House .
Last Friday , Trump ’ s security detail rushed him to the mansion ’ s bunker for safety despite no immediate threat , prompting Trump to bristle that he looked weak in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the military to bolster his image and ego , brandishing force to quash the violence and looting .
To do so , he ’ s pushed for out-of-state National Guard members to patrol the streets of Washington , DC , against the mayor ’ s will ; deployed 1,600 active-duty troops on the Capitol ’ s doorstep ; and threatened to send more forces around the country to arrest vandals .
Should Trump take a further step and invoke a centuries-old law that allows him to deploy active-duty forces against the will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely Americans will begin to lose faith in the vaunted institution of the military .
That ’ s the argument Rep. Elissa Slotkin ( D-MI ) , a House Armed Services Committee member and former senior Pentagon official , made in a viral Twitter thread on June 1 .
She asserted that Trump is on the precipice of ruining the US military ’ s reputation and that its leaders — namely Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley , the Joint Chiefs chair — aren ’ t doing enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a crisis for relations between the US military and the citizenry , the lawmaker wrote , but also for the future of American democracy .
I called Slotkin to talk more about why she feels so passionately about this issue .
To her mind , nothing less than the future of the US military is at stake .
“ If you ’ re a 22-year-old peaceful protester and the US military uses tear gas and uses unnecessary force like flash-bangs and other tactics in your city , mistakes are going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that with him for the rest of his life , ” Slotkin told me .
“ He will certainly never volunteer to serve in the military , and he will certainly not support the needs of the military.
” Our interview , edited for length and clarity , is below .
You wrote a viral Twitter thread about why the way President Trump wants to use the military in the protest response troubles you .
Why is that ?
Because I think it speaks to our status and our health as a democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it doing serious damage to the reputation of the military , which is one of the remaining widely respected institutions that enjoys nonpartisan support .
I want to look back on this week and say it was an aberration : We were looking into the abyss as the president threatened to send in active-duty troops against the will of governors , backing that up by events where he pushed unarmed protesters away for a stunt , with the support of the uniformed and the civilian leaders of the Pentagon .
I want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dark week , not as the start of Trump breaking a cultural norm and precipitating greater violence .
I think we ’ re quite literally at a crossroads , because I don ’ t know if this is going to be a week we look back on as a historical blip or if this is the start of something more significant .
What specifically do you mean by a “ cultural norm ” ?
And what are you implying when you say “ something more significant ” ?
My husband was in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in the Army , my son-in-law is in the Army .
When you grow up around the military — and certainly when you serve in a combat zone with the military as I have — you realize US armed forces are deeply apolitical , both in law and in spirit .
While the president technically has the legal option through the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy active-duty troops in the country , it ’ s long been considered a cultural norm that you invoke it only as a last resort and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The violence on the ground either got so bad that local authorities show almost no capacity to manage it — like the 1992 Los Angeles riots — or local leaders refused to implement law , like when some governors wouldn ’ t follow federal civil rights statutes .
We don ’ t have either of those scenarios right now .
Yet the president very cavalierly used deploying the active-duty military as a threat to the governors .
And then his administration cleared the square next to the White House of unarmed protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the local law enforcement was overwhelmed , but because it was easier for his photo op .
It breaks with a cultural tradition of using active-duty military only in a moment of desperate last resort .
Some argue , though , that the active-duty military is the only way to quash any element of civil unrest right now .
Yes , it ’ s a bad precedent to be setting because I don ’ t see these protests abating .
While most of them are peaceful , there are looters and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the situation and committing crimes .
Number one , I don ’ t like thinking about the prospect of my stepdaughter being called in to put down folks in the street who are committing crimes because she ’ s not trained to do that .
There is a skill to law enforcement that has to be trained .
If we haven ’ t learned that through our time in Iraq and in Afghanistan , I don ’ t know when we ’ ll learn it .
There is a skill to law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naturally , it has to be taught .
Number two , I certainly don ’ t want her involved in putting down unarmed peaceful protests or pushing unarmed peaceful protesters off of a mark using heavily armored-up active-duty forces .
That prospect really wounds me and scares me .
What options does your stepdaughter have if given an unlawful order during a potential policing mission ?
The options should be presented to her leadership .
That ’ s why in the Twitter thread I wasn ’ t talking to her or her peers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilian [ Esper ] and a senior uniformed military official [ Milley ] of the nation .
It is their responsibility to make those decisions on behalf of the institutions they love .
It is not the lieutenant ’ s job to figure out what is an appropriate order or not , that is the role of leadership .
I was glad to see Defense Secretary Mark Esper get on the podium and talk about how he didn ’ t think the Insurrection Act should be used in contrast to what the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I applaud him for that .
The question is not whether he thinks it should be used or not , though .
The question is what will he do when he ’ s given the order ?
Would you want him to resign ?
I would want him to do the right thing for the institution that he loves , and I know he loves the US military .
If there is not truly a just cause — meaning local law enforcement is completely overrun , there ’ s no law enforcement anywhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the governor agree they need help and the National Guard can ’ t handle it somehow — that may be a different story .
But the conditions I see today , echoing what Secretary Esper said in his press conference on Wednesday , do not warrant using the Insurrection Act .
I would expect the secretary to follow his words with deeds and say , “ No , Mr. President , I can ’ t support that.
“ If it risks his job , you know what ?
Better his job than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you worried sending in active-duty troops will harm the military ’ s reputation among the citizenry ?
Right now , most Americans support the military .
They believe in an all-volunteer force , and they believe that our military protects us and does a good job doing it .
