vox--2020-11-23--Why the AstraZeneca-Oxford Covid-19 vaccine is different

If someone told you in March , when the World Health Organization finally called the Covid-19 outbreak a pandemic , that we ’ d have three strong coronavirus vaccine candidates by mid-November , you might have called that person delusional .
Yet with Monday ’ s news from AstraZeneca and University of Oxford that early results from their phase 3 trial demonstrate their vaccine ’ s effectiveness , that ’ s exactly the scenario we ’ re in .
In a press release , the pharmaceutical giant and its Oxford co-developers reported interim findings from two of their ongoing trials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Brazil .
The trials used different approaches to inoculating the more than 11,000 people who participated , and found two levels of efficacy , which they averaged to 70 percent .
The researchers also found no severe cases or hospitalizations in the study participants who got the vaccine .
In the UK trial , the vaccine — known as AZD1222 — was given as a half dose , followed by a full dose around one month later , resulting in 90 percent efficacy .
In the Brazil group , study participants were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month apart , and the efficacy was 62 percent .
The researchers aren ’ t sure why there was this striking gap in vaccine performance — and in a press conference , said that the half dose may better prime the immune system to respond to the second full vaccine .
But the company also told Reuters the reason for the half dose was “ serendipity ” — essentially , trial participants were given a smaller dose by accident .
And while it appears the accidental approach may have outperformed the two full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was administered to enough people to know for sure .
( More on that in a moment . )
Either way , 50 percent efficacy is the floor set by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency ( the FDA equivalent in Europe ) for approval .
The AstraZeneca-Oxford research team will “ immediately ” submit their efficacy and safety findings to regulatory agencies around the world , seeking early approval .
While the efficacy outcome falls short of the 95 percent preliminary result recently reported by both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if real , are promising .
At around $ 3 to $ 4 per dose , the AstraZeneca-Oxford shot is also the cheapest of the three options and should be easier to distribute globally ( since it can be stored in regular refrigerators ) .
That ’ s why lower-income countries around the world have been pre-purchasing access .
AstraZeneca said the company has the capacity to supply 3 billion doses of the vaccine in 2021 .
But , as with all the new coronavirus vaccine candidates , there are some caveats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via press release and lacked detailed data , they raise questions we don ’ t yet have answers to .
Here ’ s the rundown .
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could be a game changer for low- and middle-income countries Among the Covid-19 vaccines furthest along in development , the AstraZeneca-Oxford candidate is most likely to be affordable to low- and middle-income countries .
And considering much of the world ’ s population currently lives in low- and middle-income settings , it ’ s the shot that , if effective , is poised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldwide .
It uses a novel approach to inoculation , one that ’ s different from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna — and from conventional vaccines .
Vaccine makers have typically used the virus itself or a fragment of the virus , often in a weakened or inactivated form , to inoculate recipients .
But the new generation of vaccines uses genetic instructions for making parts of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 .
All three candidates — Pfizer , Moderna , and AstraZeneca-Oxford — deliver the instructions for making the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lets it enter human cells .
And it ’ s these instructions that are injected in the vaccine , which human cells then use to manufacture parts of the virus , in essence coaching the immune system to fight off the invader should it arrive .
The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines both use mRNA as their platform for delivering the genetic instructions .
AstraZeneca-Oxford ’ s uses DNA instead , and the DNA is delivered to cells with the help of another virus known as an adenovirus .
( Other Covid-19 vaccine developers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson , are also using adenovirus vectors . )
AstraZeneca , unlike Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech , has promised to sell its shot at cost — around $ 3 to $ 4 — and not to profit from the vaccine while the pandemic is ongoing .
According to the FT , that price is “ a fraction ” of the expense of the other vaccine candidates , which are expected to cost between $ 15 and $ 25 per dose .
Also unlike the two other leading vaccine candidates , it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the distribution hurdle Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are working to overcome .
Moderna ’ s vaccine requires long-term storage at minus 20 degrees Celsius ( minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit ) and is stable for 30 days at refrigerator temperatures between 2 and 8 degrees Celsius ( 36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit ) .
Meanwhile , the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine demands ultra-cold temperatures of minus 70 degrees Celsius ( minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit ) or lower , with about five days of shelf life at refrigerator temperatures .
The AstraZeneca-Oxford jab , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refrigerator for at least six months .
That ’ s why the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine has become the leading contender lower-income countries are relying on to end their epidemics .
According to Bloomberg , the shot “ accounts for more than 40 % of the supplies ” going to low- and middle-income countries .
“ [ T ] he vaccine ’ s simple supply chain and our no-profit pledge and commitment to broad , equitable and timely access means it will be affordable and globally available supplying hundreds of millions of doses on approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of AstraZeneca , in a statement .
But the US is also poised to benefit .
In May , the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) under the Department of Health and Human Services pledged up to $ 1.2 billion to back the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine , aiming to secure 300 million doses for the US .
In total , the company is aiming to supply 3 billion doses of the vaccine around the world .
The AstraZeneca-Oxford results so far came via press release , and gloss over the details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the vaccine works in people .
AstraZeneca-Oxford also released fewer details than the other two companies , and reported their results in a way that made drawing comparisons among the three candidates difficult .
Let ’ s go over what we know .
• Before clinical trials begin , research groups are supposed to set out a plan for how they ’ ll run the studies and analyze and share the results .
That helps ensure experimenters don ’ t move the goalposts .
So researchers are questioning why AstraZeneca-Oxford apparently deviated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they made their announcement today based on combined results of two different trials rather than parsing several of their clinical trials separately , as originally promised , according to meta-scientist Hilda Bastian .
• We don ’ t have the details of what side effects the study participants experienced .
The company only reported there were no serious safety events confirmed to date , and that the vaccine “ was well tolerated across both dosing regimens.
” We do know that the UK trial for AZD1222 was paused in July and again in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Investigations later found no link between the vaccine and these symptoms , and regulators allowed the trial to resume in October .
• While we know the number of participants included in the analysis of each of the two groups ( 2,741 in the UK versus 8,895 in Brazil ) , we don ’ t know how many got the vaccine versus the placebo , which raised a statistical question about how many people were infected with the virus in the UK group that saw 90 percent efficacy .
Some statisticians have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and potentially unreliable : • The press releases also lack details about the demographics of people participating in the trials .
AstraZeneca said its trial participants come from “ diverse racial and geographic groups who are healthy or have stable underlying medical conditions , ” but without knowing the exact numbers , it ’ s hard to gauge how well they reflected the groups most at risk of severe disease ( including older adults and people of color ) .
• The trials also didn ’ t use a simple placebo to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the trial , volunteers were randomly assigned to receive the AZD1222 vaccine or the meningococcal vaccine , MenACWY .
In the Brazil arm , the comparison group was given MenACWY for the first dose and a saline placebo for the second dose .
• Another factor to consider : AstraZeneca-Oxford measured their results in a different way from their two major competitors .
The Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech trials only captured Covid-19 infections in their trial pool that advanced far enough to produce symptoms , while the AstraZeneca trials conducted weekly swab tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detect much less severe cases — including potential asymptomatic infections — among their volunteers .
These differences make it trickier to draw apples-to-apples comparisons of the efficacy of the different vaccines .
Together , these factors highlight that there ’ s still a lot to learn about the new vaccines , even as they ’ re all set to roll out imminently .
The Moderna , Pfizer-BioNTech , and Oxford-AstraZeneca teams have all vowed to publish their trial results in peer-reviewed journals .
But distribution on a limited emergency use basis may begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval from regulators .
Still , it ’ s worth pausing over how remarkable it is that there are now three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates that have reported high levels of efficacy , and all of them use a technology that has never been deployed at a large scale in humans before .
If the AstraZeneca-Oxford , Moderna , and Pfizer-BioNTech groups pass regulators , the coronavirus vaccines may be the beginning of an entirely new approach to inoculating people against disease .

If someone told you in March, when the World Health Organization finally called the Covid-19 outbreak a pandemic, that we’d have three strong coronavirus vaccine candidates by mid-November, you might have called that person delusional.
Yet with Monday’s news from AstraZeneca and University of Oxford that early results from their phase 3 trial demonstrate their vaccine’s effectiveness, that’s exactly the scenario we’re in.
