vox--2020-05-29--A Texas Supreme Court decision could disenfranchise millions during the pandemic

The Texas Supreme Court , a body made up entirely of Republicans , handed down a decision Wednesday evening that could potentially disenfranchise millions of Texans if the coronavirus pandemic keeps voters at home come Election Day .
The case , In re State of Texas , involves an unusual state law that permits Texas voters to receive an absentee ballot merely by requesting one — but only if they are older than 65 .
For younger voters , the state imposes strict limits on voting by mail .
The overwhelming majority of states allow any lawful voter to obtain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their request .
Texas , by contrast , allows only a minority of voters to obtain one .
One provision of state law allows elderly voters to vote absentee .
Another permits absentee ballots if a voter will be away from their home county on Election Day .
A third provides that “ a qualified voter is eligible for early voting by mail if the voter has a sickness or physical condition that prevents the voter from appearing at the polling place on Election Day without a likelihood of needing personal assistance or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — a requirement that , according to the state Supreme Court ’ s decision in Texas , applies only to people who are ill or disabled .
Civil rights groups and the state Democratic Party argued that this third provision should be broadly interpreted to allow anyone who could become infected with the coronavirus to vote absentee .
The words “ physical condition , ” they argued , includes the physical condition of being susceptible to a deadly pandemic disease .
In other words , during a pandemic that requires social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nearly everyone has a “ physical condition ” that should enable them to vote absentee .
In recent elections , older voters have tended to prefer Republican candidates over Democrats .
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton , a Republican , objected to the broader interpretation of the law .
At one point , his office even threatened to bring criminal prosecutions against any organization that encourages younger voters to request an absentee ballot .
The state Supreme Court ’ s nine Republican justices ultimately sided with Paxton , although two of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The court ’ s decision in Texas will not be the last word on whether younger Texans may vote absentee in November .
In a separate Texas lawsuit , a federal trial judge ruled last week that the state can not discriminate against younger voters .
Among other things , he determined that the Texas law violates the 26th Amendment , which permits all otherwise eligible voters over the age of 18 to cast a ballot .
But the federal decision has been appealed to the notoriously conservative US Court of Appeals for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard by a US Supreme Court that is frequently hostile to claims of voter suppression .
So it is far from clear that younger Texans will be allowed to vote absentee .
Because the Texas Supreme Court acted quickly , its decision may wind up helping voting rights advocates The thrust of Chief Justice Nathan Hecht ’ s majority opinion in Texas is that the state law allowing people with a “ sickness or physical condition ” to vote absentee applies only to individuals with a condition that sets them apart from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of immunity to Covid-19 , though certainly physical , ” Hecht writes , “ is not an abnormal or distinguishing condition.
” That ’ s an entirely plausible reading of the Texas law — if an unfortunate one , given the stakes in this litigation .
But while the ruling means that younger voters won ’ t find relief at the state level , the fact that the Texas Supreme Court decided Texas well in advance of the November election is somewhat good news for voting rights advocates .
Had the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , federal courts may have delayed their own decisions on Texas absentee voting until it was too late .
One issue in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott , the federal lawsuit claiming that Texas ’ s law violates the 26th Amendment , concerns when , if ever , federal courts are allowed to decide whether the Texas law is unconstitutional .
In Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. ( 1941 ) , the US Supreme Court held that federal courts may abstain from hearing a case involving state law when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigated in state court .
In a separate decision , Purcell v. Gonzalez ( 2006 ) , the Court warned that “ orders affecting elections can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls , ” adding that “ as an election draws closer , that risk will increase.
” More recent Supreme Court decisions have read Purcell to suggest that federal courts must altogether avoid issuing orders that impact state election procedures as an election nears .
The plaintiffs in Texas Democratic Party , in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So long as the case was pending before the state ’ s highest court , Pullman might have prevented federal courts from striking down the Texas law .
But if the state Supreme Court sat on the case for too long , Purcell might kick in and prevent federal courts from ruling on Texas Democratic Party before the November election rendered it moot .
Now that the Texas Supreme Court has ruled , however , Pullman should be off the table .
That doesn ’ t mean that conservative judges on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be inclined to favor voting rights .
But it does give them one less reason to rule against voting rights in Texas Democratic Party .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Texas Supreme Court, a body made up entirely of Republicans, handed down a decision Wednesday evening that could potentially disenfranchise millions of Texans if the coronavirus pandemic keeps voters at home come Election Day.
The case, In re State of Texas, involves an unusual state law that permits Texas voters to receive an absentee ballot merely by requesting one — but only if they are older than 65. For younger voters, the state imposes strict limits on voting by mail.
The overwhelming majority of states allow any lawful voter to obtain an absentee ballot without having to justify their request. Texas, by contrast, allows only a minority of voters to obtain one. One provision of state law allows elderly voters to vote absentee. Another permits absentee ballots if a voter will be away from their home county on Election Day. A third provides that “a qualified voter is eligible for early voting by mail if the voter has a sickness or physical condition that prevents the voter from appearing at the polling place on Election Day without a likelihood of needing personal assistance or of injuring the voter’s health” — a requirement that, according to the state Supreme Court’s decision in Texas, applies only to people who are ill or disabled.
Civil rights groups and the state Democratic Party argued that this third provision should be broadly interpreted to allow anyone who could become infected with the coronavirus to vote absentee. The words “physical condition,” they argued, includes the physical condition of being susceptible to a deadly pandemic disease. In other words, during a pandemic that requires social distancing to control the spread of said disease, nearly everyone has a “physical condition” that should enable them to vote absentee.
In recent elections, older voters have tended to prefer Republican candidates over Democrats. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, objected to the broader interpretation of the law. At one point, his office even threatened to bring criminal prosecutions against any organization that encourages younger voters to request an absentee ballot. The state Supreme Court’s nine Republican justices ultimately sided with Paxton, although two of the nine did so for different reasons.
The court’s decision in Texas will not be the last word on whether younger Texans may vote absentee in November. In a separate Texas lawsuit, a federal trial judge ruled last week that the state cannot discriminate against younger voters. Among other things, he determined that the Texas law violates the 26th Amendment, which permits all otherwise eligible voters over the age of 18 to cast a ballot.
But the federal decision has been appealed to the notoriously conservative US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and may ultimately be heard by a US Supreme Court that is frequently hostile to claims of voter suppression. So it is far from clear that younger Texans will be allowed to vote absentee.
Because the Texas Supreme Court acted quickly, its decision may wind up helping voting rights advocates
The thrust of Chief Justice Nathan Hecht’s majority opinion in Texas is that the state law allowing people with a “sickness or physical condition” to vote absentee applies only to individuals with a condition that sets them apart from the population as a whole. “A lack of immunity to Covid-19, though certainly physical,” Hecht writes, “is not an abnormal or distinguishing condition.”