I know from my father-in-law , who served in Vietnam , what it was like when the majority of Americans didn ’ t support our military .
It took a generation to recover from Vietnam .
I think that if active-duty troops are used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will lose that near-universal support for an institution that I really care about .
It will make the military less effective , and it will make us as a nation question our military and their intent .
If this president uses the military as a political club against his perceived enemies , what ’ s to stop a future president — even a Democratic president — from sending in active-duty troops to clear out a conservative-leaning protest movement like I had in my own district in Lansing , Michigan ?
We had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps of my Capitol push their way onto the floor of the Michigan Senate carrying semi-automatic weapons .
And while I don ’ t agree with the reasons behind their protests , and I certainly don ’ t agree with their pushing through and entering the Senate chamber , they do have a right to protest .
What if a different president sent in active-duty troops to take care of a different type of protest movement ?
I wouldn ’ t support that either .
It almost sounds like you ’ re saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reputation at risk .
Absolutely , absolutely .
If you ’ re a 22-year-old peaceful protester and the US military uses tear gas and uses unnecessary force like flash-bangs and other tactics in your city , mistakes are going to be made , and that 22-year-old will take that with him for the rest of his life .
He will certainly never volunteer to serve in the military , and he will certainly not support the needs of the military .
We rely on that consent from the American citizens to send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-resource them .
The Pentagon budget is huge .
If the American public doesn ’ t support the American military , fewer resources follow .
In your thread , you noted that you worked with Gen. Milley and that you hope he ’ s thinking seriously about the moral and ethical issues surrounding his role .
He did put out a memo telling troops to follow the law , but he also did walk around the nation ’ s capital in his battle uniform .
Is he living up to his duties ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was in uniform for 30 years , and he would never walk through the streets of DC wearing his fatigues .
He wouldn ’ t even wear his [ formal attire ] because that ’ s not what we are taught to do .
In the military , you are taught that we don ’ t want a vision of a militarized society .
We ’ re not a place where our military is running around everywhere .
Milley on Monday could ’ ve said , “ Mr .
President , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go in my [ combat fatigues ] with you on a press event , I need to sit this one out.
” I don ’ t know if he did that , but I don ’ t think so .
We all have choices , and I personally know of Mark Milley ’ s great love for the military .
But this is the time when we need leaders to step up and think beyond the next 12 or 24 hours .
Right now , what ’ s standing between the president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US military is Secretary Esper and Chairman Milley .
Are you implying they haven ’ t lived up to this moment , then ?
Well , we ’ re in the moment .
This is the moment .
Secretary Esper ’ s press conference , I thought , was a step in the right direction .
But the moment is , in my mind , vaguely about a week .
There ’ s a lot going on , and I expect military leadership to do everything that they can to calm the waters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that situation is Trump using the military as his own personal plaything while not thinking about larger consequences ?
I think “ plaything ” is probably too strong because “ plaything ” is like fluffying and sort of implying he ’ s not thinking .
I think he ’ s thinking very deliberately .
I think that in his mind , he doesn ’ t seem to see a problem with breaking American norms and very cavalierly talking about using active-duty military forces in American cities .
The fact that he doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me more than anything .
Conor Murray contributed to the completion of this post .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

President Donald Trump continues to signal he will use active-duty military forces to quash riots that spring up alongside peaceful protests against police brutality. If he does that, it’s possible he could ruin the US military’s reputation for a generation.
Demonstrations have continued and grown in every American state and many cities, most dramatically outside the White House. Last Friday, Trump’s security detail rushed him to the mansion’s bunker for safety despite no immediate threat, prompting Trump to bristle that he looked weak in a crisis.
In response, Trump reached for the military to bolster his image and ego, brandishing force to quash the violence and looting. To do so, he’s pushed for out-of-state National Guard members to patrol the streets of Washington, DC, against the mayor’s will; deployed 1,600 active-duty troops on the Capitol’s doorstep; and threatened to send more forces around the country to arrest vandals.
Should Trump take a further step and invoke a centuries-old law that allows him to deploy active-duty forces against the will of state governors, it’s likely Americans will begin to lose faith in the vaunted institution of the military.
That’s the argument Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a House Armed Services Committee member and former senior Pentagon official, made in a viral Twitter thread on June 1. She asserted that Trump is on the precipice of ruining the US military’s reputation and that its leaders — namely Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs chair — aren’t doing enough to push back.
That’s not only a crisis for relations between the US military and the citizenry, the lawmaker wrote, but also for the future of American democracy.
As the wife of a 30-year Army officer, step-mom to Army officers, and someone who has worked alongside the military in a combat zone, what I have heard from the President on the use of the military in our cities –– with the support of the SECDEF and the CJCS –– has pained me. — Rep. Elissa Slotkin (@RepSlotkin) June 2, 2020
I called Slotkin to talk more about why she feels so passionately about this issue. To her mind, nothing less than the future of the US military is at stake.
“If you’re a 22-year-old peaceful protester and the US military uses tear gas and uses unnecessary force like flash-bangs and other tactics in your city, mistakes are going to be made, and that 22-year-old will take that with him for the rest of his life,” Slotkin told me. “He will certainly never volunteer to serve in the military, and he will certainly not support the needs of the military.”
Our interview, edited for length and clarity, is below.
Alex Ward
You wrote a viral Twitter thread about why the way President Trump wants to use the military in the protest response troubles you. Why is that?
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
Because I think it speaks to our status and our health as a democracy, and I’m worried about it doing serious damage to the reputation of the military, which is one of the remaining widely respected institutions that enjoys nonpartisan support.