In a press release, the pharmaceutical giant and its Oxford co-developers reported interim findings from two groups in their ongoing trials — one in the UK and one in Brazil. The trials used different approaches to inoculating the people who participated, and found two levels of efficacy, which they averaged to 70 percent. The researchers also found no severe cases or hospitalizations in the study participants who got the vaccine.
In the UK trial group AztraZeneca reported on, the vaccine — known as AZD1222 — was given as a half dose, followed by a full dose around one month later, resulting in 90 percent efficacy. In the Brazil group, study participants were given two full doses at least one month apart, and the efficacy was 62 percent.
The researchers aren’t sure why there was this striking gap in vaccine performance — and in a press conference, said that the half dose may better prime the immune system to respond to the second full vaccine. But while the company framed the reason for the half dose was “serendipity” — in reality, the trial participants were given a smaller dose in error. And while it appears the accidental dosing regimen may have outperformed two full doses, independent researchers wondered about whether it was administered to enough people to know for sure. (More on that in a moment.)
Either way, 50 percent efficacy is the floor set by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency (the FDA equivalent in Europe) for approval. The AstraZeneca-Oxford research team will “immediately” submit their findings to regulatory agencies around the world, seeking early approval.
While the efficacy outcome falls short of the 95 percent preliminary result recently reported by both Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, the results, if real, could be promising. At around $3 to $4 per dose, the AstraZeneca-Oxford shot is the cheapest of the three current options and should be easier to distribute globally (since it can be stored in regular refrigerators). That’s why lower-income countries around the world have been pre-purchasing access.
But, as with all the new coronavirus vaccine candidates, there are some big caveats to consider. And since the results came via press release and lacked detailed data, they raise questions we don’t yet have answers to. Here’s the rundown.
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine could be a game changer for low- and middle-income countries
Among the Covid-19 vaccines furthest along in development, the AstraZeneca-Oxford candidate is among the most likely to be affordable to low- and middle-income countries. And considering much of the world’s population currently lives in low- and middle-income settings, it’s the jab that — with a 90 percent efficacy result — could make a big dent in the pandemic worldwide.
It also uses a novel approach to inoculation, one that’s different from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna — and from conventional vaccines.
Vaccine makers have typically used the virus itself or a fragment of the virus, often in a weakened or inactivated form, to inoculate recipients. But this new generation of vaccines uses genetic instructions for making parts of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. All three candidates — Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca-Oxford — deliver the instructions for making the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, or the part of the virus that lets it enter human cells. And it’s these instructions, which human cells then use to manufacture parts of the virus, that are injected into vaccine recipients, essentially coaching the immune system to fight off the invader should it arrive.
The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines both use mRNA as their platform for delivering the genetic instructions. AstraZeneca-Oxford’s uses DNA instead, and the DNA is delivered to cells with the help of another virus known as an adenovirus. (Other Covid-19 vaccine developers, like CanSino Biologics and Johnson & Johnson, are also using adenovirus vectors.)
AstraZeneca, unlike Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, has promised to sell its shot at cost — around $3 to $4 — and not to profit from the vaccine while the pandemic is ongoing (though public money has gone into funding its research effort). According to the FT, that price is “a fraction” of the expense of the other vaccine candidates, which are expected to cost between $15 and $25 per dose.
Also unlike the two other leading vaccine candidates, it doesn’t require extremely cold temperatures for storage. That’s the distribution hurdle Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are working to overcome.
Moderna’s vaccine requires long-term storage at minus 20 degrees Celsius (minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit) and is stable for 30 days at refrigerator temperatures between 2 and 8 degrees Celsius (36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit). Meanwhile, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine demands ultra-cold temperatures of minus 70 degrees Celsius (minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit) or lower, with about five days of shelf life at refrigerator temperatures. The AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine can be stored in a normal refrigerator for at least six months.
So these are the reasons why the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine has become a leading contender lower-income countries are relying on to end their epidemics. For now, the shot “accounts for more than 40% of the supplies” going to low- and middle-income countries, according to Bloomberg. AstraZeneca said the company has the capacity to supply 3 billion doses of the vaccine in 2021.
“[T]he vaccine’s simple supply chain and our no-profit pledge and commitment to broad, equitable and timely access means it will be affordable and globally available supplying hundreds of millions of doses on approval,” said Pascal Soriot, CEO of AstraZeneca, in a statement.
The US is also poised to benefit. In May, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) under the Department of Health and Human Services pledged up to $1.2 billion to back the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, aiming to secure 300 million doses for Americans.
Of course, if the shot only has around 70 percent efficacy, officials will have to grapple with how and where it’s used at all. “If it’s 70%, then we’ve got a dilemma,” Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Stat. “Because what are you going to do with the 70% when you’ve got two [vaccines] that are 95%? Who are you going to give a vaccine like that to?”
The caveats
That’s not the only caveat to consider. The AstraZeneca-Oxford results so far came via press release, and gloss over nuances we’d need to understand to know how the vaccine works in people. AstraZeneca-Oxford also released fewer details about their research than the other two companies, and reported their results in a way that made drawing comparisons among the three candidates difficult. Let’s go over what we know.
Before clinical trials begin, research groups are supposed to publicly share a plan — called a protocol — for how they’ll run the studies and analyze and share the results, and they’re supposed to stick to it. That helps ensure experimenters don’t move the goalposts to come to more favorable conclusions.
But AztraZeneca and Oxford have only shared two of the protocols for their phase 3 studies after the trials began. We have the protocol for their US phase 3 study, and as writer and meta-scientist Hilda Bastian points out in Wired, a UK protocol published in a Lancet study appendix, also shared after the trial started.
“The appendix doesn’t say when this became the plan. We don’t even know if the Oxford-AstraZeneca team followed it,” Bastian writes. Again, in the press release, AstraZeneca also only disclosed data for subgroups in two of the trials, not the four specified in the UK protocol, she told Vox. “We do know [what’s in the protocol] is not what they reported.” “Transparency can increase confidence in the trials and are essential for establishing the quality of the science. [Six companies or research groups] have released protocols for their phase 3 studies — why not Oxford?” asked Peter Doshi, who has been a prominent critic of Covid-19 vaccine trials.
The press release doesn’t report details of what side effects the study participants experienced. The company only reported there were no serious safety events confirmed to date, and that the vaccine “was well tolerated across both dosing regimens.” We do know that the UK trial for AZD1222 was paused in July and again in September after two volunteers reported neurological problems. Investigations later found no link between the vaccine and these symptoms, and regulators allowed the trial to resume in October.
While we know the number of participants included in each in the UK and Brazil trials (2,741 in the UK versus 8,895 in Brazil), we don’t know how many got the vaccine (versus a placebo or meningococcal vaccine), which raised a statistical question about how many people were infected with the virus in the UK group that saw 90 percent efficacy. Some statisticians have suggested the number may be very small — and potentially unreliable:
TLDR: I think my gut feeling that the "90% efficiency" was based on as few as 2 infections out of 2741 wasn't very wrong. (And 2 is a tiny number: you see that out of a Poisson(6) about 5% of the time, so reckon the confidence interval is HUGE). — Oliver Johnson (@BristOliver) November 23, 2020
The press releases also lack details about the demographics of people participating in the trials. AstraZeneca said its trial participants come from “diverse racial and geographic groups who are healthy or have stable underlying medical conditions,” but without knowing the exact numbers, it’s hard to gauge how well they reflected the groups most at risk of severe disease (including older adults and people of color).
The trials also didn’t use a simple placebo to measure efficacy. In the UK arm of the trial, volunteers were randomly assigned to receive the AZD1222 vaccine or the meningococcal vaccine. In the Brazil arm, the comparison group was given the meningococcal for the first dose and a saline placebo for the second dose.
Another factor to consider: AstraZeneca-Oxford measured their results in a different way from their two major competitors. The Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech trials only captured Covid-19 infections in their trial pool that advanced far enough to produce symptoms, while the AstraZeneca trials conducted weekly swab tests among their participants, allowing them to detect much less severe cases — including potential asymptomatic infections — among their volunteers. These differences make it trickier to draw apples-to-apples comparisons of the efficacy of the different vaccines.
Together, these factors highlight that there’s still a lot to learn about the new vaccines, even as they’re all set to roll out imminently. The Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Oxford-AstraZeneca teams have all vowed to publish their trial results in peer-reviewed journals. But distribution on a limited emergency use basis may begin as soon as next month, pending approval from regulators.
