vox--2020-01-21--Trump’s lawyers began the impeachment trial with a blizzard of lies

The opening debate of the Senate impeachment trial on Tuesday afternoon was supposed to be merely about the trial rules .
But in quintessential Trump fashion , members of President Donald Trump ’ s legal team wasted no time telling a number of lies before things really got going .
Though getting facts wrong might be somewhat understandable in the context of extemporaneous statements , these falsehoods came in the context of prepared remarks read by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and personal Trump attorney Jay Sekulow .
And if that approach is indicative of how the rest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up with an understanding of the timeline of Trump ’ s Ukraine dealings and ensuing impeachment that ’ s at odds with reality .
Falsehood No .
1 : Trump ’ s lawyers claimed Republicans didn ’ t have access to key information during House impeachment inquiry As part of an effort to portray the process that resulted in Trump ’ s impeachment and trial as a partisan witch hunt , Cipollone at one point complained that “ not even [ House Intelligence Committee chair and impeachment manager Adam ] Schiff ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SCIF , ” or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility , which is basically the secure facility that members of Congress used to review classified information pertinent to the impeachment inquiry .
This assertion is not true .
As a number of reporters pointed out , not only did Republicans involved in the impeachment have access to the SCIF , but many of them also used it .
As part of a made-for-TV stunt , House Republicans did storm a SCIF in October to protest Democrats not providing Republicans who were otherwise uninvolved in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , Republicans who are members of one of the three committees involved in the process had the same access as Democrats .
When the trial resumed after a brief pause following Sekulow and Cipollone ’ s statements , Schiff noted that Cipollone made “ a false statement ” about access to the SCIF , saying , “ I will tell you this : He ’ s mistaken .
He ’ s mistaken ... [ Republicans ] got the same time we did.
” Falsehood No .
2 : Schiff “ manufactured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July Zelensky call That wasn ’ t the only easily refutable lie pushed by Cipollone during his opening remarks on Tuesday .
At another point , he alluded to Schiff ’ s paraphrasing of Trump ’ s now-infamous July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky : “ When Mr. Schiff saw that his allegations [ about Trump abusing his power ] were false , and he knew it anyway , what did he do ?
He went to the House and he manufactured a fraudulent version of that phone call .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he didn ’ t tell them it was a complete fake , ” Cipollone said , echoing a talking point that Trump has incessantly used to discredit the impeachment inquiry .
But those comments are a gross mischaracterization of what Schiff did .
Schiff paraphrased the phone call for dramatic effect and made clear he was doing so .
Though his decision may have been ill-advised — I criticized it at the time because it provided Trump with grist to diminish the proceedings — in no way did Schiff try and bamboozle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t say .
And there was more Cipollone wasn ’ t alone in getting basic stuff wrong .
Sekulow ’ s opening statement , which served as an extended complaint about process , also managed to mangle the facts ( he claimed House Democrats delayed transmitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a longer period of time than was actually the case ) and mischaracterize the impeachment process ( he said Trump “ was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses ” during the House inquiry when , in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so ) .
Although most of the impeachment trial is still to come , the way Cipollone and Sekulow handled their opening statements suggests the White House is confident they have little to worry about from Senate Republicans , some of whom have indicated they would like to hear from witnesses as part of the process .
Facts , not to mention a sense of shame , will not get in the way of the narrative that Trump ’ s legal team intends to push about Democrats having it out for the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the American people will either agree with them or won ’ t be able to see through it .
Schiff made clear that he also views Cipollone and Sekulow ’ s false claims as part of a strategy .
After the aforementioned break , he mentioned a number of the lies and said , “ Why don ’ t they have a better argument to make on the merits ?
” When Schiff wrapped up , the next speaker — Rep. Zoe Lofgren ( D-CA ) — also devoted some time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both Trump and executive privilege .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

The opening debate of the Senate impeachment trial on Tuesday afternoon was supposed to be merely about the trial rules. But in quintessential Trump fashion, members of President Donald Trump’s legal team wasted no time telling a number of lies before things really got going.
Though getting facts wrong might be somewhat understandable in the context of extemporaneous statements, these falsehoods came in the context of prepared remarks read by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and personal Trump attorney Jay Sekulow. And if that approach is indicative of how the rest of the trial will go, casual watchers may end up with an understanding of the timeline of Trump’s Ukraine dealings and ensuing impeachment that’s at odds with reality.
Falsehood No. 1: Trump’s lawyers claimed Republicans didn’t have access to key information during House impeachment inquiry
As part of an effort to portray the process that resulted in Trump’s impeachment and trial as a partisan witch hunt, Cipollone at one point complained that “not even [House Intelligence Committee chair and impeachment manager Adam] Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF,” or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, which is basically the secure facility that members of Congress used to review classified information pertinent to the impeachment inquiry.
"Not even Mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF" -- this is a blatant lie from Cipollone pic.twitter.com/A4cWhwRSUo — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 21, 2020
This assertion is not true. As a number of reporters pointed out, not only did Republicans involved in the impeachment have access to the SCIF, but many of them also used it.
Cipollone says “Not even Mr. Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF” during impeachment investigation.
That’s 100% false. Any member of the three investigating committees could attend, and many Republicans did! — Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) January 21, 2020
As part of a made-for-TV stunt, House Republicans did storm a SCIF in October to protest Democrats not providing Republicans who were otherwise uninvolved in the impeachment inquiry with access to closed-door depositions. However, Republicans who are members of one of the three committees involved in the process had the same access as Democrats.
When the trial resumed after a brief pause following Sekulow and Cipollone’s statements, Schiff noted that Cipollone made “a false statement” about access to the SCIF, saying, “I will tell you this: He’s mistaken. He’s mistaken ... [Republicans] got the same time we did.”
Falsehood No. 2: Schiff “manufactured” Trump’s comments during the July Zelensky call
That wasn’t the only easily refutable lie pushed by Cipollone during his opening remarks on Tuesday. At another point, he alluded to Schiff’s paraphrasing of Trump’s now-infamous July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: “When Mr. Schiff saw that his allegations [about Trump abusing his power] were false, and he knew it anyway, what did he do? He went to the House and he manufactured a fraudulent version of that phone call. He read it to the American people, and he didn’t tell them it was a complete fake,” Cipollone said, echoing a talking point that Trump has incessantly used to discredit the impeachment inquiry.
Another new low.
White House Counsel for President of United States on the floor of Senate engaging in disinformation.
Repeating false claim that Schiff “manufactured a false version of that call.” The call transcript was ALREADY PUBLIC, Schiff was obviously paraphrasing it. https://t.co/8lmfZ5gGey — Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) January 21, 2020
But those comments are a gross mischaracterization of what Schiff did. Schiff paraphrased the phone call for dramatic effect and made clear he was doing so. Though his decision may have been ill-advised — I criticized it at the time because it provided Trump with grist to diminish the proceedings — in no way did Schiff try and bamboozle people into believing Trump said things he didn’t say.
Cipollone on Schiff's summary of the call: "He read it to the American people, and he didn't tell them it was a complete fake."
In fact, Schiff disclosed up-front that his summary of what Trump said on the call was "shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words." — Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) January 21, 2020
And there was more
Cipollone wasn’t alone in getting basic stuff wrong. Sekulow’s opening statement, which served as an extended complaint about process, also managed to mangle the facts (he claimed House Democrats delayed transmitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a longer period of time than was actually the case) and mischaracterize the impeachment process (he said Trump “was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses” during the House inquiry when, in fact, the White House declined to do so).
Sekulow: "The President was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses.... denied the right to access evidence... and denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. That's a trifecta, a trifecta that violates the Constitution of the United States." #CheddarNews pic.twitter.com/k75rB18rjd — Cheddar News (@CheddarNews) January 21, 2020
Although most of the impeachment trial is still to come, the way Cipollone and Sekulow handled their opening statements suggests the White House is confident they have little to worry about from Senate Republicans, some of whom have indicated they would like to hear from witnesses as part of the process.
Facts, not to mention a sense of shame, will not get in the way of the narrative that Trump’s legal team intends to push about Democrats having it out for the president — and Cipollone and Sekulow are betting that the American people will either agree with them or won’t be able to see through it.
Schiff made clear that he also views Cipollone and Sekulow’s false claims as part of a strategy. After the aforementioned break, he mentioned a number of the lies and said, “Why don’t they have a better argument to make on the merits?”
SCHIFF: "When you hear them attack the House managers, what you're really hearing is 'we don't want to talk about POTUS's guilt ... so we'll attack the House managers b/c maybe we can distract you for a moment' ... why don't they have a better argument to make on the merits?" pic.twitter.com/W8CgaHCgXO — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 21, 2020
When Schiff wrapped up, the next speaker — Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) — also devoted some time to debunking the false claims Cipollone made about both Trump and executive privilege.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-01-21--Mexico is cracking down on another US-bound migrant caravan

Violence broke out on Mexico ’ s border with Guatemala on Monday after Mexican immigration authorities denied entry to a caravan of thousands of migrants , mostly from Honduras .