That’s an entirely plausible reading of the Texas law — if an unfortunate one, given the stakes in this litigation. But while the ruling means that younger voters won’t find relief at the state level, the fact that the Texas Supreme Court decided Texas well in advance of the November election is somewhat good news for voting rights advocates. Had the court waited too long to hand down its decision, federal courts may have delayed their own decisions on Texas absentee voting until it was too late.
One issue in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, the federal lawsuit claiming that Texas’s law violates the 26th Amendment, concerns when, if ever, federal courts are allowed to decide whether the Texas law is unconstitutional.
In Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. (1941), the US Supreme Court held that federal courts may abstain from hearing a case involving state law when the meaning of the law is currently being litigated in state court. In a separate decision, Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006), the Court warned that “orders affecting elections can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls,” adding that “as an election draws closer, that risk will increase.”
More recent Supreme Court decisions have read Purcell to suggest that federal courts must altogether avoid issuing orders that impact state election procedures as an election nears.
The plaintiffs in Texas Democratic Party, in other words, were potentially in a bind. So long as the case was pending before the state’s highest court, Pullman might have prevented federal courts from striking down the Texas law. But if the state Supreme Court sat on the case for too long, Purcell might kick in and prevent federal courts from ruling on Texas Democratic Party before the November election rendered it moot.
Now that the Texas Supreme Court has ruled, however, Pullman should be off the table. That doesn’t mean that conservative judges on the Fifth Circuit or the US Supreme Court will be inclined to favor voting rights. But it does give them one less reason to rule against voting rights in Texas Democratic Party.


What day is it today?

Today is Friday , May 29 , 2020 , at least in the continental United States .
It is already Saturday , May 30 , 2020 , in some parts of the world .
To some degree , time is an illusion .
We are bound by its forward passage , being the third-dimensional creatures we are , but the perceptions we have placed upon time have been invented .
Humans invented the year .
Humans invented the month .
Humans invented the day , the hour , the minute , the second .
These distinctions are not arbitrary — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Earth to orbit the sun — but their creation was not inevitable .
Our numerical system is likely base-10 because we have 10 fingers ; the way we understand time is almost entirely dependent on the fact that we evolved on this planet , circling this sun .
Time , at least as we understand it , is also a byproduct of capitalism .
In his seminal 1967 economic paper “ Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism , ” E. P. Thompson notes that in early human cultures , delineations of time were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and went down , when the seasons changed .
But as industrialization became the norm , time became a mechanized system that no longer served those who ’ d invented it .
We increasingly served at the beck and call of time , for that is how those who possessed capital could best regulate those who performed the labor .
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “ problem ” of leisure .
And a part of the problem is : how did it come to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage of convenience with industrial capitalism , was the agent which converted men to new valuations of time ; which taught children even in their infancy to improve each shining hour ; and which saturated men ’ s minds with the equation , time is money .
One recurrent form of revolt within Western industrial capitalism , whether bohemian or beatnik , has often taken the form of flouting the urgency of respectable timevalues .
And the interesting question arises : if Puritanism was a necessary part of the work-ethos which enabled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty-stricken economies of the past , will the Puritan valuation of time begin to decompose as the pressures of poverty relax ?
Is it decomposing already ?
Will men begin to lose that restless urgency , that desire to consume time purposively , which most people carry just as they carry a watch on their wrists ?
But it remains that on some base level , we will always understand time .
The sun comes up , the sun goes down .
Though we might be inside , where that process is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our insideness does not obscure the day and night cycle .
What is lost , as each day blends into the next , in vaguely similar ways , is the mechanistic definition of time , the capitalist definition of time , the industrial definition of time .
We do not know what day it is , but we do know when there is a new day .
To live inside is to lose distinction .
There is a numbing effect that occurs when each day is the same , when our schedules are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gulf of undifferentiated time .
And yet isn ’ t this how so many of the less privileged around the world , forced to work jobs involving menial labor , day after day after day , already live ?
Isn ’ t this why we invented the weekend ?
Has this quarantine simply shown to those of us with more economic privilege that our “ free time ” was always a mirage , which could disappear before our eyes , by giving us so much “ free ” time ?
I have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and when I need to orient myself in time , I look at it .
But even the usefulness of my calendar has started to fray around the edges .
I began writing this story because I couldn ’ t quite believe it was a Thursday , even as I knew it had to be a Thursday .
But it might as well not be .
A cycle that bears the sun across our sky until it sets in the west is a reality ; “ Thursday ” is an invention .
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know .
I will update this article daily until we don ’ t need it anymore .
I hope there is a time when we know it is Thursday or Tuesday or June 17 without having to look at a calendar or ask each other or Google .
I hope there is a time when going outside to see the sun doesn ’ t feel like exposing yourself to toxic levels of radiation .
( I know I should be taking walks ; every time , I feel like I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a time in which all this “ free ” time no longer feels like a period we must exploit for maximum value .
I hope there is a time when I remember what it ’ s like to grab lunch with a friend , to watch dogs play in the surf , to breathe in the air and just be .
Until then , find a way to make time have meaning for you .
Read a long book .
Cook an elaborate meal .
Take up knitting .
Write an epic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve always meant to get to .
Sleep .
Remember that time doesn ’ t own you , and that you own time .
This will be over someday , a part of the past .
It will someday be a memory .
Hang on to that .
I ’ ll see you outside again .
For now , it is Friday , May 29 , 2020 .
In some parts of the world , it is Saturday , May 30 , 2020 .
Are you a “ What day is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our official theme song .
It ’ s written by composer Laura Stratford , and it is wonderful .

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


vox--2020-05-29--Twitter flags Trump for “glorifying violence” in “looting starts, shooting starts” tweet

As protests and sporadic looting rocked Minneapolis Thursday night in the wake of George Floyd ’ s violent on-camera death at the hands of a police officer , President Donald Trump poured oil on the fire with a pair of tweets suggesting that he was about to dispatch troops to the Twin Cities and shooting looters .
Those remarks , in turn , prompted a response from Twitter , which said the tweets violated the service ’ s rules about glorifying violence but would not be removed because “ Twitter has determined that it may be in the public ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accessible.
” The premise , basically , is that when the president of the United States violates the Twitter terms of service , that ’ s news and people should know about it .
Nonetheless , the tweet now has special properties .
It ’ s hidden from Trump ’ s timeline , and accessible only if you visit the tweet directly after clicking a “ view ” button .
The reach of the tweet will also be limited as part of the process .
The tweet also can not be replied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the flag ensures it won ’ t be algorithmically recommended on the platform .
This turn of events , naturally enough , led Trump to pivot back to one of his other major themes this week — threatening regulatory consequences for social media companies that anger him .
Specifically , Trump called for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and reiterated his contention ( which lawyers say is false ) that he can somehow change the law through executive action .