For now, it’s worth pausing over how remarkable it is that there are several SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates that have reported high levels of efficacy, featuring technologies that have never been deployed at a large scale in humans before.
If the AstraZeneca-Oxford, Moderna, and Pfizer-BioNTech groups pass regulators, the coronavirus vaccines may be the beginning of an entirely new approach to inoculating people against disease.
Clarification, December 4: An earlier version of this story stated that AstraZeneca/Oxford only shared the protocol for their US study. While that was the only phase 3 protocol registered on their clinical trials database, the researchers also shared the protocol for the UK trial in an appendix in a journal article.


vox--2020-11-24--The long list of contenders for Kamala Harris’s Senate seat, explained

Now that Kamala Harris has been elected vice president , the fight for her Senate seat is on .
A packed field of candidates is currently pitching California Gov .
Gavin Newsom : Per the state ’ s laws on Senate vacancies , Newsom is able to appoint a new lawmaker to the job who will serve out the remaining two years of Harris ’ s term .
Whoever ’ s picked will be able to run for the seat in 2022 as well .
“ There ’ s a hundred chores that I ’ d prefer .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously said .
“ This is not something that I wish even on my worst enemy , because you create enemies in this process you know , not just friends .
And it ’ s a vexing decision .
It ’ s a challenging one.
” Thus far , there are more than 10 candidates who ’ ve expressed interest or been floated in reports , including California Secretary of State Alex Padilla , California Attorney General Xavier Becerra , Rep. Karen Bass , and Rep. Barbara Lee .
There are also multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notably an effort from the state ’ s Legislative Black Caucus that is urging Newsom to appoint a Black woman , and another from the Latino Legislative Caucus calling for a Latino person .
“ One argument is that this seat has been occupied by a Black woman , and it should be filled by one , ” says California strategist Steven Maviglio .
“ Another is that this state is roughly 40 percent Latino , and it ’ s never had a Latino senator.
” Harris ’ s Senate seat is especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populous state has as a Democratic stronghold , and the likelihood that this appointee could serve for a long time .
( Senior California Sen. Dianne Feinstein , who is 87 , has now held her seat for going on 30 years . )
The person chosen for the seat is expected to run for reelection — and potentially many terms after that .
Experts and organizers familiar with state politics said that Newsom is likely considering the representation that different candidates will bring , their electability , and their efficacy at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too , will have his own legacy to weigh and has previously signaled that he hopes to make history with appointees .
“ It ’ s a rare thing that a governor gets to appoint a senator who could stay in office for decades , ” says Mindy Romero , the head of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California .
Any candidate who isn ’ t selected for this opening could have another shot at a Senate seat if Feinstein does not pursue reelection in 2024 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a full presidential election cycle down the line .
Two campaigns for the Senate seat , briefly explained There is growing pressure for this appointee to provide much-needed representation in the very white and very male Senate : Some lawmakers and grassroots organizations are urging Newsom to choose a Latino person , while others would like him to choose a Black woman .
Many groups are focused on this Senate seat because of how rarely such opportunities come along in California , a diverse state with an extensive bench of Democratic talent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an opening .
( Former Sen. Barbara Boxer , also a white woman , had held her seat for more than two decades prior to Harris ’ s election in 2016 . )
Currently , Harris is the only Black woman serving in the Senate , and California ’ s state Legislative Black Caucus , as well as organizations including Democracy for America and Black Lives Matter , have said that her replacement should also be a Black woman .
“ Kamala Harris has a legacy that she ’ s built , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gavin Newsom ’ s legacy to honor that , ” said Charles Chamberlain , the executive director of Democracy for America .
Harris was the first Black and South Asian American senator that California elected , and only the second Black woman to serve in the Senate .
Black Lives Matter emphasized in a recent statement that it was “ non-negotiable ” for Newsom to appoint a Black woman as her replacement .
“ If there is not a single Black woman in the Senate , then the Senate is simply not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the group wrote .
Both groups , and the legislative Black Caucus , have backed Reps. Karen Bass and Barbara Lee — two longtime California lawmakers — for the role .
“ We are adamant that this position must go to an African-American woman as a result of our hard work in this last election , as well as our hard work in California and representing the Democratic Party , ” Rep. Shirley Weber , chair of the legislative Black Caucus , said at a recent press conference .
Then there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Newsom to appoint a Latino person , who would be California ’ s first-ever Latino senator — representation that some have described as “ long overdue ” in a state that ’ s about 40 percent Latino .
NALEO Educational Fund , a nonprofit that facilitates Latino participation in the American political process , is among those urging Newsom to do so along with the state ’ s Latino Legislative Caucus and the League of United Latin American Citizens .
“ The Latino population of California , which is the largest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state that understands its priorities and needs as well as those statewide , ” NALEO CEO Arturo Vargas said .
“ As we as a nation deal with the dual crises of Covid-19 and the economy , which have had a disproportionate impact on Latinos , we need to have someone in the Senate who has a keen understanding of that.
” In addition to Padilla and Becerra , Vargas mentioned Hilda Solis , a former US representative who was labor secretary during President Barack Obama ’ s first term and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles County Board of Supervisors , as another contender .
“ We ’ re united in , respectfully , asking our governor to recognize our community , its contributions and its needs , ” said Assemblyman Robert Rivas , and vice chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus , at a recent press conference .
As Vox ’ s Teddy Schleifer has reported , a contingent of prominent women donors also wrote to Newsom this week urging him to choose a woman of color .
The list of people who ’ ve expressed interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in various reports — is a lengthy one , so much so that Newsom has joked about how many people have pitched him .
“ You may be the only one that hasn ’ t , unless you just did , and that is only a slight exaggeration , ” he quipped to a reporter earlier this year .
California — given its size and prominence in Democratic politics — has quite a lot of options to choose from , with some lawmakers also reportedly in contention for roles in the Biden administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the bench is deep and wide , ” says Maviglio .
Here ’ s a list of some of the potential contenders for Harris ’ s Senate seat .
Many experts believe California Secretary of State Alex Padilla is probably Newsom ’ s most likely pick to succeed Harris .
Padilla , who is Latino , has a multitude of credentials working in his favor : He ’ s been elected to a statewide office , he ’ s from Southern California , and he recently did a strong job overseeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both of California ’ s senators have come from the San Francisco Bay Area since 1992 , so some experts believe Newsom will pick someone from the Los Angeles area .
Padilla , who grew up in Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley , would fit that bill .
Padilla , 47 , served on the Los Angeles City Council from 1999 to 2006 , then in the state Senate from 2006 to 2014 .
Since 2015 , he has held his current post of secretary of state , recently responding to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mislead voters by putting up fake ballot drop-off boxes and labeling them as official .
“ We need not just racial , ethnic , and gender diversity , but we also need geographic diversity , ” Vargas said .
“ The bulk of the Latino population being in the southern part of the state , it would be such an asset to have somebody in the Senate who understands that population , because they have lived those experiences.
” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra — the first Latino person to hold this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would bring experience at both the federal and state levels if he ’ s chosen for the job .
Becerra , 62 , had served in the House for over two decades before he was appointed as the state ’ s Attorney General when Harris vacated the position in 2016 .
He ’ s represented multiple Southern California districts near Los Angeles , given redistricting during his tenure , and also chaired the House Democratic Caucus .
Becerra had also previously worked as as a deputy Attorney General for the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a member of the California assembly .
In his current role , he ’ s known for taking on Trump : Becerra has led more than 100 lawsuits against the administration including challenges to the travel ban and the president ’ s attempted rollback of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
Lee — a Black woman who ’ s represented part of the Bay Area for decades — shares some similarities with Harris but is viewed as more progressive than the vice president-elect .
Lee is a top choice among groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive woman appointed .
A former co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , Lee has represented Oakland and much of Alameda County in the House of Representatives since 1998 , and previously served in the state legislature .
Her record is firmly on the left , and her votes on war powers have garnered attention : She was the only member of Congress to vote against the use of force against terrorists in 2001 , and in 2019 , GovTrack ranked her the furthest left of all US representatives .
Her age , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 74 , she is older than roughly 85 percent of current US senators .
Rep. Karen Bass , 67 , saw her national profile go way up when she was considered one of the top contenders for Biden ’ s vice presidential pick earlier this year .
A former community organizer , Bass has represented a Southern California House district since 2011 and served as the state Assembly speaker prior to that .