About 4,000 migrants had requested passage by presenting a petition addressed to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador on the bridge across the Suchiate River , which connects the port of entry at Ciudad Hidalgo to Guatemala .
But after authorities refused to open the gates to the port , about 500 migrants attempted to cross the border by wading through the river .
In an unusual show of force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shields fired tear gas and threw rocks at the migrants on the riverbank to stop them from crossing .
The migrants threw rocks of their own at the guardsmen , according to NPR ’ s James Fredrick .
Amid the chaos , Reuters reported that some families were separated .
It was yet another instance in which Mexico has sought to clamp down on Central American migrant caravans arriving at its border with Guatemala .
The government wants to avoid antagonizing US President Donald Trump , who in 2019 threatened to impose tariffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not step up its immigration enforcement efforts .
Mexico also simply lacks the capacity to manage such large numbers of migrants .
In a statement Monday , the Mexican government accused the caravan ’ s leaders of directing migrants to cross the river without considering how it would endanger children and other vulnerable members of the group .
Five National Guard members sustained injuries as a result of Monday ’ s scuffle , the government said .
It ’ s not clear how many migrants were injured , but reports have indicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexican government said it has provided medical care , including hospitalization , to migrants who have requested it , including some who appeared dehydrated .
Although some Hondurans intend to remain in Mexico and find jobs , most of those in the caravan are seeking transit through Mexico in the hopes of reaching the US border .
It ’ s a signal that as long as violence and economic instability continues to drive Central American migrants out of their home countries , they will continue to seek refuge in the US — no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other nations to stop them .
What will happen to Hondurans in the caravan As reports surfaced that a caravan was en route to the Mexican border last week , López Obrador had vowed that migrants could either request a work permit to remain in southern Mexico legally or claim asylum , but would not be permitted to travel to the US .
Now , however , it appears that at least some of the migrants will be deported .
With the aid of the National Guard , Mexican immigration authorities sent over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross the border to immigration detention facilities , where they will be screened to determine whether they have the right to remain in Mexico or will be sent back to Honduras .
Women and children will be deported via plane , whereas others will travel via bus , according to the Mexican government .
As is standard practice in Mexico , those who claim asylum will be released from detention and processed by the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance ( COMAR ) .
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ( UNCHR ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Mexico to eight offices , has agreed to help COMAR identify migrants with asylum claims , a spokesperson for the agency said .
Honduras produces high numbers of people seeking asylum : In 2017 , the most recent year for which data is available , the US granted asylum to 2,048 migrants from Honduras , compared with 1,048 from Mexico , 3,471 from El Salvador , and 2,954 from Guatemala .
Honduras remains a hotbed of gang violence , largely perpetrated by the international criminal gang MS-13 , which formed in Los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following mass deportations of unauthorized immigrants with criminal histories in the 1990s .
The gangs facilitate drug trafficking , extort local residents , and force teenage boys to join .
The country also has the fifth-highest homicide rate worldwide , according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime , as well as rampant government corruption and high rates of violence against women and LGBTQ individuals .
Hondurans likely won ’ t be able to seek asylum in the US Migrants ’ chances of evading Mexican authorities and being granted asylum in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be returned to Mexico under the Trump administration ’ s “ Remain in Mexico ” policy , officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols ( MPP ) .
More than 56,000 migrants have been sent back to await decisions on their US asylum applications .
The Trump administration has also brokered a series of agreements with Central America ’ s “ Northern Triangle ” countries — Guatemala , El Salvador , and Honduras — that allow the US to send migrants back to those countries , though the agreement with Guatemala is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far .
The agreements resemble “ safe third-country agreements , ” a rarely used diplomatic tool that requires migrants to seek asylum in the countries they pass through by deeming those countries capable of offering them protection ( though the Trump administration has been reluctant to use that term ) .
Until recently , the US had this kind of agreement with just one country : Canada .
The administration has sought such agreements in Central America as a means of achieving Trump ’ s goal of driving down the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by sending them back to the countries from which they came and passed through .
Immigrant advocates argue that doing so could have deadly consequences .

Violence broke out on Mexico’s border with Guatemala on Monday after Mexican immigration authorities denied entry to a caravan of thousands of migrants, mostly from Honduras.
About 4,000 migrants had requested passage by presenting a petition addressed to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador on the bridge across the Suchiate River, which connects the port of entry at Ciudad Hidalgo to Guatemala. But after authorities refused to open the gates to the port, about 500 migrants attempted to cross the border by wading through the river.
In an unusual show of force, Mexican National Guard troops carrying riot shields fired tear gas and threw rocks at the migrants on the riverbank to stop them from crossing. The migrants threw rocks of their own at the guardsmen, according to NPR’s James Fredrick. Amid the chaos, Reuters reported that some families were separated.
It was yet another instance in which Mexico has sought to clamp down on Central American migrant caravans arriving at its border with Guatemala. The government wants to avoid antagonizing US President Donald Trump, who in 2019 threatened to impose tariffs on all Mexican goods if the country did not step up its immigration enforcement efforts. Mexico also simply lacks the capacity to manage such large numbers of migrants.
Just witnessed a full on military operation by Mexico’s National Guard against caravan migrants who walked across the river into Mexico. Families running and screaming. Rocks flying. Babies crying. Total chaos. No word of injuries yet pic.twitter.com/Hvbyqpy3IS — James Fredrick (@jameslfredrick) January 20, 2020
In a statement Monday, the Mexican government accused the caravan’s leaders of directing migrants to cross the river without considering how it would endanger children and other vulnerable members of the group. Five National Guard members sustained injuries as a result of Monday’s scuffle, the government said.
It’s not clear how many migrants were injured, but reports have indicated that at least some were. The Mexican government said it has provided medical care, including hospitalization, to migrants who have requested it, including some who appeared dehydrated.
Although some Hondurans intend to remain in Mexico and find jobs, most of those in the caravan are seeking transit through Mexico in the hopes of reaching the US border. It’s a signal that as long as violence and economic instability continues to drive Central American migrants out of their home countries, they will continue to seek refuge in the US — no matter how much the Trump administration pressures other nations to stop them.
What will happen to Hondurans in the caravan
As reports surfaced that a caravan was en route to the Mexican border last week, López Obrador had vowed that migrants could either request a work permit to remain in southern Mexico legally or claim asylum, but would not be permitted to travel to the US. Now, however, it appears that at least some of the migrants will be deported.
With the aid of the National Guard, Mexican immigration authorities sent over 400 of the migrants who attempted to cross the border to immigration detention facilities, where they will be screened to determine whether they have the right to remain in Mexico or will be sent back to Honduras. Women and children will be deported via plane, whereas others will travel via bus, according to the Mexican government.
As is standard practice in Mexico, those who claim asylum will be released from detention and processed by the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), which has recently expanded its presence in Mexico to eight offices, has agreed to help COMAR identify migrants with asylum claims, a spokesperson for the agency said.
Honduras produces high numbers of people seeking asylum: In 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, the US granted asylum to 2,048 migrants from Honduras, compared with 1,048 from Mexico, 3,471 from El Salvador, and 2,954 from Guatemala.
Honduras remains a hotbed of gang violence, largely perpetrated by the international criminal gang MS-13, which formed in Los Angeles and was transplanted to Central America following mass deportations of unauthorized immigrants with criminal histories in the 1990s. The gangs facilitate drug trafficking, extort local residents, and force teenage boys to join.
The country also has the fifth-highest homicide rate worldwide, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, as well as rampant government corruption and high rates of violence against women and LGBTQ individuals.
Hondurans likely won’t be able to seek asylum in the US
Migrants’ chances of evading Mexican authorities and being granted asylum in the US remain slim.
They may be returned to Mexico under the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). More than 56,000 migrants have been sent back to await decisions on their US asylum applications.
The Trump administration has also brokered a series of agreements with Central America’s “Northern Triangle” countries — Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras — that allow the US to send migrants back to those countries, though the agreement with Guatemala is the only one that has gone into effect so far.
The agreements resemble “safe third-country agreements,” a rarely used diplomatic tool that requires migrants to seek asylum in the countries they pass through by deeming those countries capable of offering them protection (though the Trump administration has been reluctant to use that term). Until recently, the US had this kind of agreement with just one country: Canada.
The administration has sought such agreements in Central America as a means of achieving Trump’s goal of driving down the number of migrants seeking refuge at the US-Mexico border by sending them back to the countries from which they came and passed through. Immigrant advocates argue that doing so could have deadly consequences.


vox--2020-01-21--It is absolutely fine to rip your books in half

On Monday morning , an apparently innocuous tweet summoned a storm of controversy on Twitter .
“ Yesterday my colleague called me a ‘ book murderer ’ because I cut long books in half to make them more portable , ” said the novelist and editor Alex Christofi .
“ Does anyone else do this ?
Is it just me ?
” As Natalie Morris reported on Metro , some respondents were decidedly outraged , calling Christofi ’ s actions “ demonic ” and Christofi himself a “ book psychopath.
” But others were torn .
Logically , they said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine for Christofi to do whatever he wanted to do with his own books .
But emotionally , it was hard to look at books that had been cut in half .