It seems extremely unlikely that anything Trump says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the situation at Facebook puts this in some context .
Facebook ’ s public policy division is led by Joel Kaplan , a former deputy chief of staff in the George W. Bush administration and close friend of Brett Kavanaugh , who now routinely and often successfully intervenes in company disputes with an eye to making Facebook more GOP-friendly .
Twitter , YouTube , and other technology companies with significant influence in national media could follow that path if they chose to , and the president is making it clear that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As protests and sporadic looting rocked Minneapolis Thursday night in the wake of George Floyd’s violent on-camera death at the hands of a police officer, President Donald Trump poured oil on the fire with a pair of tweets suggesting that he was about to dispatch troops to the Twin Cities and shoot looters.
....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020
Those remarks, in turn, prompted a response from Twitter, which said the tweets violated the service’s rules about glorifying violence but would not be removed because “Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.”
The premise, basically, is that when the president of the United States violates the Twitter terms of service, that’s news and people should know about it. Nonetheless, the tweet now has special properties. It’s hidden from Trump’s timeline, and accessible only if you visit the tweet directly after clicking a “view” button. The reach of the tweet will also be limited as part of the process. The tweet also cannot be replied to, retweeted, or liked, and the flag ensures it won’t be algorithmically recommended on the platform.
This turn of events, naturally enough, led Trump to pivot back to one of his other major themes this week — threatening regulatory consequences for social media companies that anger him (he also reposted the tweet from the official White House account). Specifically, Trump called for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and reiterated his contention (which lawyers say is false) that he can somehow change the law through executive action.
Twitter is doing nothing about all of the lies & propaganda being put out by China or the Radical Left Democrat Party. They have targeted Republicans, Conservatives & the President of the United States. Section 230 should be revoked by Congress. Until then, it will be regulated! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020
It seems extremely unlikely that anything Trump says about this will have legal force. But the situation at Facebook puts this in some context. Facebook’s public policy division is led by Joel Kaplan, a former deputy chief of staff in the George W. Bush administration and close friend of Brett Kavanaugh, who now routinely and often successfully intervenes in company disputes with an eye to making Facebook more GOP-friendly.
Twitter, YouTube, and other technology companies with significant influence in national media could follow that path if they chose to, and the president is making it clear that he would like them to.


vox--2020-05-29--What’s up with the housing market in the pandemic

For house hunters wondering whether the coronavirus crisis might lead to a better deal on an upcoming purchase , there ’ s some bad news : probably not , at least not right now .
The housing market , somewhat like the stock market , has been okay lately — even during a pandemic , an economic recession , and a landscape where looking two days into the future seems murky , let alone two weeks or two months .
It took a significant dive when the coronavirus first took hold in the United States and stay-at-home orders began to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in recent weeks , it ’ s begun to come back .
Everything ’ s not exactly back to where it was pre-pandemic , but the sky isn ’ t falling , either .
According to data from Zillow , total housing inventory is down about 20 percent from last year as of the week ending May 9 , pending sales are still down more than 10 percent , and new for-sale listings down by about 25 percent .
But house values are still up 4.3 percent , or more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department reported that sales of new homes rose slightly in April , and even though the National Association of Realtors reported that existing home sales plunged that month , prices increased .
Some recent data suggests demand is on the rise .
“ The whole picture is this has been a pretty measured response , and things are coming back , ” said Ed Pinto , director of the American Enterprise Institute Housing Center .
So what gives ?
It seems as though buyers are starting to dip their toes back into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there are still deals to be made — the thing is , because demand outweighs supply , on pricing , they ’ re not budging .
Fast action from the federal government and Federal Reserve has helped to stabilize the housing market , too .
To be sure , housing markets are very much a local issue — what ’ s happening in New York is not the same as what ’ s happening in Texas , especially as both have been hit differently by the pandemic .
And just because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ okay today doesn ’ t mean it will be tomorrow , especially with all the uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus and the economy .
“ The long-term question is what happens to the unemployment rate , to GDP , how many restaurants go out of business , how many retail shops go out of business , how many malls , casinos , airlines close down , ” Pinto said .
“ We ’ re in the top of the second inning here ; there ’ s a whole lot that ’ s yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal times , I could speak with some degree of confidence about what might happen in the future , but now , there ’ s so much uncertainty , all I can do is tell you what ’ s happening now , ” said Mike DelPrete , a real estate consultant and academic .
“ We ’ re in the top of the second inning here ; there ’ s a whole lot that ’ s yet to play out in this.
” Coronavirus hit during what was supposed to be the spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Zillow , explained that expectations for the housing market heading into the spring buying season were high .
“ This was going to be the home shopping season that finally was , ” she said .
But then the coronavirus hit .
“ Like any other industry , activity pulled back like crazy.
” As stay-at-home orders were put in place across the country and people worried about the potential for getting sick from the disease , many sellers began to pull their homes off the market , or those thinking of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A lot of buyers weren ’ t exactly champing at the bit for an in-person hunt with a potentially deadly virus looming , and virtual tours , where they were even a possibility , weren ’ t necessarily a sufficient replacement .
Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs , and the future of the economy is uncertain , making many people hesitant to buy .
And for many sellers , the idea of having multiple people cycling in and out of their houses was not appealing .
“ That was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially in late March and early April , when these shelter-in-place orders were really widespread , ” said Taylor Marr , an economist with Redfin .
He said that thus far , the market ’ s biggest standstill landed the week before Easter .
In late April , Curbed surveyed the immediate damage : The crisis did not hit the same everywhere .
According to AEI ’ s tracking of mortgage lock activity , meaning when borrowers and lenders agree on an interest rate for a certain period for a purchase , activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 14th through 17th weeks of 2020 — basically , in late March and April .
New York and Michigan , for example , saw rates fall by more than 50 percent year-over-year ; Washington , Nevada , and Illinois by roughly 25 percent ; and Texas , Wisconsin , and Florida by about 15 percent .
( A handful of states , such as the Dakotas , Nebraska , and Oklahoma , saw lock activity rise . )
Activity has since picked back up .
DelPrete noted that in locations where lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , housing markets have taken a bigger hit .
So places like New York , Pennsylvania , and Michigan have seen new listings fall fast and rebound slower , while places like Texas fell less and recovered faster .
“ It ’ s all dependent on the severity of the lockdown , ” he said .
Not every type of buyer and borrower has been affected the same , either .
According to AEI , self-employed people and non-US citizens appear to be having a harder time securing home loans .
How the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing market , like most of the economy , boils down to supply and demand — the houses available to buy , and the people who want to buy them .
When the coronavirus hit , they dropped pretty much in tandem .
That ’ s why you didn ’ t really see prices change and they continued to steadily creep up .
“ Buyers who are hoping to get a good deal are going to be disappointed , because sellers aren ’ t budging ” Now activity is picking back up , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost months , but it ’ s still tracking fairly closely .