I want to look back on this week and say it was an aberration: We were looking into the abyss as the president threatened to send in active-duty troops against the will of governors, backing that up by events where he pushed unarmed protesters away for a stunt, with the support of the uniformed and the civilian leaders of the Pentagon.
I want to look back on this as a really dark week, not as the start of Trump breaking a cultural norm and precipitating greater violence.
I think we’re quite literally at a crossroads, because I don’t know if this is going to be a week we look back on as a historical blip or if this is the start of something more significant.
Alex Ward
What specifically do you mean by a “cultural norm”? And what are you implying when you say “something more significant”?
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
My husband was in the Army for 30 years. My stepdaughter is in the Army, my son-in-law is in the Army. When you grow up around the military — and certainly when you serve in a combat zone with the military as I have — you realize US armed forces are deeply apolitical, both in law and in spirit.
While the president technically has the legal option through the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy active-duty troops in the country, it’s long been considered a cultural norm that you invoke it only as a last resort and only when the situation truly warrants it.
The violence on the ground either got so bad that local authorities show almost no capacity to manage it — like the 1992 Los Angeles riots — or local leaders refused to implement law, like when some governors wouldn’t follow federal civil rights statutes.
We don’t have either of those scenarios right now. Yet the president very cavalierly used deploying the active-duty military as a threat to the governors. And then his administration cleared the square next to the White House of unarmed protesters not because they got violent, not because the local law enforcement was overwhelmed, but because it was easier for his photo op.
It breaks with a cultural tradition of using active-duty military only in a moment of desperate last resort.
Alex Ward
Some argue, though, that the active-duty military is the only way to quash any element of civil unrest right now.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
Yes, it’s a bad precedent to be setting because I don’t see these protests abating. While most of them are peaceful, there are looters and there are people who are opportunists taking advantage of the situation and committing crimes.
Number one, I don’t like thinking about the prospect of my stepdaughter being called in to put down folks in the street who are committing crimes because she’s not trained to do that. There is a skill to law enforcement that has to be trained. If we haven’t learned that through our time in Iraq and in Afghanistan, I don’t know when we’ll learn it. There is a skill to law enforcement that our military does not have naturally, it has to be taught.
Number two, I certainly don’t want her involved in putting down unarmed peaceful protests or pushing unarmed peaceful protesters off of a mark using heavily armored-up active-duty forces. That prospect really wounds me and scares me.
Alex Ward
What options does your stepdaughter have if given an unlawful order during a potential policing mission?
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
The options should be presented to her leadership. That’s why in the Twitter thread I wasn’t talking to her or her peers, I was talking to the senior civilian [Esper] and a senior uniformed military official [Milley] of the nation. It is their responsibility to make those decisions on behalf of the institutions they love. It is not the lieutenant’s job to figure out what is an appropriate order or not, that is the role of leadership.
I was glad to see Defense Secretary Mark Esper get on the podium and talk about how he didn’t think the Insurrection Act should be used in contrast to what the president wanted. That’s good, I applaud him for that.
The question is not whether he thinks it should be used or not, though. The question is what will he do when he’s given the order?
.@EsperDoD, glad to hear you don’t support deploying active duty troops to American cities, particularly given reports that the WH disagrees with your view.
But I must ask: if ordered to deploy active duty troops vs. protesters without governors' consent, would you comply? https://t.co/KHrqJkF3wY — Rep. Elissa Slotkin (@RepSlotkin) June 3, 2020
Alex Ward
Would you want him to resign?
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
I would want him to do the right thing for the institution that he loves, and I know he loves the US military.
If there is not truly a just cause — meaning local law enforcement is completely overrun, there’s no law enforcement anywhere in a city, local law enforcement and the governor agree they need help and the National Guard can’t handle it somehow — that may be a different story.
But the conditions I see today, echoing what Secretary Esper said in his press conference on Wednesday, do not warrant using the Insurrection Act. I would expect the secretary to follow his words with deeds and say, “No, Mr. President, I can’t support that.“ If it risks his job, you know what? Better his job than the reputation of the military.
Alex Ward
Are you worried sending in active-duty troops will harm the military’s reputation among the citizenry?
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
Right now, most Americans support the military. They believe in an all-volunteer force, and they believe that our military protects us and does a good job doing it. I know from my father-in-law, who served in Vietnam, what it was like when the majority of Americans didn’t support our military. It took a generation to recover from Vietnam.
I think that if active-duty troops are used in the streets of our cities, we will lose that near-universal support for an institution that I really care about. It will make the military less effective, and it will make us as a nation question our military and their intent.
If this president uses the military as a political club against his perceived enemies, what’s to stop a future president — even a Democratic president — from sending in active-duty troops to clear out a conservative-leaning protest movement like I had in my own district in Lansing, Michigan?
We had armed, anti-coronavirus lockdown protesters on the steps of my Capitol push their way onto the floor of the Michigan Senate carrying semi-automatic weapons. And while I don’t agree with the reasons behind their protests, and I certainly don’t agree with their pushing through and entering the Senate chamber, they do have a right to protest.
What if a different president sent in active-duty troops to take care of a different type of protest movement? I wouldn’t support that either.
Alex Ward
It almost sounds like you’re saying Trump is personally putting the military’s reputation at risk.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
Absolutely, absolutely. If you’re a 22-year-old peaceful protester and the US military uses tear gas and uses unnecessary force like flash-bangs and other tactics in your city, mistakes are going to be made, and that 22-year-old will take that with him for the rest of his life. He will certainly never volunteer to serve in the military, and he will certainly not support the needs of the military.