This outsize reaction and emotional conflict isn ’ t new to the internet .
It tends to rear its head whenever we start talking about books as physical objects and how best to treat them .
When Marie Kondo suggested getting rid of books that didn ’ t spark joy , book lovers were outraged : Didn ’ t Kondo know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were much richer and more unsettling than joy ?
And when it became trendy to shelve one ’ s books by color , some readers sneered that such a practice was only for literary poseurs , that true readers who cared about their books as more than just decorative objects would never organize them so counterintuitively .
That reaction only intensified during the more short-lived trend of shelving one ’ s books spine-in , and after Town & Country reported that some celebrities hire book curators to give their libraries exactly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make not only your bookshelf pop , but also the veins in the eyes of every librarian in a five-mile radius , ” said Cracked , adding that the curator ’ s “ rich and dubiously literate clients ” would never “ run the risk of cracking those very fetch spines.
” On an anecdotal level , it became personally clear to me that many people feel strongly about the moral value of books as physical objects after I , a book critic and reporter who covers the publishing industry , aggregated an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a little weird how we all fetishize books , and some readers kindly advised me to “ please fucking die ” because “ this is anti-intellectualism , you stupid fucking bitch.
” We seem to project enormously intense feelings onto books , feelings that make us protective of them and furious toward those we perceive as threatening them .
We think of our books as symbols of our taste , our intellect , our moral vigor .
And when we hold books in such high esteem , those who treat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become infidels .
We started getting precious about books in the 18th century because marketers wanted us to There is something deeply romantic about the idea of holding a physical book in your hands : feeling the weight of it , the smoothness of the pages , and above all else the smell .
The smell of books is a particular obsession in popular culture ; you can buy candles or perfumes that try to approximate it , and on TV , characters who love books are always demonstrating their bookishness by waxing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smell musty and rich , ” says Giles , the librarian on Buffy the Vampire Slayer .
“ If it ’ s to last , then the getting of knowledge should be tangible .
It should be , um … smelly.
” “ Nothing , nothing smells like that , ” sighs Rory on Gilmore Girls , cradling an enormous leather-bound book in her arms and huffing the pages .
The smell of a book doesn ’ t have anything to do with its contents .
It has no moral function , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if we ’ re reading physical books , then the scent of the book is intrinsic to the embodied experience of reading .
And if we ’ re treating reading — any kind of reading , of any kind of book — as an inherent and objective good , then the book as object becomes its own kind of goodness by association .
So the smell of the book , the aspect that is most insistently tactile , becomes good too .
In the essay that inspired people to send me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McGregor argues that this fetish around the book as physical object can be traced back to the industrialization of paper production in the late 18th century , and the corresponding rise of an accessible book market for the home .
That market , McGregor writes , “ was actively invested in anthropomorphizing books , making them part of ‘ the living world ’ so that people could love them ( by buying them ) .
” Gradually , over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries , middle-class Americans were taught to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding that bookishness would always be a moral good : “ To be a reader is better than to not be a reader , ” McGregor summarizes , “ but one kind of reading or book is not better than another.
” And because reading is good , all of the paraphernalia associated with reading — the pens , the bookmarks , the tea , the candles , the tote bags with kitschy quotes on them — all of that becomes good as well .
And so , especially and of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as object , worthy of special consideration and respect purely for existing as a book .
But the idea that reading is a purely moral good does not withstand close examination .
President Donald Trump is an author , and his books are available for purchase and reading and smelling just as much as the works of Toni Morrison are .
But it is not equally good for us , either morally or intellectually , to devote our attention to the books of both of those people .
Trump ’ s ideas do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valuable when they are encased within the slipcover of a book than they are when they are poured directly into his Twitter feed .
Books are neutral vehicles for content , and that content can be either good or bad .
I want to be clear : I am saying all of this as someone who has devoted my professional life to books , who enjoys a kitschy book tote and has huffed many a page in my time .
I understand the romance of the book .
But I also recognize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good or smart or special person .
My preference for them is not a unique quality that proves my moral superiority , or in fact anything that it ’ s worth constructing my personal identity around .
Neither is my preference for shelving my books spine-out , organized by genre and publication date .
All of those preferences are value-neutral statements .
Books are an incredibly flexible technology .
That means you can do whatever you want with them .
Here ’ s where I ’ ll stand up for the book as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the printed paper book that we hold in our hands , which took over for the scroll as our dominant reading format in the West in the fourth century AD — is an old , old technology .
We ’ re still working out the kinks with e-books , but at this point , the codex is out of beta testing .
Most of its bugs have been fixed over the past 17 centuries .
It ’ s been streamlined and optimized into an incredibly simple , intuitive system .
And part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is a malleable technology .
It is easy for individual users to reshape it in whatever way best suits their own individual needs .
With a codex , you can get interactive with the text .
You can dog-ear the pages if you choose .
You can scribble in the margins and underline and highlight .
You can rip a codex in half so it ’ s easier to carry around and dip into during your commute .
Or you can treat your books as decorative objects .
You can organize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collages with their spines .
You can rip out the pages and use them to paper your walls .
If you want to make people really mad , you can rip a book into pieces and then organize the shreds by color .
None of these choices are moral failings — and all of them mean that you ’ re taking full advantage of the enormous flexibility and power of the printed book .
And maybe that ’ s a power worth romanticizing .

On Monday morning, an apparently innocuous tweet summoned a storm of controversy on Twitter.
“Yesterday my colleague called me a ‘book murderer’ because I cut long books in half to make them more portable,” said the novelist and editor Alex Christofi. “Does anyone else do this? Is it just me?”
Yesterday my colleague called me a 'book murderer' because I cut long books in half to make them more portable. Does anyone else do this? Is it just me? pic.twitter.com/VQUUdJMpwT — Alex Christofi (@alex_christofi) January 21, 2020
Responses were mixed.
As Natalie Morris reported on Metro, some respondents were decidedly outraged, calling Christofi’s actions “demonic” and Christofi himself a “book psychopath.” But others were torn.
Logically, they said, they could understand that it was fine for Christofi to do whatever he wanted to do with his own books. But emotionally, it was hard to look at books that had been cut in half.
My head says you can do what you like with your stuff.
My emotional response to this: pic.twitter.com/OblkUFXbLR — DVdR (@DVDReeck) January 21, 2020
This outsize reaction and emotional conflict isn’t new to the internet. It tends to rear its head whenever we start talking about books as physical objects and how best to treat them.
When Marie Kondo suggested getting rid of books that didn’t spark joy, book lovers were outraged: Didn’t Kondo know that the best books would spur emotions that were much richer and more unsettling than joy? And when it became trendy to shelve one’s books by color, some readers sneered that such a practice was only for literary poseurs, that true readers who cared about their books as more than just decorative objects would never organize them so counterintuitively.
That reaction only intensified during the more short-lived trend of shelving one’s books spine-in, and after Town & Country reported that some celebrities hire book curators to give their libraries exactly the right look: This curator “will make not only your bookshelf pop, but also the veins in the eyes of every librarian in a five-mile radius,” said Cracked, adding that the curator’s “rich and dubiously literate clients” would never “run the risk of cracking those very fetch spines.”
On an anecdotal level, it became personally clear to me that many people feel strongly about the moral value of books as physical objects after I, a book critic and reporter who covers the publishing industry, aggregated an essay by professor Hannah McGregor arguing that it’s a little weird how we all fetishize books, and some readers kindly advised me to “please fucking die” because “this is anti-intellectualism, you stupid fucking bitch.”
We seem to project enormously intense feelings onto books, feelings that make us protective of them and furious toward those we perceive as threatening them. We think of our books as symbols of our taste, our intellect, our moral vigor. And when we hold books in such high esteem, those who treat them as objects rather than as symbols become infidels.
We started getting precious about books in the 18th century because marketers wanted us to
There is something deeply romantic about the idea of holding a physical book in your hands: feeling the weight of it, the smoothness of the pages, and above all else the smell. The smell of books is a particular obsession in popular culture; you can buy candles or perfumes that try to approximate it, and on TV, characters who love books are always demonstrating their bookishness by waxing poetic about the smell.
“Books smell musty and rich,” says Giles, the librarian on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. “If it’s to last, then the getting of knowledge should be tangible. It should be, um … smelly.”
“Nothing, nothing smells like that,” sighs Rory on Gilmore Girls, cradling an enormous leather-bound book in her arms and huffing the pages.
The smell of a book doesn’t have anything to do with its contents. It has no moral function, it’s just the smell of paper. But if we’re reading physical books, then the scent of the book is intrinsic to the embodied experience of reading. And if we’re treating reading — any kind of reading, of any kind of book — as an inherent and objective good, then the book as object becomes its own kind of goodness by association. So the smell of the book, the aspect that is most insistently tactile, becomes good too.
In the essay that inspired people to send me death threats after I recommended it, McGregor argues that this fetish around the book as physical object can be traced back to the industrialization of paper production in the late 18th century, and the corresponding rise of an accessible book market for the home. That market, McGregor writes, “was actively invested in anthropomorphizing books, making them part of ‘the living world’ so that people could love them (by buying them).”