Bass — who was the first Black woman elected to that role — has been praised for her ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ championing strong progressive ideas .
She ’ s currently the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and was a chief author of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act , a measure Democrats introduced to address police reform this past year .
Bass experienced some scrutiny during the vice presidential search , when footage emerged of her speaking favorably of former Cuban leader Fidel Castro , comments she ’ s since walked back .
During her time in the House , she has focused on criminal justice reform and child welfare policies — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on in the Senate .
Ro Khanna is another pick that would satisfy many progressives .
Khanna , like Harris , is of South Asian descent , as a child of Indian immigrants .
Khanna , 44 , had not held elected office prior to being elected to Congress in 2016 , in a district that includes much of Silicon Valley .
He worked in the Commerce Department for two years during Obama ’ s first term .
Notably , Khanna is among just six representatives who do not take campaign money from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national co-chair for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s 2020 presidential campaign .
The Justice Democrats , a progressive PAC founded by leaders from Sanders ’ s 2016 campaign , have insisted that Newsom nominate Khanna to Harris ’ s seat .
The PAC that helped fuel the rise of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted on Twitter that “ [ Khanna ’ s ] voice in the Senate would be a major boost for our movement for justice.
” Sanders himself also voiced support for Khanna , tweeting that he “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a proven fighter for working people.
” Rep. Katie Porter — after serving in the House for one term — has established herself as a vocal progressive willing to take on Trump administration officials and business leaders .
Porter , who is a white woman , was among the wave of Democrats elected to the House in 2018 , and she ’ s since successfully defended her battleground district , which covers part of Orange County .
Porter , 46 , was a consumer protections attorney prior to joining the House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Financial Services Committees .
She — and her whiteboard — have become synonymous with the pointed questioning of witnesses including CDC Director Robert Redfield and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Kathy Kraninger .
She ’ d also previously worked to help distribute relief to California families in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and is a tenured law professor at the University of California Irvine .
Long Beach may not be California ’ s most well-known city .
But the port city just south of Los Angeles is among the 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its mayor , the 42-year-old Peruvian American Robert Garcia , is on the Senate shortlist .
Garcia wouldn ’ t be the first mayor from a non-major city to make a name for himself this year — former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg outlasted most of the Democratic primary field in his presidential campaign .
Garcia is openly gay , and he is both the first Latino and first gay mayor of Long Beach .
He and his mother immigrated to the Los Angeles area from Lima , Peru , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not get the nod due to lack of name recognition .
“ I love Robert Garcia , ” said Paul Mitchell , vice president at Political Data Inc. who also works at UC Berkeley ’ s Institute of Governmental Studies .
“ But if you did a poll in LA of ‘ who is Robert Garcia ?
’ or ‘ who is the mayor of Long Beach ?
’ you ’ d get very few people who know who the mayor of Long Beach is.
” Hilda Solis , former US secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solis , 63 , would bring a wide range of credentials to the Senate .
Solis served in both houses of the state legislature between 1992 and 2001 , then was in the US House from 2001 to 2009 , representing the northeast portion of the Los Angeles area .
Obama pulled her out of Congress to make her secretary of labor for four years , and since 2014 , Solis has served on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors .
If appointed to the Senate , Solis is sure to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She served on several environmentally focused committees while in the House , including the Committee on Energy and Commerce , the Committee on Natural Resources , and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming .
A daughter of immigrants from Nicaragua and Mexico , Solis is also a major proponent of immigration reform .
Mayor of San Francisco London Breed — the first Black woman to be elected to this role — has been highlighted as a strong leader during the coronavirus pandemic .
Breed , 46 , won a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee .
Previously , she had served as the head of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors , which works on areas including housing and infrastructure policy in the city .
Breed is a relative moderate in the heavily left-leaning city and has clashed with city officials over how to approach affordable housing measures .
She ’ s been in the spotlight for the efficacy of her coronavirus response , which included a rapidly implemented stay-at-home order this past spring .

Now that Kamala Harris has been elected vice president, the fight for her Senate seat is on.
A packed field of candidates is currently pitching California Gov. Gavin Newsom: Per the state’s laws on Senate vacancies, Newsom is able to appoint a new lawmaker to the job who will serve out the remaining two years of Harris’s term. Whoever’s picked will be able to run for the seat in 2022 as well.
“There’s a hundred chores that I’d prefer. I’m not kidding,” Newsom has previously said. “This is not something that I wish even on my worst enemy, because you create enemies in this process you know, not just friends. And it’s a vexing decision. It’s a challenging one.”
Thus far, there are more than 10 candidates who’ve expressed interest or been floated in reports, including California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Rep. Karen Bass, and Rep. Barbara Lee.
There are also multiple campaigns aimed at swaying Newsom — most notably an effort from the state’s Legislative Black Caucus that is urging Newsom to appoint a Black woman, and another from the Latino Legislative Caucus calling for a Latino person.
“One argument is that this seat has been occupied by a Black woman, and it should be filled by one,” says California strategist Steven Maviglio. “Another is that this state is roughly 40 percent Latino, and it’s never had a Latino senator.”
Harris’s Senate seat is especially coveted because of the influence that the populous state has as a Democratic stronghold, and the likelihood that this appointee could serve for a long time. (Senior California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is 87, has now held her seat for going on 30 years.) The person chosen for the seat is expected to run for reelection — and potentially many terms after that.
Experts and organizers familiar with state politics said that Newsom is likely considering the representation that different candidates will bring, their electability, and their efficacy at the roles they’ve had. Newsom, too, will have his own legacy to weigh and has previously signaled that he hopes to make history with appointees.
“It’s a rare thing that a governor gets to appoint a senator who could stay in office for decades,” says Mindy Romero, the head of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California. Any candidate who isn’t selected for this opening could have another shot at a Senate seat if Feinstein does not pursue reelection in 2024. That opportunity, however, is still a full presidential election cycle down the line.
Two campaigns for the Senate seat, briefly explained
There is growing pressure for this appointee to provide much-needed representation in the very white and very male Senate: Some lawmakers and grassroots organizations are urging Newsom to choose a Latino person, while others would like him to choose a Black woman.
Many groups are focused on this Senate seat because of how rarely such opportunities come along in California, a diverse state with an extensive bench of Democratic talent that’s previously had to wait years for an opening. (Former Sen. Barbara Boxer, also a white woman, had held her seat for more than two decades prior to Harris’s election in 2016.)
Currently, Harris is the only Black woman serving in the Senate, and California’s state Legislative Black Caucus, as well as organizations including Democracy for America and Black Lives Matter, have said that her replacement should also be a Black woman.
“Kamala Harris has a legacy that she’s built, and it’s very important for Gavin Newsom’s legacy to honor that,” said Charles Chamberlain, the executive director of Democracy for America. Harris was the first Black and South Asian American senator that California elected, and only the second Black woman to serve in the Senate.
Black Lives Matter emphasized in a recent statement that it was “non-negotiable” for Newsom to appoint a Black woman as her replacement. “If there is not a single Black woman in the Senate, then the Senate is simply not a proper representation of the people,” the group wrote.
Both groups, and the legislative Black Caucus, have backed Reps. Karen Bass and Barbara Lee — two longtime California lawmakers — for the role.
“We are adamant that this position must go to an African-American woman as a result of our hard work in this last election, as well as our hard work in California and representing the Democratic Party,” Rep. Shirley Weber, chair of the legislative Black Caucus, said at a recent press conference.
Then there’s a set of lawmakers and organizers pressing for Newsom to appoint a Latino person, who would be California’s first-ever Latino senator — representation that some have described as “long overdue” in a state that’s about 40 percent Latino.
NALEO Educational Fund, a nonprofit that facilitates Latino participation in the American political process, is among those urging Newsom to do so along with the state’s Latino Legislative Caucus and the League of United Latin American Citizens.
“The Latino population of California, which is the largest of any state, should have a representative in the state that understands its priorities and needs as well as those statewide,” NALEO CEO Arturo Vargas said. “As we as a nation deal with the dual crises of Covid-19 and the economy, which have had a disproportionate impact on Latinos, we need to have someone in the Senate who has a keen understanding of that.”
In addition to Padilla and Becerra, Vargas mentioned Hilda Solis, a former US representative who was labor secretary during President Barack Obama’s first term and is now a member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, as another contender.