We rely on that consent from the American citizens to send our troops to protect us and to well-resource them. The Pentagon budget is huge. If the American public doesn’t support the American military, fewer resources follow.
Alex Ward
In your thread, you noted that you worked with Gen. Milley and that you hope he’s thinking seriously about the moral and ethical issues surrounding his role. He did put out a memo telling troops to follow the law, but he also did walk around the nation’s capital in his battle uniform. Is he living up to his duties?
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
My husband works at the Pentagon. He was in uniform for 30 years, and he would never walk through the streets of DC wearing his fatigues. He wouldn’t even wear his [formal attire] because that’s not what we are taught to do.
In the military, you are taught that we don’t want a vision of a militarized society. We’re not a place where our military is running around everywhere. Milley on Monday could’ve said, “Mr. President, I think it sends the wrong signal to go in my [combat fatigues] with you on a press event, I need to sit this one out.” I don’t know if he did that, but I don’t think so.
We all have choices, and I personally know of Mark Milley’s great love for the military. But this is the time when we need leaders to step up and think beyond the next 12 or 24 hours. Right now, what’s standing between the president and the souring of the reputation of the US military is Secretary Esper and Chairman Milley.
Alex Ward
Are you implying they haven’t lived up to this moment, then?
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
Well, we’re in the moment. This is the moment. Secretary Esper’s press conference, I thought, was a step in the right direction. But the moment is, in my mind, vaguely about a week. There’s a lot going on, and I expect military leadership to do everything that they can to calm the waters instead of exacerbating the situation.
Alex Ward
And that situation is Trump using the military as his own personal plaything while not thinking about larger consequences?
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
I think “plaything” is probably too strong because “plaything” is like fluffying and sort of implying he’s not thinking. I think he’s thinking very deliberately. I think that in his mind, he doesn’t seem to see a problem with breaking American norms and very cavalierly talking about using active-duty military forces in American cities. The fact that he doesn’t see anything wrong with it scares me more than anything.
Conor Murray contributed to the completion of this post.


vox--2020-06-04--How Covid-19 can be more and less deadly than we knew

There are two ways you could assess the deadliness of a crisis like the novel coronavirus pandemic .
One is to ask , “ How many people are dying ?
” And the other is to ask , “ What is the risk of dying if you contract the virus ?
” For months , public health officials were unable to fully answer either of those questions .
Now , with death certificates and antibody-survey data coming in , we ’ re slowly getting a better picture of Covid-19 mortality .
As we explain in the above video , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s killing more people than we knew , but a lower percentage of those infected .
Most places are looking at a higher death count and lower death rate than previously reported .
But the biggest challenge in assessing a tragedy like this is that we ’ re still inside it — and nobody can predict how many lives will be lost before it ends .
You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox Video Lab on YouTube .
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 contribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

There are two ways you could assess the deadliness of a crisis like the novel coronavirus pandemic. One is to ask, “How many people are dying?” And the other is to ask, “What is the risk of dying if you contract the virus?” For months, public health officials were unable to fully answer either of those questions.
Now, with death certificates and antibody-survey data coming in, we’re slowly getting a better picture of Covid-19 mortality. As we explain in the above video, that picture is of a disease that’s killing more people than we knew, but a lower percentage of those infected. Most places are looking at a higher death count and lower death rate than previously reported.
But the biggest challenge in assessing a tragedy like this is that we’re still inside it — and nobody can predict how many lives will be lost before it ends.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-06-04--Just 6 states meet these basic criteria to reopen and stay safe

All 50 states are moving to reopen their economies , at least partially , after shutting down businesses and gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
But a Vox analysis suggests that most states haven ’ t made the preparations needed to contain future waves of the pandemic — putting themselves at risk for a rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths should they continue to reopen .
Experts told me states need three things to be ready to reopen .
State leaders , from the governor to the legislature to health departments , need to ensure the SARS-CoV-2 virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need the testing capacity to track and isolate the sick and their contacts .
And they need the hospital capacity to handle a potential surge in Covid-19 cases .
More specifically , states should meet at least five basic criteria .
They should see a two-week drop in coronavirus cases , indicating that the virus is actually abating .
They should have fewer than four daily new cases per 100,000 people per day — to show that cases aren ’ t just dropping , but also below dangerous levels .
They need at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per day , letting them quickly track and contain outbreaks .
They need an overall positive rate for tests below 5 percent — another critical indicator for testing capacity .
And states should have more than 40 percent of their ICU beds free to actually treat an influx of people stricken with Covid-19 should it be necessary .
These metrics line up with experts ’ recommendations , as well as the various policy plans put out by both independent groups and government officials to deal with the coronavirus .
Meeting these metrics doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to reopen its economy — a process that describes a wide range of local and state actions .
And failing them doesn ’ t mean a state is in immediate danger of a coronavirus outbreak if it starts to reopen ; with Covid-19 , there ’ s always an element of luck and other factors .
But with these metrics , states can gauge if they have repressed the coronavirus while building the capacity to contain future outbreaks should they come .
In other words , the benchmarks show how ready states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight .
So far , most states are not there .
As of June 4 , just six states — Connecticut , Kentucky , New Jersey , New York , Oklahoma , and Wyoming — met four or five of the goals , which demonstrates strong progress .
Twenty-two states hit two or three of the benchmarks .
The other 21 , along with Washington , DC , achieved zero or one .
( Hawaii is excluded , because it changed how it counts tests , temporarily distorting its testing data . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most progress aren ’ t necessarily ready to safely reopen .