Gradually, over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, middle-class Americans were taught to aspire to bookishness, with the general understanding that bookishness would always be a moral good: “To be a reader is better than to not be a reader,” McGregor summarizes, “but one kind of reading or book is not better than another.” And because reading is good, all of the paraphernalia associated with reading — the pens, the bookmarks, the tea, the candles, the tote bags with kitschy quotes on them — all of that becomes good as well. And so, especially and of course, does the book itself: the book as object, worthy of special consideration and respect purely for existing as a book.
But the idea that reading is a purely moral good does not withstand close examination. President Donald Trump is an author, and his books are available for purchase and reading and smelling just as much as the works of Toni Morrison are. But it is not equally good for us, either morally or intellectually, to devote our attention to the books of both of those people. Trump’s ideas do not magically become more coherent or more valuable when they are encased within the slipcover of a book than they are when they are poured directly into his Twitter feed. Books are neutral vehicles for content, and that content can be either good or bad.
I want to be clear: I am saying all of this as someone who has devoted my professional life to books, who enjoys a kitschy book tote and has huffed many a page in my time. I understand the romance of the book.
But I also recognize that liking books does not make me a good or smart or special person. My preference for them is not a unique quality that proves my moral superiority, or in fact anything that it’s worth constructing my personal identity around. Neither is my preference for shelving my books spine-out, organized by genre and publication date. All of those preferences are value-neutral statements.
Books are an incredibly flexible technology. That means you can do whatever you want with them.
Here’s where I’ll stand up for the book as a physical object. The codex — the printed paper book that we hold in our hands, which took over for the scroll as our dominant reading format in the West in the fourth century AD — is an old, old technology. We’re still working out the kinks with e-books, but at this point, the codex is out of beta testing. Most of its bugs have been fixed over the past 17 centuries. It’s been streamlined and optimized into an incredibly simple, intuitive system.
And part of what makes the codex so valuable is that it is a malleable technology. It is easy for individual users to reshape it in whatever way best suits their own individual needs.
With a codex, you can get interactive with the text. You can dog-ear the pages if you choose. You can scribble in the margins and underline and highlight. You can rip a codex in half so it’s easier to carry around and dip into during your commute.
Or you can treat your books as decorative objects. You can organize them by color. You can build collages with their spines. You can rip out the pages and use them to paper your walls. If you want to make people really mad, you can rip a book into pieces and then organize the shreds by color.
None of these choices are moral failings — and all of them mean that you’re taking full advantage of the enormous flexibility and power of the printed book. And maybe that’s a power worth romanticizing.


vox--2020-01-21--Tom Steyer’s foreign policy plan: Just do whatever Obama did

Businessman and billionaire Tom Steyer has a foreign policy plan to deal with climate change , China , and Iran : basically , do what President Barack Obama did .
In seeking a climate change agreement with China , a broader policy of mutual trust between Beijing and Washington , and something like the Iran nuclear deal , Steyer seems to be offering continuity — not change — from Obama-era foreign policy .
That ’ s the main takeaway from my short interview with Steyer on Sunday night .
The long-shot presidential candidate lacks formal foreign policy chops , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business provided him with plenty of global knowledge .
What ’ s more , he says it ’ s not experience , but rather judgment , that voters should most consider when deciding which Democrat would make the best commander in chief .
I wanted to explore that idea further with Steyer .
How would he weigh a concession China might want in exchange for its support for a climate deal ?
Would he go to Congress before ever ordering the military to kill a terrorist ?
And how would he deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever to getting a nuclear weapon on the day he enters the Oval Office ?
His response ?
Follow the Obama framework , and make the world admire America again .
“ The thing that makes us safest is a sense of people around the world of who the United States is , which is we ’ re the good guys , ” he told me .
“ We ’ re the people who believe in democracy .
We ’ re the people who believe in freedom .
We ’ re the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , edited for length and clarity , is below .
You ’ ve been clear that tackling climate change would be your No .
1 priority as president , and you ’ ve also identified China as “ frenemy.
” To combat climate change , of course , you ’ ll need China to sign on to whatever pledges you might want .
How will you get Beijing to agree to your climate demands ?
We have a very important and complicated relationship with China , and there ’ s no chance for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s any country in the world that is going to suffer because of climate change , China ’ s going to suffer dramatically .
So it ’ s absolutely in their interests to solve this .
The idea that we ’ re going to compel them to do something against their interest — is it true ?
In fact , it is dramatically in their interest to solve this crisis together with the other leading countries in the world .
So China will just sign on to a climate deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its interest to tackle climate change ?
What President Obama did was the right thing , which was to go to them and work out a plan together .
That ’ s the starting place in terms of coming up with a climate plan that can work for the whole world .
That ’ s what we have to do .
It ’ s not going to be a question of threats .
It ’ s going to be in the context of all of the other things that we do together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy in the world , and we have incredibly intertwined economies .
It ’ s practically impossible to separate the two countries .
What we ’ re going to have to do is make sure we work together so that a climate deal works in their economic interest as well as their environmental interests .
But I don ’ t know how ultimately they are going to separate the two because if we don ’ t solve this , the suffering in China is going to be incredible .
But the world looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was president .
I don ’ t think anyone would disagree China would suffer from the effects of climate change .
But one could imagine under President Xi Jinping that Beijing might try to extract concessions from the US in exchange for the climate agreement you so badly want .
For example , China could say “ don ’ t criticize our treatment of the Uighurs ” or “ stay silent on our crackdown on Hong Kong.
” So what ’ s a trade-off you ’ d be willing to make ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framing , because in fact a climate deal is something that dramatically helps China — and I mean dramatically .
We have an absolute shared interest in solving this together and we have to make sure that we do it in a way that is good for growth and employment .
But the idea that somehow they ’ re doing it for us , once you ’ re in that framework , I think you ’ re making a mistake .
Since I ’ ve mentioned the Uighurs , you told CBS News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t consider China ’ s treatment of them to be a “ genocide.
” As you know , some experts have labeled it a genocide .
What do you consider China ’ s treatment of the Uighurs to be , then ?
My opinion is this is something where they are committing human rights violations .
The appropriate answer , it seems to me , in those cases is not for the United States to step in , but for the international community with leadership from the United States to step in .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again , as you did with climate , is that this is really a United States problem and don ’ t we have to deal with it ?
I think that ’ s not true .
This is the kind of problem that the international community should deal with together .
And in fact that ’ s when we ’ ve had the most success as a country , is working with other people on behalf of the values that we share with other countries .
When you say the “ international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about ?
Are you talking about the UN ?
Are you talking about forming a multilateral coalition ?
What does that international community action towards China actually look like on this issue ?
Realistically , it probably would be some combination of countries .
If you thought the UN could work on this , that would be one thing .
But I ’ m not sure that it can .
The question is , how will you build a coalition of people to make it clear that internationally this is outside the range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it leads to isolating China .
We ’ re going to have substantial important differences with the People ’ s Republic of China going forward .
We have them in terms of the theft of intellectual property , we have them in terms of the closing of markets .
Those are ongoing things that are very significant for American working people and American business .
Then we have issues , as you ’ re putting it , about human rights and democracy .
Then together we have to share trade relations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a complicated relationship , and we haven ’ t even gotten to anything military .
For each one of those aspects I just mentioned , the question really was “ how do you put that in the context of a very broad relationship ?
” I thought that President Obama and his team worked to have an actual relationship of trust , so that you actually could negotiate successfully .
What Mr. Trump has done is gone to a bilateral relationship of confrontation and competition that clearly I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think can work .
The framework you ’ re talking about is : What can we threaten them with to get them to give up something ?
How do we get them to solve our problem ?
I don ’ t think that ’ s the framework that successful negotiations take place in .
To be clear , I wasn ’ t saying the US has to threaten China to get something .
But my concern is China may still demand something big from the US in order to get their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even if we ’ re working in a coalition .
That ’ s why I wanted to know what you were willing to consider putting on the table .
They are always in the position of needing to sell things in the United States of America .
Don ’ t take that out .
As much as we are intertwined with them economically and from a trade standpoint , they absolutely need us .
Never forget that .
So you think that , for lack of a better term , America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a big market China needs to sell to , and therefore China has to work with Washington ?
Is there any doubt ?
This is an export-driven country and you ’ re talking about the biggest consumer market in the world .
Do I think that it ’ s important ?
Yeah , I do .
The question is , do you then go to a place of confrontation and escalation or do you go to a place where you work together to try and get things done ?
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can see from the Paris agreement on climate change that it ’ s possible to do that .
And it ’ s possible to undo because you can see what Mr. Trump has been doing .
Let ’ s move on to Iran and the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani .
In your initial tweets on Trump ’ s decision , you called Soleimani a “ terrorist ” but blasted the administration for not seeking congressional approval .
In a Steyer administration , then , would you seek a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Let ’ s be clear , Soleimani was also a government official in a sovereign country .
I believe that according to international law , in order for us to do that , there has to be an imminent threat , which the administration first said there was and then backed off that claim .
It wasn ’ t just killing a terrorist , it was something much beyond that , from the standpoint of international law .