It appears buyers are returning at a faster rate than sellers .
“ That means overall inventory is falling , which means prices aren ’ t falling that much .
That ’ s why the sky is not falling for home values , because there ’ s not a lot of supply , ” Olsen said .
“ Buyers who are hoping to get a good deal are going to be disappointed , because sellers aren ’ t budging , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that just because interest in buying seems to be on the rise doesn ’ t necessarily mean everyone is pulling the trigger .
DelPrete cautioned that a lot of people , under lockdown , are bored , sick of their homes , and might just be browsing for fun .
“ It ’ s a form of entertainment — just because I watch HGTV doesn ’ t mean I ’ m going to buy a house ; I ’ m kind of intellectually curious about it , ” he said .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened in the housing market in the entire month of April doesn ’ t necessarily say what ’ s happening week to week or day to day , especially given how quickly the coronavirus situation is changing .
And buying a house takes time , from first reaching out to viewing , making an offer , and closing a deal .
None of this is to say prices will stay the same everywhere , or that prices aren ’ t likely to fall at all ( Olsen from Zillow thinks prices could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in October ) , but thus far , there ’ s no big plunge .
A Zillow review of what happened to housing in previous pandemics found that during SARS , for example , transaction volumes plummeted , but house prices didn ’ t change much .
As Curbed recently noted , however , there ’ s a lot going on in the housing market that the data isn ’ t showing yet , and you can often use data to tell whatever story you want .
The recent data on different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different periods of time , so it ’ s hard to string together .
And national data doesn ’ t tell local stories : This time is not last time Part of the reason it may feel somewhat dissonant for the housing market to be relatively stable right now — given , you know , everything — is what happened during the last big economic downturn .
Prices fell by more than 30 percent during the Great Recession , and millions of people lost their homes .
But this is not that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — there was too much credit , people were getting mortgages they couldn ’ t afford , and there was a big housing bubble that eventually popped .
The scenario is different now : Credit is much tighter , meaning people who own and buy homes are likelier to be able to afford it .
“ Credit tightening has been targeted , ” said Tobias Peter , director of research at the AEI Housing Center .
“ We all know that under stress , borrowers who are the weakest are the first to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You ’ re not doing someone a favor by getting them into a home in a period of stress .
Once the market really bottoms — and we ’ re not going to know that for many , many months , could be a year — that ’ s when you want the market to be more available to those borrowers .
You want them getting in on the upswing , not the downslope.
” Government action has played an important role in this .
The Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the $ 2.2 trillion stimulus bill signed into law in late March , puts in place protections for homeowners with federally backed mortgages .
It prohibits lenders of those types of mortgages from foreclosing on homeowners until at least June 30 , and it gives homeowners the right to request forbearance on their mortgages — meaning a pause on paying them — for 180 days .
They can also request another 180-day extension .
“ Forbearance has stopped defaults ; otherwise , we would have seen a wave of defaults , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estate at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania .
The Federal Reserve has announced that it will buy unlimited amounts of mortgage-backed securities , which has stabilized the housing market as well .
That ’ s helped keep interest rates low , and some homeowners have decided to take advantage and refinance .
“ It ’ s amazing what ’ s going on , and that is what ’ s not going on , ” Wachter said .
“ The housing market is holding its own , and that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and moved with extraordinary , unprecedented Fed and federal support.
” Marr , from Redfin , pointed out that there may be lingering effects from unemployment and small-business closures that could play out in the next couple of months in the housing market , but he emphasized that right now , most job losses and furloughs have hit renter households .
“ It ’ s not hitting the for-sale real estate market as hard as people might think when they see 40 million people have filed for unemployment .
The majority of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so we ’ re still seeing the core component of housing demands remain relatively strong , ” he said .
Anyone who tells you they know what the future holds is lying It ’ s a cliché to say the future is very uncertain , but it really is .
What happens next is largely dependent on what happens with the coronavirus — how reopenings play out , whether there ’ s a resurgence of the coronavirus later this year , if scientists find a treatment or a vaccine .
The housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , but what will happen going forward , no one knows .
Even now , things are a bit puzzling , Olsen , from Zillow , admitted .
“ Sometimes , the behavior is kind of bizarre and you can ’ t really validate it , ” she said .
“ This is intense volatility and uncertainty.
” Some have predicted that people will start to flee cities for the suburbs and less crowded areas .
In the Bay Area in California , for example , Redfin ’ s data suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Oakland and other suburbs over San Francisco and San Jose .
But it ’ s much too soon to say whether New Yorkers are going to flee to Connecticut en masse , or whether people from Chicago are going to head for Wisconsin and Indiana in droves .
And , again , it varies by geography — places like Seattle , Austin , and Denver , which have had strengthening housing markets over the past year , have rebounded relatively quickly .
But by and large , the future of the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest it will bounce back quickly , while others believe we ’ re in for a long slog .
If there is a deep and long recession and if the millions of people who lost their jobs don ’ t get them back , the situation for the housing market , like so many other parts of the economy , could worsen .
Mortgage forbearance for up to a year will certainly help many homeowners , but it ’ s not forever , and people still may not be able to pay when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer the economic activity is reduced , the more damage it will do over time to the housing market , ” Pinto said .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

For house hunters wondering whether the coronavirus crisis might lead to a better deal on an upcoming purchase, there’s some bad news: probably not, at least not right now.
The housing market, somewhat like the stock market, has been okay lately — even during a pandemic, an economic recession, and a landscape where looking two days into the future seems murky, let alone two weeks or two months. It took a significant dive when the coronavirus first took hold in the United States and stay-at-home orders began to be put in place in March, but in recent weeks, it’s begun to come back. Everything’s not exactly back to where it was pre-pandemic, but the sky isn’t falling, either.
According to data from Zillow, total housing inventory is down about 20 percent from last year as of the week ending May 9, pending sales are still down more than 10 percent, and new for-sale listings down by about 25 percent. But house values are still up 4.3 percent year-over-year, and the typical home is worth over a quarter million dollars. The Commerce Department reported that sales of new homes rose slightly in April, and even though the National Association of Realtors reported that existing home sales plunged that month, prices increased. Some recent data suggests demand is on the rise.
“The whole picture is this has been a pretty measured response, and things are coming back,” said Ed Pinto, director of the American Enterprise Institute Housing Center.
So what gives? It seems as though buyers are starting to dip their toes back into the market. Sellers have been more reluctant, but there are still deals to be made — the thing is, because demand outweighs supply, on pricing, they’re not budging. Fast action from the federal government and Federal Reserve has helped to stabilize the housing market, too.
To be sure, housing markets are very much a local issue — what’s happening in New York is not the same as what’s happening in Texas, especially as both have been hit differently by the pandemic. And just because the market seems like it’s okay today doesn’t mean it will be tomorrow, especially with all the uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus and the economy.