There ’ s a big difference between Wyoming — which hasn ’ t suffered from a high number of coronavirus cases — and New York , and no expert would say that all of New York is ready to get back to normal .
Nor do the metrics cover everything that states should do before they can reopen .
They don ’ t show , for example , if states have the capacity to do contact tracing , in which people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s sick with Covid-19 are tracked down by “ disease detectives ” and quarantined .
Contact tracing is key to containing an epidemic , but states don ’ t track how many contact tracers they ’ ve hired in a standardized , readily available way .
They also don ’ t have ready data for health care workers ’ access to personal protective equipment , such as masks and gloves — a critical measure of the health care system ’ s readiness that is difficult to track .
But the map gives an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made toward containing the coronavirus and keeping it contained .
States will have to follow these kinds of metrics as they reopen .
If the numbers — especially coronavirus cases — go in the wrong direction again , experts said governments should be ready to bring back restrictions .
If states move too quickly to reopen or respond too slowly to a turn for the worse , they could see a renewed surge in Covid-19 cases .
“ Planning for reclosing is part of planning for reopening , ” Mark McClellan , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
“ There will be outbreaks , and there will be needs for pauses and going back — hopefully not too much if we do this carefully.
” So this will be a work in progress , at least until we get a Covid-19 vaccine or the pandemic otherwise ends , whether by natural or human means .
But the metrics can at least help give states an idea of how far along they are in finally starting to open back up .
What ’ s the goal ?
A 10 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to two weeks ago and a 5 percent drop in cases compared to one week ago , based on data from the New York Times .
Which states meet the goal ?
Connecticut , Delaware , Illinois , Iowa , Minnesota , New Jersey , New York , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , and Wyoming — 12 states in all .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this important ?
Guidance from the White House and several independent groups emphasize that states need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks before they can say they ’ re ready to begin reopening .
After all , nothing shows you ’ re out of an outbreak like a sustained reduction in infections .
“ The first and foremost [ metric ] is you want to have a continued decrease in cases , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist , told me .
“ It ’ s a huge piece.
” A simple reduction in cases compared to two weeks prior isn ’ t enough ; it has to be a significant drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the two weeks .
So for Vox ’ s map , states need at least a 10 percent drop in daily new cases compared to two weeks prior and at least a 5 percent drop compared to one week prior .
Reported cases can be a reflection of testing capacity : More testing will pick up more cases , and less testing will pick up fewer .
So it ’ s important that the decrease occur while testing is either growing or already sufficient .
And since states have recently boosted their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can also reflect improvements in testing .
Even after meeting this benchmark , continued caution is warranted .
If a state meets the goal of a reduction in cases compared to one and two weeks ago but cases seemed to go up in recent days , then perhaps it ’ s not time to reopen just yet .
“ You have to use common sense , ” Cyrus Shahpar , a director at the public health policy group Resolve to Save Lives , told me .
For states with small outbreaks , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around one to two new Covid-19 cases a day for several weeks .
Getting that down to zero would be nice , but the current level of daily new cases isn ’ t a big threat to the whole state .
That ’ s one reason Vox ’ s map lets states meet four or five of the five goals — in case they miss one goal that doesn ’ t make sense for them but hit others .
Still , the two-week reduction in cases is the most cited by experts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the goal ?
Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the New York Times and Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Hawaii , Idaho , Kentucky , Maine , Missouri , Montana , Nevada , Oklahoma , Oregon , Vermont , Washington , West Virginia , and Wyoming — 14 states .
Why is this important ?
One of the best ways to know you ’ re getting away from a disease outbreak is to no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new infections .
While there ’ s no universally accepted number , experts said that four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people is a decent ceiling .
“ If I go from one to two to three [ coronavirus cases a day ] , it ’ s different than going from 1,000 to 2,000 to 3,000 , even though the percent difference is the same , ” Shahpar said .
“ That ’ s why you have to take into account the overall level , too.
” This number can balance out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list .
For example , New York — which has suffered the worst coronavirus outbreak in the country — has seen its reported daily new coronavirus cases drop for weeks , meeting the goal of a sustained drop in cases .
But since that ’ s coming down from a huge high , even a month of sustained decreases may not be enough .
New York has to make sure it falls below a threshold of new cases , too .
At the same time , if your state is now below four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s seen a recent uptick in cases , that ’ s a reason for caution .
New York , after all , saw just a handful of confirmed coronavirus cases before an exponential explosion of the disease took the state to thousands of new cases a day .
But if your state is below the threshold , it ’ s in a pretty solid place relative to most other states .
What ’ s the goal ?
At least 150 tests per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Connecticut , Illinois , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maryland , Mississippi , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Rhode Island , South Dakota , and Wisconsin — for a total of 13 states .
( Hawaii is excluded , because it changed how it counts tests , temporarily distorting its testing data . )
Why is this important ?
Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic , experts have argued that the US needs the capacity for about 500,000 Covid-19 tests a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds up to about 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day .
Testing is crucial to getting the coronavirus outbreak under control .
When paired with contact tracing , testing lets officials track the scale of the outbreak , isolate the sick , quarantine those the sick came into contact with , and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary .
Testing and tracing are how other countries , like South Korea and Germany , have managed to control their outbreaks and started to reopen their economies .
The idea , experts said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embers before they turn into full wildfires .
“ States should be shoring up their testing capacity not just for what it looks like right now while everyone ’ s in their homes , but as people start to move more , ” Jen Kates , the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me .