The whole idea was that it was such an imminent threat that [ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he basically bypassed every ordinary channel procedure and accepted rule in doing it .
If you ask me , this is a consistent behavior .
He acted impulsively .
He didn ’ t have a process internally .
He ’ s gutted the State Department .
He didn ’ t go through the normal American or international channels .
And he basically decided that he was going to do what he was going to do without really even having a strategy other than to escalate .
It seems like you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader strategy toward Iran .
Definitely .
He has withdrawn us from the Iran nuclear deal , and then escalated continuously kind of along the lines of exactly what I ’ m saying , which is bilateral confrontation without a strategy and upping the ante at every stage .
That ’ s what I think this was .
I think at some level you have to ask , “ Does this make us safer ?
” Isn ’ t that the point ?
And I don ’ t believe that there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To be clear : You think the US killing Soleimani made the world less safe than it would ’ ve been had he not killed Soleimani ?
I believe so .
The thing that makes us safest is a sense of people around the world of who the United States is , which is we ’ re the good guys .
We ’ re the people who believe in democracy .
We ’ re the people who believe in freedom .
We ’ re the people that believe in equality .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was president , everyone loved us and felt as if we were going to try and do the right thing .
We were of course still imperfect then , but there was a sense that we were trying to stand up for what was right .
Giving up on that and just being the country that has the biggest guns — and showing we ’ re willing to use them if you don ’ t do what we want — is not the way to make America safer .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service members safer .
It ’ s not the way to make Americans safer from terrorists around the world .
You would enter the White House with Iran likely closer — but not close , to be clear — to obtaining a nuclear weapon — — because of Donald Trump .
I don ’ t want to let that go by .
Because of Donald Trump , he will have made us substantially less safe .
Alright , so what is your plan to stop Iran from getting the bomb ?
What are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama was doing with Iran was basically in a coalition with some of our close allies .
He was offering Iran economic relief in return for them giving up their nuclear ambitions for 10 years .
From what I can tell , and I haven ’ t been to Iran in the last few years , but from what I can tell that trade still exists .
They ’ re having huge economic issues now due to Trump ’ s policies .
Obviously , this is a regime that is not friendly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
This is a regime which stands for things that we absolutely , violently disagree with .
We ’ ve had numerous conflicts with them .
The question is , when you look at this region of the world where we ’ ve had multiple wars , you have to ask , what are you trying to accomplish there in terms of the safety of Americans ?
What are our interests in the Middle East ?
Is our interest in protecting Americans from terrorism ?
Is our interest in preserving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s face it — is that one of your critical interests ?
Is your interest trying to preserve safety and peace in the Middle East ?
When you think about what to do about Iran , you have to ask yourself these questions and then you have to be answering those questions honestly .
In looking at this regime , giving them economic relief is something that is very , very valuable to them and leaves them in a better position .
They ’ d be getting something they very much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we very much want .
To clarify , you think that framework will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon ?
Just give it economic relief ?
Our predominant interest with Iran at this point is the safety of Americans .
The job of commander in chief , particularly with regard to this regime , is the safety of American citizens .
When I look at the Middle East , I ’ m not interested in another 19-year war .
I ’ m not interested in service people in the United States of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you look at the last 20 years of American foreign policy in the Middle East , I don ’ t think people have been clear with what they ’ re doing .
They have felt as if this is all playing with free money , but it ’ s not free money .
Every dollar we spend there is a dollar we don ’ t spend on an American kid .
That ’ s got to be taken into account .
Every time we send a service person into harm ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American life we ’ re taking and we ’ re putting at risk .
There has to be an absolutely fantastic reason to do that .
What I can see in Iran is our interest here is getting this region and the terror that they support to be tamped down and controlled for the sake of American safety .
To get there , then , you would lift the sanctions Trump reimposed and basically go back to the Obama-era Iran deal ?
We have sanctions on , so that would have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re in the same position now .
And the question is where are they and what can be redone ?
In a negotiation , of course , God is in the details .
But people have to think , first , that you ’ re a partner who can be trusted .
Why negotiate with someone who goes back on their word ?
You can ’ t do it .
And secondly , are you in the range of reason ?
You can ’ t negotiate with someone if they ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just normal stuff .

Businessman and billionaire Tom Steyer has a foreign policy plan to deal with climate change, China, and Iran: basically, do what President Barack Obama did.
In seeking a climate change agreement with China, a broader policy of mutual trust between Beijing and Washington, and something like the Iran nuclear deal, Steyer seems to be offering continuity — not change — from Obama-era foreign policy.
That’s the main takeaway from my short interview with Steyer on Sunday night. The long-shot presidential candidate lacks formal foreign policy chops, but he has consistently argued his years in business provided him with plenty of global knowledge. What’s more, he says it’s not experience, but rather judgment, that voters should most consider when deciding which Democrat would make the best commander in chief.
I wanted to explore that idea further with Steyer. How would he weigh a concession China might want in exchange for its support for a climate deal? Would he go to Congress before ever ordering the military to kill a terrorist? And how would he deal with Iran, which may be closer than ever to getting a nuclear weapon on the day he enters the Oval Office?
His response? Follow the Obama framework, and make the world admire America again.
“The thing that makes us safest is a sense of people around the world of who the United States is, which is we’re the good guys,” he told me. “We’re the people who believe in democracy. We’re the people who believe in freedom. We’re the people that believe in equality.”
Our interview, edited for length and clarity, is below.
Alex Ward
You’ve been clear that tackling climate change would be your No. 1 priority as president, and you’ve also identified China as “frenemy.” To combat climate change, of course, you’ll need China to sign on to whatever pledges you might want. How will you get Beijing to agree to your climate demands?
Tom Steyer
We have a very important and complicated relationship with China, and there’s no chance for us to disengage from China. If there’s any country in the world that is going to suffer because of climate change, China’s going to suffer dramatically. So it’s absolutely in their interests to solve this.
The idea that we’re going to compel them to do something against their interest — is it true? In fact, it is dramatically in their interest to solve this crisis together with the other leading countries in the world.
Alex Ward
So China will just sign on to a climate deal with the US simply because it’s in its interest to tackle climate change?
Tom Steyer
What President Obama did was the right thing, which was to go to them and work out a plan together. That’s the starting place in terms of coming up with a climate plan that can work for the whole world. That’s what we have to do.
It’s not going to be a question of threats. It’s going to be in the context of all of the other things that we do together. They’re the second biggest economy in the world, and we have incredibly intertwined economies. It’s practically impossible to separate the two countries.
What we’re going to have to do is make sure we work together so that a climate deal works in their economic interest as well as their environmental interests. But I don’t know how ultimately they are going to separate the two because if we don’t solve this, the suffering in China is going to be incredible.
Alex Ward
But the world looks different now than it did when Obama was president. I don’t think anyone would disagree China would suffer from the effects of climate change. But one could imagine under President Xi Jinping that Beijing might try to extract concessions from the US in exchange for the climate agreement you so badly want.
For example, China could say “don’t criticize our treatment of the Uighurs” or “stay silent on our crackdown on Hong Kong.” So what’s a trade-off you’d be willing to make?
Tom Steyer
I think that that’s an inaccurate framing, because in fact a climate deal is something that dramatically helps China — and I mean dramatically. We have an absolute shared interest in solving this together and we have to make sure that we do it in a way that is good for growth and employment. But the idea that somehow they’re doing it for us, once you’re in that framework, I think you’re making a mistake.
Alex Ward
Since I’ve mentioned the Uighurs, you told CBS News earlier this month that you don’t consider China’s treatment of them to be a “genocide.” As you know, some experts have labeled it a genocide. What do you consider China’s treatment of the Uighurs to be, then?
Tom Steyer
My opinion is this is something where they are committing human rights violations. The appropriate answer, it seems to me, in those cases is not for the United States to step in, but for the international community with leadership from the United States to step in.
I think your question seems to imply once again, as you did with climate, is that this is really a United States problem and don’t we have to deal with it? I think that’s not true. This is the kind of problem that the international community should deal with together. And in fact that’s when we’ve had the most success as a country, is working with other people on behalf of the values that we share with other countries.
Alex Ward
When you say the “international community,” who are you talking about? Are you talking about the UN? Are you talking about forming a multilateral coalition? What does that international community action towards China actually look like on this issue?
Tom Steyer
Realistically, it probably would be some combination of countries. If you thought the UN could work on this, that would be one thing. But I’m not sure that it can.
The question is, how will you build a coalition of people to make it clear that internationally this is outside the range of acceptability? I don’t think it leads to isolating China.
We’re going to have substantial important differences with the People’s Republic of China going forward. We have them in terms of the theft of intellectual property, we have them in terms of the closing of markets. Those are ongoing things that are very significant for American working people and American business. Then we have issues, as you’re putting it, about human rights and democracy. Then together we have to share trade relations and the need to combat climate change.
It’s a complicated relationship, and we haven’t even gotten to anything military.
Alex Ward
So what’s your China strategy?