“We’re united in, respectfully, asking our governor to recognize our community, its contributions and its needs,” said Assemblyman Robert Rivas, and vice chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus, at a recent press conference.
As Vox’s Teddy Schleifer has reported, a contingent of prominent women donors also wrote to Newsom this week urging him to choose a woman of color.
The list, explained
The list of people who’ve expressed interest for this seat — or been named in various reports — is a lengthy one, so much so that Newsom has joked about how many people have pitched him. “You may be the only one that hasn’t, unless you just did, and that is only a slight exaggeration,” he quipped to a reporter earlier this year.
California — given its size and prominence in Democratic politics — has quite a lot of options to choose from, with some lawmakers also reportedly in contention for roles in the Biden administration. “The good news for Newsom is that the bench is deep and wide,” says Maviglio. Here’s a list of some of the potential contenders for Harris’s Senate seat.
Alex Padilla, California secretary of state
Many experts believe California Secretary of State Alex Padilla is probably Newsom’s most likely pick to succeed Harris. Padilla, who is Latino, has a multitude of credentials working in his favor: He’s been elected to a statewide office, he’s from Southern California, and he recently did a strong job overseeing the state’s election processes.
Both of California’s senators have come from the San Francisco Bay Area since 1992, so some experts believe Newsom will pick someone from the Los Angeles area. Padilla, who grew up in Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley, would fit that bill.
Padilla, 47, served on the Los Angeles City Council from 1999 to 2006, then in the state Senate from 2006 to 2014. Since 2015, he has held his current post of secretary of state, recently responding to the California Republican Party’s attempt to mislead voters by putting up fake ballot drop-off boxes and labeling them as official.
“We need not just racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, but we also need geographic diversity,” Vargas said. “The bulk of the Latino population being in the southern part of the state, it would be such an asset to have somebody in the Senate who understands that population, because they have lived those experiences.”
Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra — the first Latino person to hold this office — is among the candidates who would bring experience at both the federal and state levels if he’s chosen for the job.
Becerra, 62, had served in the House for over two decades before he was appointed as the state’s Attorney General when Harris vacated the position in 2016. He’s represented multiple Southern California districts near Los Angeles, given redistricting during his tenure, and also chaired the House Democratic Caucus. Becerra had also previously worked as as a deputy Attorney General for the state’s Justice Department and served one term as a member of the California assembly.
In his current role, he’s known for taking on Trump: Becerra has led more than 100 lawsuits against the administration including challenges to the travel ban and the president’s attempted rollback of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Barbara Lee, US House member, 13th District
Lee — a Black woman who’s represented part of the Bay Area for decades — shares some similarities with Harris but is viewed as more progressive than the vice president-elect.
Lee is a top choice among groups that would like to see a Black progressive woman appointed. A former co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Lee has represented Oakland and much of Alameda County in the House of Representatives since 1998, and previously served in the state legislature.
Her record is firmly on the left, and her votes on war powers have garnered attention: She was the only member of Congress to vote against the use of force against terrorists in 2001, and in 2019, GovTrack ranked her the furthest left of all US representatives. Her age, however, could be an issue — at 74, she is older than roughly 85 percent of current US senators.
Karen Bass, US House member, 37th District
Rep. Karen Bass, 67, saw her national profile go way up when she was considered one of the top contenders for Biden’s vice presidential pick earlier this year.
A former community organizer, Bass has represented a Southern California House district since 2011 and served as the state Assembly speaker prior to that. Bass — who was the first Black woman elected to that role — has been praised for her ability to work across party lines, while championing strong progressive ideas.
She’s currently the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and was a chief author of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a measure Democrats introduced to address police reform this past year.
Bass experienced some scrutiny during the vice presidential search, when footage emerged of her speaking favorably of former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, comments she’s since walked back. During her time in the House, she has focused on criminal justice reform and child welfare policies — both areas she could continue to work on in the Senate.
Ro Khanna, US House member, 17th District
Ro Khanna is another pick that would satisfy many progressives. Khanna, like Harris, is of South Asian descent, as a child of Indian immigrants.
Khanna, 44, had not held elected office prior to being elected to Congress in 2016, in a district that includes much of Silicon Valley. He worked in the Commerce Department for two years during Obama’s first term. Notably, Khanna is among just six representatives who do not take campaign money from PACs or corporations, and he was a national co-chair for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign.
The Justice Democrats, a progressive PAC that helped fuel the rise of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has not endorsed a contender for the Senate seat. But the organization posted on Twitter that “[Khanna’s] voice in the Senate would be a major boost for our movement for justice.” Sanders himself also voiced support for Khanna, tweeting that he “has a bold vision for America and is a proven fighter for working people.”
Katie Porter, US House member, 45th District
Rep. Katie Porter — after serving in the House for one term — has established herself as a vocal progressive willing to take on Trump administration officials and business leaders.
Porter, who is a white woman, was among the wave of Democrats elected to the House in 2018, and she’s since successfully defended her battleground district, which covers part of Orange County.
Porter, 46, was a consumer protections attorney prior to joining the House, and now sits on the House Oversight and Financial Services Committees. She — and her whiteboard — have become synonymous with the pointed questioning of witnesses including CDC Director Robert Redfield and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Kathy Kraninger.
She’d also previously worked to help distribute relief to California families in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and is a tenured law professor at the University of California Irvine.
Robert Garcia, mayor of Long Beach
Long Beach may not be California’s most well-known city. But the port city just south of Los Angeles is among the 50 most populous in the country, and its mayor, the 42-year-old Peruvian American Robert Garcia, is on the Senate shortlist.
Garcia wouldn’t be the first mayor from a non-major city to make a name for himself this year — former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg outlasted most of the Democratic primary field in his presidential campaign. Garcia is openly gay, and he is both the first Latino and first gay mayor of Long Beach. He and his mother immigrated to the Los Angeles area from Lima, Peru, when he was 5. But Garcia may not get the nod due to lack of name recognition.
“I love Robert Garcia,” said Paul Mitchell, vice president at Political Data Inc. who also works at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies. “But if you did a poll in LA of ‘who is Robert Garcia?’ or ‘who is the mayor of Long Beach?’ you’d get very few people who know who the mayor of Long Beach is.”
Hilda Solis, former US secretary of labor
Former Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, 63, would bring a wide range of credentials to the Senate.
Solis served in both houses of the state legislature between 1992 and 2001, then was in the US House from 2001 to 2009, representing the northeast portion of the Los Angeles area. Obama pulled her out of Congress to make her secretary of labor for four years, and since 2014, Solis has served on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
If appointed to the Senate, Solis is sure to make addressing climate change a top priority. She served on several environmentally focused committees while in the House, including the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Natural Resources, and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. A daughter of immigrants from Nicaragua and Mexico, Solis is also a major proponent of immigration reform.
London Breed, mayor of San Francisco
Mayor of San Francisco London Breed — the first Black woman to be elected to this role — has been highlighted as a strong leader during the coronavirus pandemic.
Breed, 46, won a special election in 2018 following the death of late San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee. Previously, she had served as the head of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which works on areas including housing and infrastructure policy in the city.
Breed is a relative moderate in the heavily left-leaning city and has clashed with city officials over how to approach affordable housing measures. She’s been in the spotlight for the efficacy of her coronavirus response, which included a rapidly implemented stay-at-home order this past spring.
Clarification, November 24: This article has been updated to clarify the Justice Democrats’ stance on Rep. Khanna as a potential appointee for the California Senate seat.


vox--2020-11-24--This week in TikTok: Why is everyone so mad at Charli D’Amelio?

Hello from The Goods ’ twice-weekly newsletter !
On Tuesdays , internet culture reporter Rebecca Jennings uses this space to update you all on what ’ s been going on in the world of TikTok .
Is there something you want to see more of ?
Less of ?
Different of ?
Email rebecca.jennings @ vox.com , and subscribe to The Goods ’ newsletter here .
This weekend , 16-year-old Charli D ’ Amelio became the first person to reach 100 million followers on TikTok .
The week prior , many of those millions of followers were telling her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dinner table .
Let ’ s backtrack for a second to why Charli and her family are so popular in the first place .
Almost exactly a year ago , videos of Charli dancing began going inexplicably viral on TikTok .
There are plenty of theories as to why , although all of them sound a bit like insults : Maybe it was that she was pretty but attainably so , or a good dancer but not too good , or that neither mattered because her cutesy facial expressions were doing most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened , it ’ s clear how she continued to gain fame .