“ As people start doing more movement , you ’ ll have to test more , because people are going to come into contact with each other more.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts have recommended as many as millions of tests nationwide each day .
But 500,000 is the most often-cited goal , and it ’ s , at the very least , a good start .
This goal is supposed to be for diagnostic tests , not antibody tests .
Diagnostic tests gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is , therefore , sick right at the moment of the test .
Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection , they ’ re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state .
“ The virus isn ’ t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable ; it ’ s going to continue to spread , ” Crystal Watson , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
“ It ’ s better to really understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that accurately.
” For states honestly reporting these numbers , though , they ’ re a critical measure of their ability to detect , control , and contain coronavirus outbreaks .
What ’ s the goal ?
Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , California , Connecticut , Florida , Idaho , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Michigan , Missouri , Montana , Nevada , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , New York , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Rhode Island , South Carolina , South Dakota , Vermont , West Virginia , Wisconsin , and Wyoming — for a total of 28 states .
( Hawaii is excluded , because it changed how it counts tests , temporarily distorting its testing data . )
Why is this important ?
The positive or positivity rate , which tracks how many tests come back positive for Covid-19 , is another way to measure testing capacity .
Generally , a higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough testing happening .
An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people , many of whom don ’ t have the disease or don ’ t show severe symptoms .
The positive testing rate in South Korea , for example , is below 2 percent .
High positive rates indicate only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested , so there ’ s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak .
Previously , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) recommended a maximum positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO more recently recommended 5 percent , which is in line with the rate for countries that have better managed to better control their outbreaks , like Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea .
“ Even lower is better , ” Shahpar said .
The positive rate data is subject to the same limitations as the overall testing data from the Covid Tracking Project .
So if a state includes antibody tests in its test count , it could skew the positive rate to look better than it is .
States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
What ’ s the goal ?
Below 60 percent occupancy of ICU beds in hospitals , based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Which states meet the goal ?
Arkansas , Connecticut , Delaware , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Missouri , Montana , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , South Dakota , Utah , Vermont , Wisconsin , and Wyoming — for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this important ?
If a pandemic hits , the health care system needs to be ready to treat the most severe cases and potentially save lives .
That ’ s the key goal of “ flattening the curve ” and “ raising the line , ” in which social distancing helps reduce the spread of the disease so the health care system can maintain and grow its capacity to treat an influx of Covid-19 patients .
“ There ’ s this idea that in six weeks we can open more things , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
“ But the virus is still there .
It ’ s all about making sure that the case count isn ’ t too immense for our hospital system to deal with.
” The aim is to avoid the nightmare scenario that Italy went through when it had more Covid-19 cases than its health care system could handle , leading to hospitals turning away even dangerously ill patients .
To gauge this , experts recommended looking at ICU capacity , with states aiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their ICUs .
A big limitation in the metric : It ’ s based on data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of only some hospitals in each state .
So it might not be fully representative of hospital capacity throughout an entire state .
But it ’ s the best current data available , and it suggests that nearly half of states meet that standard .
That ’ s extremely good news .
It shows that much of America really has flattened the curve , at least for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that so far through extreme social distancing .
If the next step is to keep the curve flattened while easing restrictions , that will require meeting the other metrics on this list .
Hitting the benchmarks is the beginning , not the end Vox ’ s map is just one way of tracking success against the coronavirus .
Other groups have come up with their own measures , including Covid Act Now , Covid Exit Strategy , and Test and Trace .
Vox ’ s model uses more up-to-date data than some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just on the state of the pandemic but states ’ readiness to contain Covid-19 outbreaks in the future .
Very few states hit all the marks recommended by experts .
But even those that do shouldn ’ t consider the pandemic over .
They should continue to improve — for example , getting the positive rate below even 1 percent , as in New Zealand — and look at even more granular metrics , such as at the city or county level .
Meeting the benchmarks , however , indicates a state is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it eases previous restrictions .
Experts emphasized that states have to keep hitting all these goals week after week and day after day — Covid-19 cases must remain low , testing ability needs to stay high , and hospital capacity should be good enough for an influx of patients — until the pandemic is truly over , whether thanks to a vaccine or other means .
Otherwise , a future wave of coronavirus cases , as seen in past pandemics , could kill many more people .
“ You need to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ This needs to be a very incremental , slow process to ensure success.
” And if the numbers do start trending in the wrong direction , states should be ready to shut down at least some parts of the economy again .
Maybe not as much as before , as we learn which places are truly at risk of increasing spread .
But experts caution that future shutdowns will likely be necessary to some extent .
“ I do worry we ’ re going to see surges of cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We do need to keep pushing on building those capacities .
… Otherwise , we ’ re just rolling the dice on the spread of the virus .
It ’ s better if we have more control of the spread.
” That ’ s another reason these metrics , along with broader coronavirus surveillance , are so important : They not only help show how far along states are in dealing with their current Covid-19 outbreaks , but will help track progress to stop and prevent future crises as well .
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 .

All 50 states have moved to reopen their economies, at least partially, after shutting down businesses and gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
But a Vox analysis suggests that most states haven’t made the preparations needed to contain outbreaks — putting themselves at risk for a rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths should they continue to reopen. Some states have already had to backtrack on reopening measures.
Experts told me states need three things to be safe to open. State leaders, from the governor to the legislature to health departments, need to ensure the SARS-CoV-2 virus is no longer spreading unabated. They need the testing capacity to track and isolate the sick and their contacts. And they need the hospital capacity to handle a potential surge in Covid-19 cases.