Tom Steyer
For each one of those aspects I just mentioned, the question really was “how do you put that in the context of a very broad relationship?” I thought that President Obama and his team worked to have an actual relationship of trust, so that you actually could negotiate successfully. What Mr. Trump has done is gone to a bilateral relationship of confrontation and competition that clearly I don’t think has worked, I don’t think can work.
The framework you’re talking about is: What can we threaten them with to get them to give up something? How do we get them to solve our problem? I don’t think that’s the framework that successful negotiations take place in.
Alex Ward
To be clear, I wasn’t saying the US has to threaten China to get something. But my concern is China may still demand something big from the US in order to get their cooperation even in areas of mutual interest and even if we’re working in a coalition. That’s why I wanted to know what you were willing to consider putting on the table.
Tom Steyer
They are always in the position of needing to sell things in the United States of America. Don’t take that out. As much as we are intertwined with them economically and from a trade standpoint, they absolutely need us. Never forget that.
Alex Ward
So you think that, for lack of a better term, America’s trump card is that it’s a big market China needs to sell to, and therefore China has to work with Washington?
Tom Steyer
Is there any doubt? This is an export-driven country and you’re talking about the biggest consumer market in the world. Do I think that it’s important? Yeah, I do.
The question is, do you then go to a place of confrontation and escalation or do you go to a place where you work together to try and get things done? That’s partially a question of attitude and relationship. You can see from the Paris agreement on climate change that it’s possible to do that. And it’s possible to undo because you can see what Mr. Trump has been doing.
Alex Ward
Let’s move on to Iran and the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani. In your initial tweets on Trump’s decision, you called Soleimani a “terrorist” but blasted the administration for not seeking congressional approval.
In a Steyer administration, then, would you seek a congressional green light before killing a terrorist?
It is essential that we protect American service members and citizens throughout the region while working with our allies to prevent further escalation that could lead to a devastating war that Americans do not want. (2/2) — Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) January 3, 2020
Tom Steyer
Let’s be clear, Soleimani was also a government official in a sovereign country. I believe that according to international law, in order for us to do that, there has to be an imminent threat, which the administration first said there was and then backed off that claim.
It wasn’t just killing a terrorist, it was something much beyond that, from the standpoint of international law. The whole idea was that it was such an imminent threat that [the president] couldn’t consult Congress, and he basically bypassed every ordinary channel procedure and accepted rule in doing it.
If you ask me, this is a consistent behavior. He acted impulsively. He didn’t have a process internally. He’s gutted the State Department. He didn’t go through the normal American or international channels. And he basically decided that he was going to do what he was going to do without really even having a strategy other than to escalate.
Alex Ward
It seems like you’re more concerned about Trump’s broader strategy toward Iran.
Tom Steyer
Definitely. He has withdrawn us from the Iran nuclear deal, and then escalated continuously kind of along the lines of exactly what I’m saying, which is bilateral confrontation without a strategy and upping the ante at every stage. That’s what I think this was.
I think at some level you have to ask, “Does this make us safer?” Isn’t that the point? And I don’t believe that there’s an argument that this made us safer.
Alex Ward
To be clear: You think the US killing Soleimani made the world less safe than it would’ve been had he not killed Soleimani?
Tom Steyer
I believe so. The thing that makes us safest is a sense of people around the world of who the United States is, which is we’re the good guys. We’re the people who believe in democracy. We’re the people who believe in freedom. We’re the people that believe in equality. If you went around the world when Obama was president, everyone loved us and felt as if we were going to try and do the right thing.
We were of course still imperfect then, but there was a sense that we were trying to stand up for what was right. Giving up on that and just being the country that has the biggest guns — and showing we’re willing to use them if you don’t do what we want — is not the way to make America safer. It’s not the way to make America’s service members safer. It’s not the way to make Americans safer from terrorists around the world.
Alex Ward
You would enter the White House with Iran likely closer — but not close, to be clear — to obtaining a nuclear weapon —
Tom Steyer
— because of Donald Trump. I don’t want to let that go by. Because of Donald Trump, he will have made us substantially less safe.
Alex Ward
Alright, so what is your plan to stop Iran from getting the bomb? What are you willing to do?
Tom Steyer
What President Obama was doing with Iran was basically in a coalition with some of our close allies. He was offering Iran economic relief in return for them giving up their nuclear ambitions for 10 years. From what I can tell, and I haven’t been to Iran in the last few years, but from what I can tell that trade still exists. They’re having huge economic issues now due to Trump’s policies.
Obviously, this is a regime that is not friendly to the United States or allied with the United States. This is a regime which stands for things that we absolutely, violently disagree with. We’ve had numerous conflicts with them.
The question is, when you look at this region of the world where we’ve had multiple wars, you have to ask, what are you trying to accomplish there in terms of the safety of Americans? What are our interests in the Middle East? Is our interest in protecting Americans from terrorism? Is our interest in preserving the flow of oil around the world — let’s face it — is that one of your critical interests? Is your interest trying to preserve safety and peace in the Middle East?
When you think about what to do about Iran, you have to ask yourself these questions and then you have to be answering those questions honestly. In looking at this regime, giving them economic relief is something that is very, very valuable to them and leaves them in a better position. They’d be getting something they very much want. We’re getting something we very much want.
Alex Ward
To clarify, you think that framework will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Just give it economic relief?
Tom Steyer
Our predominant interest with Iran at this point is the safety of Americans. The job of commander in chief, particularly with regard to this regime, is the safety of American citizens.
When I look at the Middle East, I’m not interested in another 19-year war. I’m not interested in service people in the United States of America going there except to protect us. If you look at the last 20 years of American foreign policy in the Middle East, I don’t think people have been clear with what they’re doing. They have felt as if this is all playing with free money, but it’s not free money. Every dollar we spend there is a dollar we don’t spend on an American kid. That’s got to be taken into account.
Every time we send a service person into harm’s way, that’s an American life we’re taking and we’re putting at risk. There has to be an absolutely fantastic reason to do that. What I can see in Iran is our interest here is getting this region and the terror that they support to be tamped down and controlled for the sake of American safety.
Alex Ward
To get there, then, you would lift the sanctions Trump reimposed and basically go back to the Obama-era Iran deal?
Tom Steyer
We have sanctions on, so that would have to be the give from us. We’re in the same position now. And the question is where are they and what can be redone?
In a negotiation, of course, God is in the details. But people have to think, first, that you’re a partner who can be trusted. Why negotiate with someone who goes back on their word? You can’t do it. And secondly, are you in the range of reason? You can’t negotiate with someone if they’re not in the range of reason. That’s just normal stuff.


vox--2020-01-21--A SARS-like virus is spreading quickly. Here’s what you need to know.

Just three weeks ago , China announced the outbreak of a mysterious new virus in the city of Wuhan involving a cluster of people who ’ d been exposed to animals at a local food market .
Flash-forward to Tuesday : the number of cases of 2019-nCoV , as the virus is known , has leaped to nearly 300 and there are sick people in at least five other countries .
That includes the first case in the United States .
The 30-something man , a resident of Washington state , tested positive for 2019-nCoV after being hospitalized with pneumonia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Disease Control and Prevention briefing Tuesday .
The patient , who is currently in good condition , had recently traveled to Wuhan , China — the epicenter of the outbreak — and returned to Seattle on January 15 .
“ The appearance of an infected person in the US means this disease is on the cusp of becoming a pandemic , just like SARS in 2003 , ” Peter Daszak , the president of EcoHealth Alliance , a US global health research organization working in China , told Vox .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get noticed at the border before they get sick , and then spread the virus to others , seeding further outbreaks .
It ’ s unlikely but means we have to be extra vigilant.
” With information about 2019-nCoV — and its risk of spreading — evolving by the day , we ’ ve answered basic questions about the outbreak here .
We ’ ll be updating this story as more information becomes available .
1 ) How did this outbreak start ?
The outbreak was first acknowledged by Chinese officials on December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 million in Hubei province .
At that point , cases centered on Wuhan ’ s Huanan South China Seafood Market .
Local health officials reported then that patients with the virus were “ mainly business staff and purchasers ” at the market , where vendors peddle seafood as well as animals such as birds and rabbits .
Scientists in China quickly ruled out known pathogens as the likely cause .
And the leading hypothesis then was that a yet-to-be-identified novel virus had spread to humans from one of the animals in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state broadcaster , China Central Television , reported that many of the people who had become ill tested positive for a new virus , 2019-nCoV .
Two days later , scientists in China shared the genetic sequence of the new virus , and the WHO applauded China ’ s efforts .
( This transparency was a contrast to the SARS outbreak of 2003 , when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long .
The virus eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000 . )
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have started at the market — with animals spreading the virus directly to humans — by January 20 , they confirmed that human-to-human transmission is also happening .
On January 21 , the WHO ’ s Western Pacific Regional Office said on Twitter that the spread may involve “ sustained ” human-to-human transmission , meaning the virus can transmit easily from one person to the next and then onward to others .
Knowing that , “ the scope of this outbreak expands massively , ” said EcoHealth ’ s Daszak .
2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many have died ?
As of January 21 , 298 people had fallen ill across China — in Wuhan , Shanghai , Guangdong , and Beijing .