In the Atlantic last week , Rachel Monroe ’ s feature on the D ’ Amelios puts it this way : “ As Charli ’ s follower count grew , her popularity acquired a reflexive quality ; essentially , she became a meme for other TikTokers to react to .
There was a flurry of I don ’ t get why Charli is so popular posts , followed by backlash-to-the-backlash videos tagged # teamcharli and # unproblematicqueen.
” As the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular grew , Monroe explains , so did her popularity .
Controversy is something that Charli and her family have attempted to avoid in the year since she became one of the most famous teenagers in America .
Unlike TikTok influencers who relish in scandal knowing it ’ ll translate to even more attention — partying in a pandemic or filming with “ canceled ” stars , for instance — Charli has gone so far as to refrain from participating in the WAP dance challenge because it involved twerking .
Yet when 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , controversy is never off the table .
It reared its head last week , when the D ’ Amelio family published a YouTube video in which the four of them , along with YouTuber James Charles , have dinner prepared by a personal chef .
Then someone posted a supercut on TikTok of its worst moments .
“ Let ’ s take a look about how ungrateful the D ’ Amelios are : ) ” it begins , followed by a series of clips : Dixie gagging theatrically and later throwing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any dino nuggets ?
” in front of the chef and making faces , Charli expressing her desire to reach 100 million followers on the anniversary of hitting her first million .
It doesn ’ t look great .
Some of the top comments : “ this made me so mad bye , ” “ did their parents not teach them manners , ” and “ my god — the immaturity.
” After losing nearly a million followers , Charli appeared on Instagram Live to tearfully apologize and explain that the moments in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blatantly disrespecting the fact that I ’ m still a human being is not okay at all , ” she said , referring to the death threats and violent messages she ’ d received .
“ I know that this is gon na be a huge joke to whoever sees it , but at the end of the day , just be nice .
Don ’ t tell people to kill themselves .
I feel like it ’ s not that hard .
You can say whatever .
You can say I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have basic human decency , but at the end of the day , I ’ m still a person no matter how many followers I have.
” The livestream is horrible to watch , because Charli shouldn ’ t have had to make it in the first place .
I watched the whole “ Dinner with the D ’ Amelios ” YouTube video .
Nothing the sisters did or said was surprising or even notable for teenage girls to do in front of their parents and family friends ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chef ” actually is ) .
The gagging , the faces , the quips and general theatrics were clearly overacted for laughs , despite the fact that the video , like the vast majority of influencer YouTube videos , is not particularly interesting .
This is not a screed against “ cancel culture , ” but more of a cautionary tale about what happens when our collective desire for pandemic-era gossip is directed at the wrong people .
It ’ s a cliché to say that people gossip about others when they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but as we ’ ve seen during the pandemic , it ’ s still true .
Plenty of the celebrity gossip to come out of Covid-19 has been fun and mostly harmless , but last week ’ s D ’ Amelio drama felt cruel and unnecessary .
Criticizing famous people is important , because they influence the way other people behave , but however impolite Charli and Dixie may have acted , they are entertainers .
And they are teenagers .
You can like Charli D ’ Amelio for seeming like a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also have to accept it when she acts like one .
Being sassy at the dinner table , at least to this childless adult , seems like a terrible reason to get someone canceled .
• Snapchat ’ s TikTok copycat product , Spotlight , launched yesterday .
The company is also setting aside $ 1 million for creators whose videos go viral , essentially proving that in order to create a successful TikTok dupe , you ’ ll need to pay people to be there .
• Introducing the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A former Chinese health care company purchased a real estate company that owns a series of Los Angeles TikTok mansions , which now means you can buy the company ’ s stock for a very low price .
But as the New York Times notes , these are penny stocks , and they ’ re probably not going to make you rich .
• Sherwin-Williams fired a part-time employee who ’ d gotten TikTok famous from showing the process of mixing paint colors .
Explains BuzzFeed ’ s Tanya Chen : “ Tony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d been pointing to his viral account as an example of what Sherwin-Williams could do on social media and by marketing its brand to a younger audience .
Instead , it led corporate personnel to investigate his social media account , and they ultimately fired him after determining he was making ‘ these videos during [ his ] working hours ’ and with company equipment.
” • The crowdsourced Ratatouille musical gets the deep dive it deserves on Vulture .
• Obama knows how to do duets !
• Here ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TikTok , the part of the app where normal people go viral for being embarrassing .
I can ’ t explain why these two girls playing pretend nail salon is genius , it just is .

Hello from The Goods’ twice-weekly newsletter! On Tuesdays, internet culture reporter Rebecca Jennings uses this space to update you all on what’s been going on in the world of TikTok. Is there something you want to see more of? Less of? Different of? Email rebecca.jennings@vox.com, and subscribe to The Goods’ newsletter here.
This weekend, 16-year-old Charli D’Amelio became the first person to reach 100 million followers on TikTok. The week prior, many of those millions of followers were telling her to kill herself because she acted impolite at a dinner table.
Let’s backtrack for a second to why Charli and her family are so popular in the first place. Almost exactly a year ago, videos of Charli dancing began going inexplicably viral on TikTok. There are plenty of theories as to why, although all of them sound a bit like insults: Maybe it was that she was pretty but attainably so, or a good dancer but not too good, or that neither mattered because her cutesy facial expressions were doing most of the work anyway.
However it happened, it’s clear how she continued to gain fame. In the Atlantic last week, Rachel Monroe’s feature on the D’Amelios puts it this way: “As Charli’s follower count grew, her popularity acquired a reflexive quality; essentially, she became a meme for other TikTokers to react to. There was a flurry of I don’t get why Charli is so popular posts, followed by backlash-to-the-backlash videos tagged #teamcharli and #unproblematicqueen.” As the number of questions about why Charli was popular grew, Monroe explains, so did her popularity.
Controversy is something that Charli and her family have attempted to avoid in the year since she became one of the most famous teenagers in America. Unlike TikTok influencers who relish in scandal knowing it’ll translate to even more attention — partying in a pandemic or filming with “canceled” stars, for instance — Charli has gone so far as to refrain from participating in the WAP dance challenge because it involved twerking.
Yet when 100 million people’s eyes are watching, controversy is never off the table. It reared its head last week, when the D’Amelio family published a YouTube video in which the four of them, along with YouTuber James Charles, have dinner prepared by a personal chef. Then someone posted a supercut on TikTok of its worst moments.
“Let’s take a look about how ungrateful the D’Amelios are : )” it begins, followed by a series of clips: Dixie gagging theatrically and later throwing up, Charli asking “Do we have any dino nuggets?” in front of the chef and making faces, Charli expressing her desire to reach 100 million followers on the anniversary of hitting her first million. It doesn’t look great. Some of the top comments: “this made me so mad bye,” “did their parents not teach them manners,” and “my god — the immaturity.”
After losing nearly a million followers, Charli appeared on Instagram Live to tearfully apologize and explain that the moments in the video were being misinterpreted. “Blatantly disrespecting the fact that I’m still a human being is not okay at all,” she said, referring to the death threats and violent messages she’d received. “I know that this is gonna be a huge joke to whoever sees it, but at the end of the day, just be nice. Don’t tell people to kill themselves. I feel like it’s not that hard. You can say whatever. You can say I’m disrespectful. You can say I don’t have basic human decency, but at the end of the day, I’m still a person no matter how many followers I have.”
The livestream is horrible to watch, because Charli shouldn’t have had to make it in the first place. I watched the whole “Dinner with the D’Amelios” YouTube video. Nothing the sisters did or said was surprising or even notable for teenage girls to do in front of their parents and family friends (which the video makes clear the “personal chef” actually is). The gagging, the faces, the quips and general theatrics were clearly overacted for laughs, despite the fact that the video, like the vast majority of influencer YouTube videos, is not particularly interesting.
This is not a screed against “cancel culture,” but more of a cautionary tale about what happens when our collective desire for pandemic-era gossip is directed at the wrong people. It’s a cliché to say that people gossip about others when they’re bored with their own lives, but as we’ve seen during the pandemic, it’s still true. Plenty of the celebrity gossip to come out of Covid-19 has been fun and mostly harmless, but last week’s D’Amelio drama felt cruel and unnecessary. Criticizing famous people is important, because they influence the way other people behave, but however impolite Charli and Dixie may have acted, they are entertainers. And they are teenagers.