More specifically, states should meet at least five basic criteria. They should see a two-week drop in coronavirus cases, indicating that the virus is actually abating. They should have fewer than four daily new cases per 100,000 people per day — to show that cases aren’t just dropping but are also below dangerous levels. They need at least 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day, letting them quickly track and contain outbreaks. They need an overall positive rate for tests below 5 percent — another critical indicator for testing capacity. And states should have at least 40 percent of their ICU beds free to actually treat an influx of people stricken with Covid-19 should it be necessary.
These metrics line up with a range of expert recommendations, as well as the various policy plans put out by both independent groups and government officials to deal with the coronavirus.
Meeting these metrics doesn’t mean that a state is ready to safely reopen its economy — a process that describes a wide range of local and state actions. And failing them doesn’t mean a state is in immediate danger of a coronavirus outbreak if it starts to reopen; with Covid-19, there’s always an element of luck and other factors.
But with these metrics, states can gauge if they have repressed the coronavirus while building the capacity to contain future outbreaks should they come. In other words, the benchmarks show how ready states are for the next phase of the fight.
So far, most states are not there. Just four states — Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York — met four or five of the goals, which demonstrates strong progress. Twenty-five states and Washington, DC, hit two or three of the benchmarks. The remaining 19 achieved zero or one. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Even the states that have made the most progress aren’t safe to fully reopen. Without a vaccine or similar treatment, the threat of the coronavirus is still out there. Especially in states that suffered big outbreaks, such as Arizona and New York, even a lot of progress or some progress doesn’t mean all the underlying problems that led to an epidemic are gone.
Nor do the metrics cover everything that states should do before they can safely reopen. They don’t show, for example, if states have the capacity to do contact tracing, in which people who came into contact with someone who’s sick with Covid-19 are tracked down by “disease detectives” and quarantined. Contact tracing is key to containing an epidemic, but states don’t track how many contact tracers they’ve hired in a standardized, readily available way.
States also don’t have ready data for health care workers’ access to personal protective equipment, such as masks and gloves — a critical measure of the health care system’s readiness that’s difficult to track.
But the map gives an idea of how much progress states have made toward containing the coronavirus and keeping it contained.
States will have to follow these kinds of metrics as they reopen. If the numbers — especially coronavirus cases — go in the wrong direction again, experts said governments should be ready to bring back restrictions. If states move too quickly to reopen or respond too slowly to a turn for the worse, they could see a renewed surge in Covid-19 cases.
“Planning for reclosing is part of planning for reopening,” Mark McClellan, a health policy expert at Duke, told me. “There will be outbreaks, and there will be needs for pauses and going back — hopefully not too much if we do this carefully.”
So this will be a work in progress, at least until we get a Covid-19 vaccine or the pandemic otherwise ends, whether by natural or human means. But the metrics can at least help give states an idea of how far along they are in the fight against the coronavirus.
Goal 1: A sustained two-week drop in coronavirus cases
What’s the goal? A 10 percent drop in daily new coronavirus cases compared to two weeks ago and a 5 percent drop in cases compared to one week ago, based on data from the New York Times.
Which states meet the goal? Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Wyoming — a total of nine states.
Why is this important? Guidance from the White House and several independent groups emphasize that states need to see coronavirus cases drop consistently over two weeks before they can say they’re ready to begin reopening. After all, nothing shows you’re out of an outbreak like a sustained reduction in infections.
“The first and foremost [metric] is you want to have a continued decrease in cases,” Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me. “It’s a huge piece.”
A simple reduction in cases compared to two weeks prior isn’t enough; it has to be a significant drop, and it has to be sustained over the two weeks. So for Vox’s map, states need at least a 10 percent drop in daily new cases compared to two weeks prior and at least a 5 percent drop compared to one week prior.
Reported cases can be a reflection of testing capacity: More testing will pick up more cases, and less testing will pick up fewer. So it’s important that the decrease occur while testing is either growing or already sufficient. And since states have recently boosted their testing abilities, increases in Covid-19 cases can also reflect improvements in testing.
Even after meeting this benchmark, continued caution is warranted. If a state meets the goal of a reduction in cases compared to one and two weeks ago but cases seemed to go up in recent days, then perhaps it’s not time to reopen just yet. And if cases have dropped but only from a very high baseline of cases, then that’s less comforting than a drop from a lower baseline.
“You have to use common sense,” Cyrus Shahpar, a director at the public health policy group Resolve to Save Lives, told me.
Goal 2: A low number of daily new Covid-19 cases
What’s the goal? Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont — just six states.
Why is this important? One of the best ways to know you’re getting away from a disease outbreak is to no longer see a high number of daily new infections. While there’s no universally accepted number, experts said that four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people is a reasonable ceiling.
“If I go from one to two to three [coronavirus cases a day], it’s different than going from 1,000 to 2,000 to 3,000, even though the percent difference is the same,” Shahpar said. “That’s why you have to take into account the overall level, too.”
To put it another way, it’s not enough for daily new Covid-19 cases to drop, even for weeks. Cases also should fall below a certain level before a state can be deemed truly safe.
For example, Arizona has seen its daily new cases drop over the past two weeks. But its daily new cases are still, after controlling for population, the third-highest in the country. That indicates an epidemic that remains out of control.
At the same time, if your state is now below four daily new cases per 100,000 but it’s seen a recent uptick in cases, that’s a reason for caution. Even the worst-hit states, after all, began with a handful of cases before they saw an exponential surge.
But if your state is below the threshold, it’s in a pretty solid place relative to most states.