Additional cases have turned up in travelers to the US , Thailand , Japan , Taiwan , and South Korea .
The Philippines and Australia are monitoring suspected cases , and a total of six people have died .
But the real toll may be much higher .
Researchers who have modeled the outbreak ’ s potential in Hong Kong and the UK suggest there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 1,300 to more than 1,700 .
The risk of rapid spread is heightened at the moment , as hundreds of millions start to travel this week for China ’ s Lunar New Year on January 25 .
3 ) What do we know about the first US patient ?
The patient ’ s name hasn ’ t been released , but we know he ’ s a resident of Snohomish County in Washington state and that he recently traveled to Wuhan , returning to Seattle on January 15 , two days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Department ’ s Customs and Border Protection — began screening travelers from Wuhan for the virus at US airports .
By January 19 , the man reached out to health care providers to report his symptoms and travel history — and they suspected 2019-nCoV .
That day , doctors tested him to see if the virus might be causing the illness , and by January 21 , health officials announced the result .
He ’ s currently being treated at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett , Washington .
The man told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Wuhan , or have any contact with sick people .
Now , the CDC and health officials in Washington are starting to do contact tracing to suss out if the man transmitted the virus to anyone in the US .
4 ) How easily does this virus spread ?
We don ’ t yet know the exact way the virus is spreading or how easy it is to catch 2019-nCoV .
But we do know it ’ s part of a large family of viruses called coronaviruses , which mostly infect mammals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respiratory system , sometimes targeting the cells deep within the lungs .
Only seven , including 2019-nCoV , SARS , and MERS , are known to be spread to humans .
According to the CDC , human coronaviruses are most commonly passed via : • The air through coughing and sneezing • Touching an object or surface with the virus on it , then touching your mouth , nose , or eyes before washing your hands We also know at least 15 health care workers have been infected .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in outbreaks , ” explained Tom Inglesby , director of the Center for Health Security of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health .
“ It ’ s always a sign of alarm when that happens , ” he added , because it means the virus may be easily transmitted .
5 ) What are the symptoms ?
Two of the seven coronaviruses that infect humans , SARS and MERS , can cause severe pneumonia and even death .
The rest lead to milder symptoms , like a common cold .
Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019-nCoV falls on that spectrum .
So far , the main symptoms reported are fever followed by difficulty breathing , the WHO said .
Chest X-rays have shown signs of pneumonia in both lungs .
( A quick refresher : Pneumonia is an infection in the lungs that can be caused by a variety of organisms — bacteria , fungi , viruses , even parasites .
The lungs ’ air sacs become inflamed and fill up with fluid or pus instead of air . )
Of the 298 infected , nearly 230 are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , around 60 cases are critically ill. Others who are sick have recovered or been sent home from the hospital .
And six people have died .
It ’ s possible there are many more people with the virus out there who have very mild symptoms or who are asymptomatic , said Dr. Jeremy Farrar , director of the Wellcome Trust , a research charity focused on global health .
If that ’ s the case , and there are thousands carrying 2019-nCoV while only a few people have died , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also possible this virus winds up behaving like SARS , said Inglesby , which kills about one in 10 patients infected .
With SARS , “ We saw substantial spread in health care settings where health care workers became ill during care for patients , ” for example .
“ This is a very serious outbreak with the potential for widespread transmission.
” 6 ) What ’ s the likelihood this becomes a global public health emergency ?
The potential for this virus to spread further is so great that the World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to meet on Wednesday to decide whether the emergence of 2019-nCoV constitutes a global public health emergency .
Formally , a public health emergency of international concern , or PHEIC — pronounced “ fake ” — is defined as “ an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.
” In reality , it ’ s a political tool the WHO uses to sound the alarm about a serious disease that has caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s health in danger .
It ’ s meant to draw countries ’ immediate attention , to galvanize resources , and stop the disease from spreading further across borders .
A key consideration in declaring a PHEIC is whether the disease threat is dire enough to risk countries enacting travel and trade restrictions .
Declarations can be devastating to local economies and are often associated with economic losses .
So they ’ re not taken lightly .
In fact , the WHO has only declared a public health emergency five times since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global health emergency responses , were enacted in 2007 .
The first time was in 2009 , with the outbreak of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic .
The second time was in May 2014 , when polio seemed to surge again , threatening the eradication effort .
The third time , in August 2014 , came as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was growing out of control .
The fourth was related to Zika in 2016 .
And the fifth was another outbreak of Ebola that ’ s ongoing in the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee meeting Wednesday will have to agree that an outbreak meets that formal definition : that it is extraordinary , poses a high risk to other countries , and requires an immediate , coordinated global response .
Inglesby , for one , thinks it already meets that definition .
“ The criteria for a PHEIC seem to have been fulfilled : [ The virus is ] spread internationally , with the potential to spread further .
It ’ s new .
It ’ s causing serious illness.
” 7 ) How worried should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are too many unknowns to say .
We don ’ t know which animal carries this virus , how exactly it spreads , how easily it spreads among people , how deadly it is , or the range of symptoms it can cause .
We don ’ t know how vulnerable the people who have died were to pneumonia .
But many so far appear to be elderly with underlying health conditions , which would suggest this virus may not be a mass killer .
Even so , the fact that cases are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — mere weeks after this outbreak was first declared — suggests we should brace ourselves for an escalation , as Daszak suggested .
For now , the CDC has stated that “ the risk from 2019-nCoV to the American public is deemed to be low.
” But there are likely to be several more cases — in the US and beyond , said Nancy Messonnier , director of the CDC ’ s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases , Friday .
“ What I would generally say is I think that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to see additional cases all around the world as folks look for it more.
” That doesn ’ t , however , mean American officials expect the US to be inundated with dozens of patients .
And it ’ s the major cities in and around China that are most at risk , according to a paper posted on January 14 in the Journal of Travel Medicine .
The top travel destinations out of Wuhan — and most at risk of spread of this disease — include Bangkok , Hong Kong , @ @ @ @ @

On December 31 last year, China announced a small outbreak of a new coronavirus in the city of Wuhan involving 27 cases.
Flash-forward to Wednesday: The number of cases of 2019-nCoV, as the virus is known, has leaped past 6,000, and there are sick people in more than a dozen other countries.
That includes five confirmed cases in the United States.
Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said Friday that although the outbreak is a “very serious public health threat, the immediate risk to the US public is low at this time.”
Yet Tom Frieden, the former director of the CDC, told Vox he’s concerned by how infectious the virus is. “If the sustained human transmission and a high rate of severe illness are confirmed, then it clearly is an event of international concern.”
With information about 2019-nCoV — and its risk of spreading — evolving by the hour, we’ve answered basic questions about the outbreak here. We’ll be updating this story as more information becomes available.
1) Where did this coronavirus outbreak come from?
The outbreak was first reported to the World Health Organization by Chinese officials on December 31 in Wuhan, a city of 11 million in Hubei province. At that time, cases centered around Wuhan’s Huanan South China Seafood Market. Local health officials reported then that patients with the virus were “mainly business staff and purchasers” at the market, where vendors peddle seafood as well as animals such as birds and rabbits.
Scientists in China quickly ruled out known pathogens as the likely cause. The leading hypothesis then was that a yet-to-be-identified novel virus had spread to humans from one of the animals in the market.
By January 9, the state broadcaster, China Central Television, reported a major discovery: a new virus, known as 2019-nCoV. Many of the people who had become ill tested positive for 2019-nCoV. Two days later, Chinese scientists shared the genetic sequence of the new virus, and the WHO applauded China’s efforts for sharing information readily. (This transparency was a contrast to the SARS outbreak of 2003, when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long. The virus eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000.)
By January 20, Chinese authorities confirmed that human-to-human transmission is also occurring. By January 23, the WHO confirmed that there is “fourth-generation” spread of the virus in Wuhan, meaning there are cases where an individual has spread it to a second person, that second person to a third, and the third to a fourth. (Outside of Wuhan, there’s also evidence of second-generation cases.) Knowing that, “the scope of this outbreak expands massively,” Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a US global health research organization working in China, told Vox.
But the picture of the beginnings of this outbreak is changing. A recent study, published on January 24 in The Lancet, suggests the outbreak may not have actually started at the market. The first known patient had no market exposure. And that person became ill on December 1, nearly two weeks earlier than Wuhan health authorities had suggested about the first case.
2) How many people are sick? How many have died?
As of January 29, at least 6,057 people have fallen ill. The vast majority of these patients (5,970) are in mainland China, and most (3,554) are concentrated in Hubei province, home to Wuhan. The remaining cases are spread across more than 30 Chinese provinces and cities — including Shanghai, Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Beijing. To get the latest numbers, check out this website from researchers at Johns Hopkins; it collects data from various sources: the WHO, the CDC, the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (NHC), and two other sites. (The map is embedded below.)
Source: Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering
Additional cases have turned up in travelers in more than a dozen other countries, including the US, Canada, Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, France, Australia, Nepal, Vietnam, Germany, and South Korea. A total of 132 people have died.
But the real toll may be much higher.