“The long-term question is what happens to the unemployment rate, to GDP, how many restaurants go out of business, how many retail shops go out of business, how many malls, casinos, airlines close down,” Pinto said.
“We’re in the top of the second inning here; there’s a whole lot that’s yet to play out in this”
“In normal times, I could speak with some degree of confidence about what might happen in the future, but now, there’s so much uncertainty, all I can do is tell you what’s happening now,” said Mike DelPrete, a real estate consultant and academic. “We’re in the top of the second inning here; there’s a whole lot that’s yet to play out in this.”
Coronavirus hit during what was supposed to be the spring buying boom
Skylar Olsen, an economist with Zillow, explained that expectations for the housing market heading into the spring buying season were high. “This was going to be the home shopping season that finally was,” she said. But then the coronavirus hit. “Like any other industry, activity pulled back like crazy.”
As stay-at-home orders were put in place across the country and people worried about the potential for getting sick from the disease, many sellers began to pull their homes off the market, or those thinking of putting them on decided to wait. A lot of buyers weren’t exactly champing at the bit for an in-person hunt with a potentially deadly virus looming, and virtual tours, where they were even a possibility, weren’t necessarily a sufficient replacement. Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and the future of the economy is uncertain, making many people hesitant to buy. And for many sellers, the idea of having multiple people cycling in and out of their houses was not appealing.
“That was the immediate shock of the pandemic, especially in late March and early April, when these shelter-in-place orders were really widespread,” said Taylor Marr, an economist with Redfin. He said that thus far, the market’s biggest standstill landed the week before Easter.
In late April, Curbed surveyed the immediate damage:
Web traffic to real estate portals like Zillow and Redfin dropped by almost 40 percent in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic. New listings of homes for sale initially dropped by as much as 70 percent in some markets like New York and East Bay, California. Weekly mortgage applications dropped 17.9 percent in early April.
The crisis did not hit the same everywhere. According to AEI’s tracking of mortgage lock activity, meaning when borrowers and lenders agree on an interest rate for a certain period for a purchase, activity plunged in much of the country from the 14th through 17th weeks of 2020 — basically, in late March and April. New York and Michigan, for example, saw rates fall by more than 50 percent year-over-year; Washington, Nevada, and Illinois by roughly 25 percent; and Texas, Wisconsin, and Florida by about 15 percent. (A handful of states, such as the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, saw lock activity rise.)
Activity has since picked back up.
DelPrete noted that in locations where lockdowns were stricter and the outbreak more severe, housing markets have taken a bigger hit. So places like New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have seen new listings fall fast and rebound slower, while places like Texas fell less and recovered faster. “It’s all dependent on the severity of the lockdown,” he said.
Not every type of buyer and borrower has been affected the same, either. According to AEI, self-employed people and non-US citizens appear to be having a harder time securing home loans.
How the housing market is kind of okay
The housing market, like most of the economy, boils down to supply and demand — the houses available to buy, and the people who want to buy them. When the coronavirus hit, they dropped pretty much in tandem. That’s why you didn’t really see prices change and they continued to steadily creep up.
“Buyers who are hoping to get a good deal are going to be disappointed, because sellers aren’t budging”
Now activity is picking back up, some of it pent up from the lost months, but it’s still tracking fairly closely. It appears buyers are returning at a faster rate than sellers. “That means overall inventory is falling, which means prices aren’t falling that much. That’s why the sky is not falling for home values, because there’s not a lot of supply,” Olsen said.
“Buyers who are hoping to get a good deal are going to be disappointed, because sellers aren’t budging,” Marr said.
It is worth pointing out that just because interest in buying seems to be on the rise doesn’t necessarily mean everyone is pulling the trigger. DelPrete cautioned that a lot of people, under lockdown, are bored, sick of their homes, and might just be browsing for fun. “It’s a form of entertainment — just because I watch HGTV doesn’t mean I’m going to buy a house; I’m kind of intellectually curious about it,” he said.
Some of the data is also lagging — what happened in the housing market in the entire month of April doesn’t necessarily say what’s happening week to week or day to day, especially given how quickly the coronavirus situation is changing. And buying a house takes time, from first reaching out to viewing, making an offer, and closing a deal.
None of this is to say prices will stay the same everywhere, or that prices aren’t likely to fall at all (Olsen from Zillow thinks prices could fall 2 to 3 percent and bottom out in October), but thus far, there’s no big plunge. A Zillow review of what happened to housing in previous pandemics found that during SARS, for example, transaction volumes plummeted, but house prices didn’t change much.
As Curbed recently noted, however, there’s a lot going on in the housing market that the data isn’t showing yet, and you can often use data to tell whatever story you want. The recent data on different stages of buying a home are from different periods of time, so it’s hard to string together. And national data doesn’t tell local stories:
For example, a housing supply shortage in New York City has literally no impact on whether someone can find a house to buy in Texas. While general national trends can hold true for even a majority of cities at any given time, each city is its own market with its own dynamics. This is especially true right now because the pandemic has impacted each city differently. New York City is the global epicenter of the pandemic, while markets in Texas have been significantly less impacted. Any rosy national housing market data is likely understating the problem in New York City, and any dire data is probably overstating issues in Texas.
This time is not last time
Part of the reason it may feel somewhat dissonant for the housing market to be relatively stable right now — given, you know, everything — is what happened during the last big economic downturn. Prices fell by more than 30 percent during the Great Recession, and millions of people lost their homes. But this is not that.
Last time, the problem was housing — there was too much credit, people were getting mortgages they couldn’t afford, and there was a big housing bubble that eventually popped. The scenario is different now: Credit is much tighter, meaning people who own and buy homes are likelier to be able to afford it.
“Credit tightening has been targeted,” said Tobias Peter, director of research at the AEI Housing Center.
“We all know that under stress, borrowers who are the weakest are the first to get foreclosed,” Pinto said. “You’re not doing someone a favor by getting them into a home in a period of stress. Once the market really bottoms — and we’re not going to know that for many, many months, could be a year — that’s when you want the market to be more available to those borrowers. You want them getting in on the upswing, not the downslope.”
Government action has played an important role in this. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the $2.2 trillion stimulus bill signed into law in late March, puts in place protections for homeowners with federally backed mortgages. It prohibits lenders of those types of mortgages from foreclosing on homeowners until at least June 30, and it gives homeowners the right to request forbearance on their mortgages — meaning a pause on paying them — for 180 days. They can also request another 180-day extension.
“Forbearance has stopped defaults; otherwise, we would have seen a wave of defaults,” said Susan Wachter, a professor of real estate at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
The Federal Reserve has announced that it will buy unlimited amounts of mortgage-backed securities, which has stabilized the housing market as well. That’s helped keep interest rates low, and some homeowners have decided to take advantage and refinance.