You can like Charli D’Amelio for seeming like a “normal” high schooler, but you also have to accept it when she acts like one. Being sassy at the dinner table, at least to this childless adult, seems like a terrible reason to get someone canceled.
TikTok in the news
Snapchat’s TikTok copycat product, Spotlight, launched yesterday. The company is also setting aside $1 million for creators whose videos go viral, essentially proving that in order to create a successful TikTok dupe, you’ll need to pay people to be there.
Introducing the world’s first publicly traded TikTok collab house: A former Chinese health care company purchased a real estate company that owns a series of Los Angeles TikTok mansions, which now means you can buy the company’s stock for a very low price. But as the New York Times notes, these are penny stocks, and they’re probably not going to make you rich.
Sherwin-Williams fired a part-time employee who’d gotten TikTok famous from showing the process of mixing paint colors. Explains BuzzFeed’s Tanya Chen: “Tony Piloseno said that for months he’d been pointing to his viral account as an example of what Sherwin-Williams could do on social media and by marketing its brand to a younger audience. Instead, it led corporate personnel to investigate his social media account, and they ultimately fired him after determining he was making ‘these videos during [his] working hours’ and with company equipment.”
The crowdsourced Ratatouille musical gets the deep dive it deserves on Vulture.
Obama knows how to do duets!
Here’s a shameless plug for my story on Cringe TikTok, the part of the app where normal people go viral for being embarrassing.
One Last Thing
I can’t explain why these two girls playing pretend nail salon is genius, it just is.


vox--2020-11-24--No, you cannot move to Georgia just to vote in the Senate runoffs

In the days after two Georgia Senate races went to a runoff , New York Times columnist Tom Friedman went on CNN and seemingly encouraged people to move to the state to vote in the races .
“ I hope everybody moves to Georgia , you know , in the next month or two , registers to vote , and votes for these two Democratic senators , ” Friedman said , referring to Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff and Rev .
Raphael Warnock , running against Georgia Republican Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler .
Friedman ’ s comment — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang that he and his wife were moving to Georgia to help organize for Ossoff and Warnock — had people on social media talking about traveling to the state ahead of the election .
Most wanted to know how they could volunteer , but a smaller number of people replying to Yang ’ s tweet floated the possibility of voting in the state .
There ’ s one major problem : It ’ s illegal to move to Georgia temporarily just to vote in an election and then leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospective out-of-state voters to stay home , warning them they ’ ll face steep penalties if they vote fraudulently .
“ Make no mistake about it , I will seek to prosecute those who try to undermine our elections to the fullest extent of the law , ” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said in a recent statement .
“ Outside groups who seek to interfere with democracy in Georgia should be forewarned that the consequences will be severe.
” The Georgia Senate elections on January 5 are indeed consequential .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate chamber — and the makeup of the Senate will have a massive impact on President-elect Joe Biden ’ s agenda .
But ultimately , voters in Georgia are the ones who will decide that election .
What does Georgia law say about who can vote there ?
The deadline to register as a voter ahead of the runoffs is December 7 , and in Georgia , state law allows anyone with a legal primary residence in the state to register .
However , the secretary of state ’ s office has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state with the sole purpose of voting and then moving away is considered fraudulent — and could carry a felony sentence .
Georgia state law requires that those who register be “ a resident of this state and of the county or municipality in which he or she seeks to vote.
” The law adds that “ the residence of any person shall be held to be in that place in which such person ’ s habitation is fixed , without any present intention of removing therefrom.
” In a recent press release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s office confirmed that “ this would include individuals who move to Georgia solely for the sake of casting a ballot in an election with no intention of remaining in the state.
” False registration — or someone registering to vote knowing they don ’ t qualify in Georgia — is a state felony and carries a pretty stiff punishment : between one and 10 years in prison , and/or up to a $ 100,000 fine .
What is legal is registering to vote if you were already planning to move to Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
In other words , if you ’ re moving to Georgia for a new job or to be closer to family , say , and intend to stay there for a longer time , it ’ s well within your rights to register to vote in an election in your new state .
It ’ s also legal to move to Georgia temporarily to volunteer on a campaign , or to help other Georgia residents register to vote .
A lot of Democrat and Republican operatives and activists in other states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their candidates , but some are actively discouraging volunteers from traveling to the state , in large part because Covid-19 cases are spiking around the country .
“ We are overwhelmed by the outpouring of support , but please do not — I repeat , do not — book plane tickets or gas up your car and make plans to travel to Georgia , ” Stacey Abrams ’ s spokesperson Seth Bringman recently told the HuffPost ’ s Amanda Terkel , citing the coronavirus pandemic .
For legal voters in Georgia , absentee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who requested them beginning on November 18 , while in-person early voting starts on December 14 and continues until Election Day on January 5 .
How did this notion about voting in another state start ?
It ’ s tough to tell exactly how this idea of moving to Georgia just to vote started spreading on social media .
One high-profile case is a CNN interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman .
Here ’ s what Friedman said in full in his interview with CNN ’ s Chris Cuomo , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader Mitch McConnell potentially obstructing Biden ’ s agenda if he keeps the Senate majority : There are a few things wrong with what Friedman said .
First of all , there aren ’ t two Democratic senators — both of the senators up for reelection in Georgia are Republican incumbent Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler .
Second , even though a Snopes fact-check pointed out that Friedman “ did not , however , specifically urge Democrats to move to Georgia temporarily just long enough to vote there , or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status , ” what he said was vague enough and suggestive enough to possibly be interpreted that way .
Yang ’ s tweet , on the other hand , said nothing explicit about voting in Georgia .
Yang said he and his wife planned to move to Georgia in order to volunteer , and encouraged others to do the same .
Still , Democrats in Georgia are hoping that out-of-state volunteers keep their efforts out of the state for now , as Covid-19 cases enter their worst peak thus far .

In the days after two Georgia Senate races went to a runoff, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman went on CNN and seemingly encouraged people to move to the state to vote in the races.
“I hope everybody moves to Georgia, you know, in the next month or two, registers to vote, and votes for these two Democratic senators,” Friedman said, referring to Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock, running against Georgia Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler.
Friedman’s comment — in addition to a tweet from former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang that he and his wife were moving to Georgia to help organize for Ossoff and Warnock — had people on social media talking about traveling to the state ahead of the election. Most wanted to know how they could volunteer, but a smaller number of people replying to Yang’s tweet floated the possibility of voting in the state.
There’s one major problem: It’s illegal to move to Georgia temporarily just to vote in an election and then leave. Georgia state officials are strongly urging prospective out-of-state voters to stay home, warning them they’ll face steep penalties if they vote fraudulently.
“Make no mistake about it, I will seek to prosecute those who try to undermine our elections to the fullest extent of the law,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said in a recent statement. “Outside groups who seek to interfere with democracy in Georgia should be forewarned that the consequences will be severe.”
The Georgia Senate elections on January 5 are indeed consequential. They will determine whether Republicans or Democrats hold the Senate chamber — and the makeup of the Senate will have a massive impact on President-elect Joe Biden’s agenda.
But ultimately, voters in Georgia are the ones who will decide that election.
What does Georgia law say about who can vote there?
The deadline to register as a voter ahead of the runoffs is December 7, and in Georgia, state law allows anyone with a legal primary residence in the state to register. However, the secretary of state’s office has been very clear that moving to the state with the sole purpose of voting and then moving away is considered fraudulent — and could carry a felony sentence.
Georgia state law requires that those who register be “a resident of this state and of the county or municipality in which he or she seeks to vote.” The law adds that “the residence of any person shall be held to be in that place in which such person’s habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom.”
In a recent press release, the Georgia secretary of state’s office confirmed that “this would include individuals who move to Georgia solely for the sake of casting a ballot in an election with no intention of remaining in the state.”
False registration — or someone registering to vote knowing they don’t qualify in Georgia — is a state felony and carries a pretty stiff punishment: between one and 10 years in prison, and/or up to a $100,000 fine.
What is legal is registering to vote if you were already planning to move to Georgia for a longer time and establish residency there. In other words, if you’re moving to Georgia for a new job or to be closer to family, say, and intend to stay there for a longer time, it’s well within your rights to register to vote in an election in your new state.