Hong Kong University infectious disease researchers have estimated that the virus may be spreading person-to-person in all of China’s major mainland cities, and that there are already 44,000 cases in Wuhan alone. UK-based researchers who have modeled the outbreak’s potential suggest there are likely many more cases — as many as 9,700, according to the upper end of their estimate. And the risk of rapid spread is heightened, as hundreds of millions have been traveling for China’s Lunar New Year.
3) How is the world responding?
Chinese authorities first warned people to stop traveling in and out of Wuhan, and then said they would put the city under quarantine beginning January 23, suspending public transport within Wuhan, and canceling flights and trains leaving the city. It was an extraordinary move given that Wuhan has a population of 11 million, more people than New York City. By the evening of January 24, quarantine measures had expanded to 12 cities near Wuhan, effectively stifling the movement of 35 million people. By January 25, President Xi Jinping said the new virus posed a “grave” threat, and his government ordered travel agencies to suspend tours for Chinese citizens inside China and overseas. The same day, Hong Kong authorities declared a state of emergency over the virus and closed schools for three weeks, while Beijing suspended all inter-province buses.
According to the New York Times, the government said the quarantine was needed to “effectively cut off the transmission of the virus, resolutely curb the spread of the epidemic, and ensure the safety and health of the people.” But the evidence for travel restrictions during outbreaks shows, counterintuitively, that they don’t actually do much to stop the spread of disease.
Health officials in China and the region are now scrambling to find cases through screening at transportation hubs and follow-up with the contacts of those infected with the virus — an effort that’s supported by the WHO.
Other countries at risk of imported cases have also implemented extraordinary measures. In the US, the CDC — along with the Homeland Security Department’s Customs and Border Protection — began screening travelers from Wuhan for the virus at US airports on January 17, and all travelers from the city will be funneled through airports that are looking out for cases. The US government evacuated American diplomats and citizens from Wuhan. Its also advising Americans to avoid non-essential travel to China. Hong Kong has suspended ferry and train links with mainland China, and cancelled flights. Meanwhile, several airlines have begun cancelling flights to China — including Air Canada, British Airways, and United.
4) What do we know about the cases in the US?
Right now there are five confirmed cases in the US, according to the CDC. All involved travelers from Wuhan:
The first patient’s name hasn’t been released, but we know he’s a resident of Snohomish County in Washington state. We also know he’s in his 30s and he recently traveled to Wuhan, returning to Seattle on January 15, two days before airport screening started (though the man didn’t have symptoms yet). By January 19, he reached out to health care providers to report his symptoms and travel history. They suspected 2019-nCoV. The man is being treated for mild pneumonia at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Washington.
The second case, reported on January 24, involves a woman in her 60s who lives in Chicago. She returned from Wuhan on January 13 and didn’t have any symptoms while traveling. A few days after returning, when she started to feel ill, she called health care providers to report her symptoms and was admitted to a hospital and placed in isolation. She’s currently in stable condition.
The third, fourth, and fifth cases, reported over the weekend, concerned individuals in Orange County and LA County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, respectively. They had all recently traveled to Wuhan, and they’re receiving care in local hospitals.
As of January 25, CDC officials said they’ve screened over 2,000 people coming into the US for the disease on 200 flights, and found zero cases. The agency also said it’s investigating 100 possible cases of coronavirus in 26 states.
5) How does the new coronavirus spread?
We don’t yet know the exact way the virus is spreading, but we do know it’s part of a large family of viruses called coronaviruses, which mostly infect mammals, including bats. Coronaviruses attack the respiratory system, sometimes targeting the cells deep within the lungs. Only seven, including 2019-nCoV, SARS, and MERS, have evolved to infect humans.
According to the CDC, human coronaviruses are most commonly passed via:
Through coughing and sneezing
Close personal contact, including touching and shaking hands
Touching an object or surface with the virus on it, then touching your mouth, nose, or eyes before washing your hands
And rarely, through fecal contamination
As for how easily the new coronavirus spreads, that’s also unclear. According to a preliminary estimate from the WHO, at the moment, each individual has transmitted the virus to an average of 1.4 to 2.5 others. That makes 2019-nCoV, based on what we know now, less contagious than SARS. But there are many different estimates floating around as the situation evolves — and some suggest 2019-nCoV is even more contagious.
For the moment, the WHO estimates the virus’s incubation period — before symptoms start to show — is between two and 10 days, but it’s not yet known whether the virus can spread during that time.
We also know at least 15 health care workers have been infected. “It’s unusual to get health care worker infections in outbreaks,” explained Tom Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “It’s always a sign of alarm when that happens,” he added, because it means the virus may be easily transmitted, even in settings where people are taking precautions.
6) What are the symptoms of the new coronavirus?
Two of the seven coronaviruses that infect humans, SARS and MERS, can cause severe pneumonia and even death. The rest lead to milder symptoms, like a common cold. At the moment, it’s not clear where 2019-nCoV falls on that spectrum.
An early report, published in the Lancet, provided a good overview of what’s known about symptoms so far — in a subset of the first 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV in Wuhan. The most common symptoms in this group were fever, cough, muscle pain, and fatigue; less common were headache, diarrhea, and coughing up mucus or blood. A little more than half of the 41 patients had difficulty breathing, and 63 percent had low levels of white blood cells. As for the disease severity: 13 patients were admitted to an ICU and six died. By January 22, 68 percent of the patients had been discharged from the hospital.
All patients had pneumonia and lung abnormalities on CT scans. (A quick refresher: Pneumonia is an infection in the lungs that can be caused by a variety of organisms — bacteria, fungi, viruses, even parasites. In this case, 2019-nCoV is causing the infection and leading the lungs’ air sacs to become inflamed and fill up with fluid or pus instead of air.)
In the Lancet group, most patients were men and over half didn’t have underlying diseases. The median age was 49.
It’s possible there are many more people with the virus who have very mild symptoms or who are asymptomatic, said Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, a research charity focused on global health. If that’s the case, and there are thousands carrying 2019-nCoV while only a few people have died, this outbreak will look milder.
It’s also possible this virus winds up behaving like SARS, said Inglesby, which kills about one in 10 patients infected. With SARS, “We saw substantial spread in health care settings where health care workers became ill during care for patients,” for example. “This is a very serious outbreak with the potential for widespread transmission.”
7) What’s the likelihood this becomes a global public health emergency?
The potential for this virus to spread further is so great that the WHO gathered an expert committee on Wednesday and Thursday last week to decide whether the emergence of 2019-nCoV constitutes a global public health emergency, a rare designation the agency gives outbreaks that pose an international threat.
By the end of Thursday, the WHO’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced the committee’s decision that the outbreak doesn’t yet constitute one, mainly because of the limited number of cases outside of China, and China’s efforts to control the spread of the disease.
“Make no mistake, this is an emergency in China. But it has not yet become a global health emergency,” Tedros explained. He also vowed to reconvene the emergency committee in the coming days to review new data. “At this time, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen,” Tedros added.
Formally, a public health emergency of international concern, or PHEIC — pronounced “fake” — is defined as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.” In reality, it’s a political tool the WHO uses to sound the alarm about a serious disease that has caught the world off guard and put people’s health in danger. It’s meant to draw countries’ immediate attention, to galvanize resources, and stop the disease from spreading further across borders.
A key consideration in declaring a PHEIC is whether the disease threat is dire enough to risk countries enacting travel and trade restrictions. Declarations can be devastating to local economies and are often associated with economic losses. So they’re not taken lightly. In fact, the WHO has only declared a public health emergency five times since the International Health Regulations, which govern global health emergency responses, were enacted in 2007.
The first time was in 2009, with the outbreak of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic. The second time was in May 2014, when polio seemed to surge again, threatening the eradication effort. The third time, in August 2014, came as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was growing out of control. The fourth was related to Zika in 2016. And the fifth, in 2019, was another outbreak of Ebola that’s ongoing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
8) How worried should I be about a pandemic?
There are too many unknowns to say. We don’t know which animal carries this virus. We don’t know how exactly it spreads. We don’t know how easily it spreads among people, or how deadly and severe the virus is.
To put the cases and deaths so far into perspective, remember that seasonal flu kills between 250,000 and 650,000 people each year. “Right now, you’re probably more likely to be catching flu than you are to be getting coronavirus,” said Devi Sridhar, chair in global public health at the University of Edinburgh.
Even so, the fact that cases are already turning up in so many countries — mere weeks after this outbreak was first declared — suggests we should brace ourselves for an escalation.
Messonnier of the CDC said there are likely to be more cases in the coming days — in the US and beyond. “This is a rapidly changing situation — abroad and domestically — and we’re still learning,” Messonnier added.
That doesn’t, however, mean American officials expect the US to be inundated with dozens of patients or that the virus will spread broadly within the country. It’s the major cities in and around China that are most at risk, according to a paper posted on January 14 in the Journal of Travel Medicine. The top travel destinations out of Wuhan — and most at risk of spread of the infection — include Bangkok, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Taipei.
Listen to Today, Explained
A SARS-like virus has sickened thousands in China, and made its way to the United States. Vox’s Julia Belluz explains what’s known and what’s next.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and ART19.