“It’s amazing what’s going on, and that is what’s not going on,” Wachter said. “The housing market is holding its own, and that’s because we learned from the last crisis and moved with extraordinary, unprecedented Fed and federal support.”
Marr, from Redfin, pointed out that there may be lingering effects from unemployment and small-business closures that could play out in the next couple of months in the housing market, but he emphasized that right now, most job losses and furloughs have hit renter households. “It’s not hitting the for-sale real estate market as hard as people might think when they see 40 million people have filed for unemployment. The majority of those have been temporary and done by renters, so we’re still seeing the core component of housing demands remain relatively strong,” he said.
“This is intense volatility and uncertainty”
Anyone who tells you they know what the future holds is lying
It’s a cliché to say the future is very uncertain, but it really is. What happens next is largely dependent on what happens with the coronavirus — how reopenings play out, whether there’s a resurgence of the coronavirus later this year, if scientists find a treatment or a vaccine. The housing market seems to be on the rebound right now, but what will happen going forward, no one knows.
Even now, things are a bit puzzling, Olsen, from Zillow, admitted. “Sometimes, the behavior is kind of bizarre and you can’t really validate it,” she said. “This is intense volatility and uncertainty.”
Some have predicted that people will start to flee cities for the suburbs and less crowded areas. In the Bay Area in California, for example, Redfin’s data suggests that homebuyers are starting to focus more on Oakland and other suburbs over San Francisco and San Jose. But it’s much too soon to say whether New Yorkers are going to flee to Connecticut en masse, or whether people from Chicago are going to head for Wisconsin and Indiana in droves. And, again, it varies by geography — places like Seattle, Austin, and Denver, which have had strengthening housing markets over the past year, have rebounded relatively quickly.
But by and large, the future of the US economy remains a black box. Some suggest it will bounce back quickly, while others believe we’re in for a long slog. If there is a deep and long recession and if the millions of people who lost their jobs don’t get them back, the situation for the housing market, like so many other parts of the economy, could worsen. Mortgage forbearance for up to a year will certainly help many homeowners, but it’s not forever, and people still may not be able to pay when the year is up.
“The longer the economic activity is reduced, the more damage it will do over time to the housing market,” Pinto said.


vox--2020-05-29--Thinking about traveling again? Here’s how to assess the risks.

As many states begin to ease social distancing restrictions , some Americans are starting to travel again — within their own cities , states , and beyond .
While some regions , like Los Angeles and New York City , are still under lockdown , more than half of US states have partially reopened or released plans to do so .
In some parts of Georgia , Texas , Florida , and South Carolina — despite the warnings from public health experts that testing needs to increase before social distancing measures can be relaxed — residents are gradually resuming their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more Americans are returning to work , which means many will start commuting by car , bus , train , or subway .
Meanwhile , people are bound to move around and potentially travel as restrictions are loosened , even as the US faces the risk of a second wave of coronavirus infections .
Those with secure jobs , vacation benefits , and disposable income will be the first to vacation leisurely again .
Still , the pandemic is far from over : The safest place you can be is at home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts have recommended limiting your social interactions and staying in as much as possible , since there ’ s still active community spread of the virus in many areas .
The US has not issued a strict domestic travel restriction , which means Americans , even those in coronavirus hotspots , could still move about and cross state borders if they needed to .
It ’ s unsurprising that people are generally anxious about once-crowded airports , public transit , and even ride-shares .
Global travel — and the crowds that used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did significantly contribute to the spread of the coronavirus .
For those heading back to work or relocating for whatever reason , these places are often unavoidable .
We ’ re in a limbo period .
In the meantime , we must determine which risks are worth it while navigating this new reality .
How to assess risk while commuting or traveling Instead of treating the risk of the coronavirus as a binary , experts are encouraging people to assess the risks involved with their daily activities .
“ The idea of harm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about risk as a continuum and thinking about the middle ground between these two options , ” Julia Marcus , an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University , told Vox ’ s German Lopez regarding how to weigh the risks of going out .
The same concept applies to transportation , whether it be as part of a person ’ s daily commute or planned vacation : Until a vaccine is developed and made widely available , there ’ s no clear-cut answer as to when it ’ ll be safe to fly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least safe in the pre-pandemic sense ( even before the coronavirus , you could still catch the flu or a cold in these spaces ) .
There are risks that come with any mode of transportation , especially if it involves strangers in close proximity to one another .
What you can do is make choices that reduce these risks for yourself and others potentially traveling with you to make the experience as safe as possible .
There are risks that come with any mode of transportation , especially if it involves strangers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of these travel tips include information health experts have reiterated for months : Wash your hands and don ’ t touch your face .
Wear a mask in an indoor public space , and avoid removing it until you ’ ve reached your destination .
If you ’ re 65 or older or have underlying health conditions that increase your risk of contracting Covid-19 , you should reconsider all nonessential travel .
Whenever possible , avoid crowded settings and try to keep a physical distance of at least 6 feet from people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In an ideal world , most people would easily follow that advice , but on a crowded flight or public transit , social distancing might not be physically possible .
So what tangible measures can people take ?
“ For any activity that involves leaving your house , you can measure that risk according to how much contact you ’ re coming into with other people , ” Jared Baeten , vice dean of the University of Washington ’ s School of Public Health , told me .
If a person has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to only interact with those in their immediate household or “ bubble , ” so a car trip could be one of the safer options , if you have access to a vehicle .
Public transit networks are less crowded than before , but keeping distance from others is still important That doesn ’ t mean commuters should avoid public transit entirely , Baeten added .
“ Public transit is much safer now than it was in February everywhere in this country because of cleaning , masking , and since there are fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Baeten said .
“ All of those things make a big difference.
” Those mundane choices , like waiting for an emptier subway car , choosing an early commute time , or wearing a mask , could make a difference in terms of a person ’ s individual safety .
On a larger scale , transit networks , airlines , long-distance buses , and trains have implemented consistent cleaning procedures , and many require passengers and crew to wear masks on board .
When it comes to the relative safety of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Julian Tang , an associate professor of respiratory sciences at the University of Leicester , told CityLab that poor ventilation on crowded transit systems , citing ridership density in cities like Tokyo , London , and New York , is “ the worst possible situation for both aerosol and close contact transmission.
” Tang pointed to transit systems in Hong Kong and Singapore , which have good air-conditioning and outdoor vents .
“ They have vents going to the outside so they have fresh air coming in cool , and inside air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contaminants , including viruses , ” he told CityLab .
Private cars might seem safe , but travelers shouldn ’ t be careless in their social interactions With all of these potential risks in mind , it would seem like private cars are easily the safest method .
However , it ’ s difficult for experts to broadly assess how risky or safe a certain mode of transportation is , and that includes even a vehicle you own .