Goal 3: High coronavirus testing capacity
What’s the goal? At least 150 tests per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia — 37 states. Washington, DC, did as well. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Why is this important? Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, experts have argued that the US needs the capacity for at least 500,000 Covid-19 tests a day. Controlling for population, that adds up to about 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day.
Testing is crucial to getting the coronavirus outbreak under control. When paired with contact tracing, testing lets officials track the scale of the outbreak, isolate the sick, quarantine those the sick came into contact with, and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary. Testing and tracing are how other countries, like South Korea and Germany, have managed to control their outbreaks and started to reopen their economies.
The idea, experts said, is to have enough surveillance to detect embers before they turn into full wildfires.
“States should be shoring up their testing capacity not just for what it looks like right now while everyone’s in their homes, but as people start to move more,” Jen Kates, the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “As people start doing more movement, you’ll have to test more, because people are going to come into contact with each other more.”
The 500,000-a-day goal is the minimum. Some experts have recommended as many as millions of tests nationwide each day. But 500,000 is the most often-cited goal, and it’s, at the very least, a good start.
It’s preferable if states report this number by how many people they’ve tested, not just the total number of tests. For containing an outbreak, it’s generally more useful to test 500,000 people one time than to test one person 500,000 times. But some states report the figures for total tests, not the number of tested individuals — counting tests for a single person multiple times. That could skew the numbers.
This goal is also supposed to be for diagnostic tests, not antibody tests. Diagnostic tests gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is, therefore, sick right at the moment of the test. Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been sick in the past. Since diagnostic tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection, they’re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state.
But some states have mixed up numbers for diagnostic and antibody tests, which could skew the data collected by the Covid Tracking Project.
“The virus isn’t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable; it’s going to continue to spread,” Crystal Watson, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “It’s better to really understand what’s going on and report that accurately.”
For states honestly reporting these numbers, though, they’re a critical measure of their ability to detect, control, and contain coronavirus outbreaks.
Goal 4: A low test positive rate
What’s the goal? Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming — 23 states. Washington, DC, did as well. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Why is this important? The positive or positivity rate, which tracks how many tests come back positive for Covid-19, is another way to measure testing capacity.
Generally, a higher positive rate suggests there’s not enough testing happening. An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people, many of whom don’t have the disease or don’t show severe symptoms. The positive testing rate in South Korea, for example, is below 1 percent. High positive rates indicate only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested, so there’s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak.
Previously, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended a maximum positive rate of 10 percent. But the WHO more recently recommended 5 percent, which is in line with the rate for countries that have managed to better control their outbreaks, like Germany, New Zealand, and South Korea. “Even lower is better,” Shahpar said.
The positive rate data is subject to the same limitations as the overall testing data from the Covid Tracking Project. So if a state includes antibody tests in its test count, it could skew the positive rate to look better than it is. States only risk hurting themselves if they do this.
Goal 5: Availability of ICU beds
What’s the goal? Below 60 percent occupancy of ICU beds in hospitals, based on data from the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — 17 states.
Why is this important? If a pandemic hits, the health care system needs to be ready to treat the most severe cases and potentially save lives. That’s the key goal of “flattening the curve” and “raising the line,” in which social distancing helps reduce the spread of the disease so the health care system can maintain and grow its capacity to treat an influx of Covid-19 patients.
“There’s this idea that in six weeks we can open more things,” Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “But the virus is still there. It’s all about making sure that the case count isn’t too immense for our hospital system to deal with.”
The aim is to avoid the nightmare scenario that Italy went through when it had more Covid-19 cases than its health care system could handle, leading to hospitals turning away even dangerously ill patients.
To gauge this, experts recommended looking at ICU capacity, with states aiming to have at most 60 percent occupancy in their ICUs.
Hitting the benchmarks is the beginning, not the end
Vox’s map is just one way of tracking success against the coronavirus. Other groups have come up with their own measures, including Covid Act Now, Covid Exit Strategy, and Test and Trace. Vox’s model uses more up-to-date data than some of these other examples, while focusing not just on the state of the pandemic but also on states’ readiness to contain Covid-19 outbreaks in the future.
Very few states hit all the marks recommended by experts. But even those that do shouldn’t consider the pandemic over. They should continue to improve — for example, getting the positive rate below 1 percent, as in New Zealand — and look at even more granular metrics, such as at the city or county level.
Meeting the benchmarks, however, indicates a state is better equipped to contain future coronavirus outbreaks as it eases previous restrictions.
Experts emphasized that states have to keep hitting all these goals week after week and day after day — Covid-19 cases must remain low, testing ability needs to stay high, and hospital capacity should be good enough for an influx of patients — until the pandemic is truly over, whether thanks to a vaccine or other means. Otherwise, a future wave of coronavirus cases, as seen in past pandemics, could kill many more people.
“You need to have all the metrics met,” Popescu said. “This needs to be a very incremental, slow process to ensure success.”
And if the numbers do start trending in the wrong direction, states should be ready to shut down at least some parts of the economy again. Maybe not as much as before, as we learn which places are truly at risk of increasing spread. But experts caution that future shutdowns will likely be necessary to some extent.
“I do worry we’re going to see surges of cases and hot spots,” Watson said. “We do need to keep pushing on building those capacities. … Otherwise, we’re just rolling the dice on the spread of the virus. It’s better if we have more control of the spread.”
That’s another reason these metrics, along with broader coronavirus surveillance, are so important: They not only help show how far along states are in dealing with their current Covid-19 outbreaks, but will help track progress to stop and prevent future crises as well.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.