A solo road trip , for example , can be deemed a “ safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decides to eat at a crowded diner during their trip or makes multiple pit stops and interacts with strangers , those activities all increase their risk of contracting and spreading the disease .
Industry experts believe that , for the near future , travelers will gravitate toward closer trip destinations that are accessible by car .
Data from the travel agency and search engine Skyscanner found that Americans are attracted to newly reopened cities like Las Vegas , Orlando , and Tampa , and are increasingly searching for car rental services .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to travel , is consider how to limit contact with others during this trip as much as possible so you ’ re not contributing to accelerating the pandemic , even when you reach a rural or vacation area , ” Baeten said .
A car trip could hypothetically be safer than a flight , but a person needs to be mindful of their activities prior to and at their destination .
Are they properly sheltering in place and staying put for the time being , or are they being careless in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US , however , a lengthy road trip is not always possible ( nor is it the safest option ) , which is why more Americans are starting to consider air travel again .
Flights are safer than you might think , but airlines need to take further precautions At the start of May , only about 150,000 people passed through TSA checkpoints each day , a dismal number compared to the millions of passengers it screened daily before the coronavirus pandemic .
Yet the number of daily travelers , on average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week of May , which suggests that the demand for air travel is on the upswing , even though Covid-19 community spread is rampant in some cities .
It ’ s still uncertain whether public confidence in air travel will continue to improve .
Recent surveys have reported conflicting data and a wide range of opinions from Americans as to when they ’ re willing to fly again .
This uncertainty has also skewed travelers ’ perceptions about what ’ s safe and what isn ’ t ; according to a survey of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wyman , people are more comfortable flying than with any other mode of transport besides driving themselves .
For the American responders , 51 percent said they ’ d prefer flying compared to using ride-shares , taking public transit , dining in restaurants , and staying in a hotel .
It seems the airline industry is hopeful for any hint of recovery , after weeks of decreased demand .
US carriers plan to add more flights to their schedules , and companies like Boeing and Airbus are partnering with engineers , medical experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of disease transmission on flights .
( These studies will ideally help airlines reduce in-flight health risks and possibly mitigate people ’ s fears about flying . )
In an op-ed for the Washington Post , Joseph Allen , an assistant professor of exposure assessment science at Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health , wrote that people “ don ’ t get sick on airplanes any more than anywhere else.
” It ’ s the travel experience overall , the crowded lines and shared surfaces with other people , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a press call in mid-May .
“ The point of my article is that the air exchange rate is very high [ on planes ] , ” he said .
“ The air goes through HEPA filters that capture 99.97 percent of airflow particles , and the air only moves within your row or a row or two beyond.
” “ Even if there ’ s a lot of people in a tight space , the air flow dynamics [ on a plane ] prevent widespread transmission if a person is sick.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passengers to wear masks and properly space them apart , these measures will further reduce the risk of transmission during a flight .
However , experts have warned that even with proper air ventilation , it ’ s also important to keep your distance from other people .
( While most US airlines currently have policies requiring face coverings or masks , these rules aren ’ t necessarily enforced on board .
People have also reported boarding alarmingly crowded flights during the pandemic . )
“ A plane that ’ s packed shoulder-to-shoulder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks , is a completely different scenario than one where people are getting temperature checked before boarding , being spread out , and wearing masks , ” Baeten told me .
Airports and airlines should be taking greater precautions in spreading passengers out and sanitizing common spaces .
There ’ s also the issue of ventilation while people are boarding planes , Allen added .
“ When you ’ re boarding … the air feels kind of stuffy and hot because the airplane ’ s not pulling air through the engines yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a problem , with everybody boarding and there ’ s no proper ventilation system.
” In a perfect world , businesses will adhere to these standards , but many passengers — even those who , for example , call airlines ahead of time to clarify certain policies — have found that isn ’ t always the case .
I ’ ve spoken with recent fliers who were alarmed that , on the day of their flight , they were seated in a packed row .
Plus , there aren ’ t mechanisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint that ’ ll be addressed , or figure out whether a plane or bus is properly ventilated .
While it ’ s tempting for the nation to let its guard down , experts warn that people must be vigilant about a second wave .
Still , it ’ s difficult to convince everyone to stay indoors for an extended period of time , and “ transit still has to operate , just as planes have to operate , ” Baeten concluded .
In this precarious “ new normal , ” travelers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for risk and be mindful of taking extra precautions to ensure not just their own safety , but that of their family and community members .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As many states begin to ease social distancing restrictions, some Americans are starting to travel again — within their own cities, states, and beyond.
While some regions, like Los Angeles and New York City, are still under lockdown, more than half of US states have partially reopened or released plans to do so. In some parts of Georgia, Texas, Florida, and South Carolina — despite the warnings from public health experts that testing needs to increase before social distancing measures can be relaxed — residents are gradually resuming their pace of life. Across the country, more Americans are returning to work, which means many will start commuting by car, bus, train, or subway. Meanwhile, people are bound to move around and potentially travel as restrictions are loosened, even as the US faces the risk of a second wave of coronavirus infections. Those with secure jobs, vacation benefits, and disposable income will be the first to vacation leisurely again.
Still, the pandemic is far from over: The safest place you can be is at home, and for months, public health experts have recommended limiting your social interactions and staying in as much as possible, since there’s still active community spread of the virus in many areas. The US has not issued a strict domestic travel restriction, which means Americans, even those in coronavirus hot spots, could still move about and cross state borders if they needed to.
It’s unsurprising that people are generally anxious about once-crowded airports, public transit, and even ride-shares. Global travel — and the crowds that used to flow through these public spaces daily — did significantly contribute to the spread of the coronavirus. For those heading back to work or relocating for whatever reason, these places are often unavoidable. We’re in a limbo period. In the meantime, we must determine which risks are worth it while navigating this new reality.
How to assess risk while commuting or traveling
Instead of treating the risk of the coronavirus as a binary, experts are encouraging people to assess the risks involved with their daily activities. “The idea of harm reduction gives us a way of thinking about risk as a continuum and thinking about the middle ground between these two options,” Julia Marcus, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University, told Vox’s German Lopez regarding how to weigh the risks of going out.
The same concept applies to transportation, whether it be part of a daily commute or planned vacation: Until a vaccine is developed and made widely available, there’s no clear-cut answer as to when it’ll be safe to fly or take a bus again — at least, safe in the pre-pandemic sense (even before the coronavirus, you could still catch the flu or a cold in these spaces). There are risks that come with any mode of transportation, especially if it involves strangers in close proximity to one another. What you can do is make choices that reduce these risks for yourself and others potentially traveling with you to make the experience as safe as possible.
There are risks that come with any mode of transportation, especially if it involves strangers within close proximity of one another
Some of these travel tips include information health experts have reiterated for months: Wash your hands and don’t touch your face. Wear a mask in an indoor public space, and avoid removing it until you’ve reached your destination. If you’re 65 or older or have underlying health conditions that increase your risk for Covid-19, you should reconsider all nonessential travel. Whenever possible, avoid crowded settings and try to keep a physical distance of at least 6 feet from people you don’t live with.
In an ideal world, most people would easily follow that advice, but on a crowded flight or public transit, social distancing might not be physically possible. So what tangible measures can people take?
“For any activity that involves leaving your house, you can measure that risk according to how much contact you’re coming into with other people,” Jared Baeten, vice dean of the University of Washington’s School of Public Health, told me. If a person has to travel, the best option would be to only interact with those in their immediate household or “bubble,” so a car trip could be one of the safer options, if you have access to a vehicle.
Public transit networks are less crowded than before, but keeping distance from others is still important
That doesn’t mean commuters should avoid public transit entirely, Baeten added. “Public transit is much safer now than it was in February everywhere in this country because of cleaning, masking, and since there are fewer people in each bus or car,” Baeten said. “All of those things make a big difference.”
Those mundane choices, like waiting for an emptier subway car, choosing an early commute time, or wearing a mask, could make a difference in terms of a person’s individual safety. On a larger scale, transit networks, airlines, long-distance buses, and trains have implemented consistent cleaning procedures, and many require passengers and crew to wear masks on board.
When it comes to the relative safety of a transportation mode, ventilation systems are crucial. Julian Tang, an associate professor of respiratory sciences at the University of Leicester, told CityLab that poor ventilation on crowded transit systems, citing ridership density in cities like Tokyo, London, and New York, is “the worst possible situation for both aerosol and close contact transmission.” Tang pointed to transit systems in Hong Kong and Singapore, which have good air conditioning and outdoor vents.
“They have vents going to the outside so they have fresh air coming in cool, and inside air filtered, hopefully allowing greater removal of contaminants, including viruses,” he told CityLab.
Private cars might seem safe, but travelers shouldn’t be careless in their social interactions
With all of these potential risks in mind, it would seem like private cars are easily the safest method. However, it’s difficult for experts to broadly assess how risky or safe a certain mode of transportation is, and that includes even a vehicle you own. A solo road trip, for example, can be deemed a “safe” activity, but if a person decides to eat at a crowded diner during their trip or makes multiple pit stops and interacts with strangers, those activities all increase their risk of contracting and spreading the disease.
Industry experts believe that, for the near future, travelers will gravitate toward closer trip destinations that are accessible by car. Data from the travel agency and search engine Skyscanner found that Americans are attracted to newly reopened cities like Las Vegas, Orlando, and Tampa, and are increasingly searching for car rental services.
“What you want to do, if you have to travel, is consider how to limit contact with others during this trip as much as possible so you’re not contributing to accelerating the pandemic, even when you reach a rural or vacation area,” Baeten said.
A car trip could hypothetically be safer than a flight, but a person needs to be mindful of their activities prior to and at their destination. Are they properly sheltering in place and staying put for the time being, or are they being careless in their interactions?
Given the size of the US, however, a lengthy road trip is not always possible (nor is it the safest option), which is why more Americans are starting to consider air travel again.
Flights are safer than you might think, but airlines need to take further precautions
At the start of May, only about 150,000 people passed through TSA checkpoints each day, a dismal number compared to the millions of passengers it screened daily before the coronavirus pandemic. Yet the number of daily travelers, on average, has nearly doubled in the last week of May, which suggests the demand for air travel is on the upswing, even though Covid-19 community spread is rampant in some cities.
It’s still uncertain whether public confidence in air travel will continue to improve. Recent surveys have reported conflicting data and a wide range of opinions from Americans as to when they’re willing to fly again. This uncertainty has also skewed travelers’ perceptions about what’s safe and what isn’t; according to a survey of 4,600 travelers from the consulting firm Oliver Wyman, people are more comfortable flying than with any other mode of transport besides driving themselves. For the American responders, 51 percent said they’d prefer flying compared to using ride-shares, taking public transit, dining in restaurants, and staying in a hotel.
It seems the airline industry is hopeful for any hint of recovery, after weeks of decreased demand. US carriers plan to add more flights to their schedules, and companies like Boeing and Airbus are partnering with engineers, medical experts, and academic researchers to determine the risk of disease transmission on flights. (These studies will ideally help airlines reduce in-flight health risks and possibly mitigate people’s fears about flying.)
In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Joseph Allen, an assistant professor of exposure assessment science at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, wrote that people “don’t get sick on airplanes any more than anywhere else.” It’s the travel experience overall, the crowded lines and shared surfaces with other people, that pose a risk, Allen said in a press call in mid-May.
“The point of my article is that the air exchange rate is very high [on planes],” he said. “The air goes through HEPA filters that capture 99.97 percent of airflow particles, and the air only moves within your row or a row or two beyond.”
“Even if there’s a lot of people in a tight space, the air flow dynamics [on a plane] prevent widespread transmission if a person is sick.”
According to Allen, if airlines require passengers to wear masks and properly space them apart, these measures will further reduce the risk of transmission during a flight. However, experts have warned that even with proper air ventilation, it’s also important to keep your distance from other people. (While most US airlines currently have policies requiring face coverings or masks, these rules aren’t necessarily enforced on board. People have also reported boarding alarmingly crowded flights during the pandemic.)
“A plane that’s packed shoulder-to-shoulder, where no one’s wearing masks, is a completely different scenario than one where people are getting temperature checked before boarding, being spread out, and wearing masks,” Baeten told me.
I guess @united is relaxing their social distancing policy these days? Every seat full on this 737 pic.twitter.com/rqWeoIUPqL — Ethan Weiss (@ethanjweiss) May 9, 2020
Airports and airlines should be taking greater precautions in spreading passengers out and sanitizing common spaces. There’s also the issue of ventilation while people are boarding planes, Allen added. “When you’re boarding … the air feels kind of stuffy and hot because the airplane’s not pulling air through the engines yet,” he said. “That can be a problem, with everybody boarding and there’s no proper ventilation system.”
In a perfect world, businesses will adhere to these standards, but many passengers — even those who, for example, call airlines ahead of time to clarify certain policies — have found that isn’t always the case. I’ve spoken with recent fliers who were alarmed that, on the day of their flight, they were seated in a packed row. Plus, there aren’t mechanisms in place for passengers to lodge a complaint that’ll be addressed, or figure out whether a plane or bus is properly ventilated.
While it’s tempting for the nation to let its guard down, experts warn that people must be vigilant about a second wave of coronavirus infections. Still, it’s difficult to convince everyone to stay indoors for an extended period of time, and “transit still has to operate, just as planes have to operate,” Baeten concluded. In this precarious “new normal,” travelers and commuters have to understand their own tolerance for risk and be mindful of taking extra precautions to ensure not just their own safety, but that of their family and community members.