It’s also legal to move to Georgia temporarily to volunteer on a campaign, or to help other Georgia residents register to vote. A lot of Democrat and Republican operatives and activists in other states are looking for ways to help out their candidates, but some are actively discouraging volunteers from traveling to the state, in large part because Covid-19 cases are spiking around the country.
“We are overwhelmed by the outpouring of support, but please do not — I repeat, do not — book plane tickets or gas up your car and make plans to travel to Georgia,” Stacey Abrams’s spokesperson Seth Bringman recently told the HuffPost’s Amanda Terkel, citing the coronavirus pandemic.
For legal voters in Georgia, absentee ballots started to be mailed to those who requested them beginning on November 18, while in-person early voting starts on December 14 and continues until Election Day on January 5.
How did this notion about voting in another state start?
It’s tough to tell exactly how this idea of moving to Georgia just to vote started spreading on social media. One high-profile case is a CNN interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
Here’s what Friedman said in full in his interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, in the context of talking about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell potentially obstructing Biden’s agenda if he keeps the Senate majority:
I hope everybody moves to Georgia, you know, in the next month or two, registers to vote, and votes for these two Democratic senators, running against incidentally two Georgia senators, both of whom were investigated for what? For getting a briefing on the coronavirus and then selling stocks before the public was aware of that information, both of them were investigated for that.
There are a few things wrong with what Friedman said. First of all, there aren’t two Democratic senators — both of the senators up for reelection in Georgia are Republican incumbent Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler.
Second, even though a Snopes fact-check pointed out that Friedman “did not, however, specifically urge Democrats to move to Georgia temporarily just long enough to vote there, or to commit voter fraud by faking their residency status,” what he said was vague enough and suggestive enough to possibly be interpreted that way.
Yang’s tweet, on the other hand, said nothing explicit about voting in Georgia. Yang said he and his wife planned to move to Georgia in order to volunteer, and encouraged others to do the same.
Still, Democrats in Georgia are hoping that out-of-state volunteers keep their efforts out of the state for now, as Covid-19 cases enter their worst peak thus far.


vox--2020-11-24--The best $219 I ever spent: A HEPA filter for my parents

More than 10,000 bolts of lightning struck the interior of Northern California this past August , and in the days that followed , blazes ignited across the state and stifled the air .
A week or so later , I flew home to San Francisco for the first time since the novel coronavirus took over the world .
As we circled SFO , I breathed in what smelled like campfire through my N95 mask , and over the loudspeaker the pilot told us not to panic .
This is not the first time I have flown over fire : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Butte County , and through the airplane window I could see the exact place where wispy clouds turned into heavy , viscous smoke , obscuring the ocean and hiding the city .
Over that Thanksgiving weekend , San Francisco ’ s streets were emptied of people .
Those who did venture out wore respirators , and there was a run on supplies at local hardware stores .
The days glowed a doomsday yellow .
Much has changed since then ; much has not .
Everyone is masked now to protect against a virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is a strange world in which we must own multiple kinds of masks .
It was only this year that I learned to wash my hands correctly , and now I know that while a respirator may save my lungs from fire , it could also spread Covid-19 to my neighbors .
Evidently , the equipment we have is only so useful .
After the Camp Fire in 2018 , my parents did not purchase an air purifier .
Nor did my friends , or my friends ’ parents , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think we were all just so relieved to breathe again .
In comparison with other years , the 2019 fire season was relatively mild ( though tell that to the residents of Sonoma , where the Kincade Fire burned 77,758 acres ) .
Still , California made it through once again .
I remain confident in San Francisco ’ s innate fortifications , bound as it is by three sides of water .
For a fire to jump the mouth of the Golden Gate would be an extraordinary feat , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nor does it seem so unlikely that we will be breathing toxic air again this time next year .
Fool me once , shame on you ; fool me twice , and I had better have an air purifier before the next fire season .
Since I no longer live in San Francisco , my concerns were for my family .
The house I grew up in is old and somewhat porous , and outdoor pollutants can easily seep through the windows .
None of us had noticed the effects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean the air was clean .
In this year of no control , I can order an air purifier to help keep them healthy .
Only a HEPA ( high-efficiency particulate air ) device can scrub the air of 99 percent of its toxic particles .
These are the machines that are found in operating theaters , research laboratories , and nuclear power stations .
If a HEPA filter was good enough for Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital , then it was good enough for my parents ’ house .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was quickly apparent that , to the uninitiated , the world of HEPA filtration devices is vast and ugly .
From recommendations in the New York Times I compiled a list of options , but Wired ’ s researchers came to a different conclusion , and the mothers of Mumsnet had their own forum for debating pros and cons and budget options .
Across the board , most models look like industrial fans , and the few that could be loosely deemed attractive are expensive .
But even if I had wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sleek , I had long missed the window .
By the time I was ready to click “ buy , ” the only products left were shipping three , maybe four weeks down the road .
Despite humankind ’ s ability to dominate delivery times , it seems Mother Nature does always win .
When I started researching air purifiers , there had already been weeks of unhealthy air .
I know this because the news reported it , and because I have an air quality monitoring app .
Me , who hates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was more than eight months ago , here I am checking the Air Quality Index every morning and texting my friends and family about the orange reading .
In San Francisco , at the intersection of Portola Drive and Clipper Street , where Mount Olympus dips into Twin Peaks , the fog normally breaks into a blue sky .
We crossed this hill a lot when I was growing up , and at the moment when the whole city would spill out before us like diamonds , my dad would glance back in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You kids are the luckiest.
” And we were : I grew up with balmy weather and air that smelled like the Pacific , and for the most part it still is like that , though the days that aren ’ t are growing in number .
After a few weeks of clean skies , my parents plugged in their purifier as they faced the October fires .
I worry about their lungs and am glad they have a machine that can vacuum up pollutants and maybe some virus particles , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a second device , but for now they have one , which is more than most people .
While $ 219 is a small amount to pay for clean air , it is a high price if you can ’ t afford food or rent or medical bills .
It is a high price if the water in your city is already toxic , or landfill runoff leaches into your garden .
It is a high price that will probably only get higher .
I bought the air purifier to buy my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have , time that politicians keep burning away .
Some of us are privileged enough to be able to buy the stuff to protect against the bad air , or dirty water , or vicious storms ; most are not as lucky .
I have to say , I hate this stuff .
It takes up space and adds to the waste cycle .
I know that I am speaking from a fortunate position , but it feels like buying platitudes instead of looking at this crisis and saying , “ Okay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have fresh air and clean water and trees that stretch on forever.
” Why should we think we are entitled to the world , to a new car every year , or meat at every meal , or air conditioning the second the temperature begins to ascend ?
And to this , we now can add the ability to buy air purifiers , respirators , and , I am sure , a whole range of other products that have yet to be released .
Nowhere does the divide between rich and poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertain and hazardous future .
On September 9 , the day that never dawned , I discovered that climate change is the color of a blacked-out sun .
That morning I had a dentist appointment , and driving through the hills of San Francisco was the closest I have ever come to living in a video game .
I made my way gingerly through the city as everyone else also put-putted along with their brights flashing in the dark .
Dogs barked loudly in search of the absent sun .
A steady stream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frosted the windowpanes .
The sky was burning and it never got light .
Grace Linden is a writer and art historian based in London .

More than 10,000 bolts of lightning struck the interior of Northern California this past August, and in the days that followed, blazes ignited across the state and stifled the air. A week or so later, I flew home to San Francisco for the first time since the novel coronavirus took over the world. As we circled SFO, I breathed in what smelled like campfire through my N95 mask, and over the loudspeaker the pilot told us not to panic.
This is not the first time I have flown over fire: In 2018, the Camp Fire burned across Butte County, and through the airplane window I could see the exact place where wispy clouds turned into heavy, viscous smoke, obscuring the ocean and hiding the city. Over that Thanksgiving weekend, San Francisco’s streets were emptied of people. Those who did venture out wore respirators, and there was a run on supplies at local hardware stores. The days glowed a doomsday yellow.
Much has changed since then; much has not. Everyone is masked now to protect against a virus that swamps supermarkets and wafts through restaurants. It is a strange world in which we must own multiple kinds of masks. It was only this year that I learned to wash my hands correctly, and now I know that while a respirator may save my lungs from fire, it could also spread Covid-19 to my neighbors. Evidently, the equipment we have is only so useful.
After the Camp Fire in 2018, my parents did not purchase an air purifier. Nor did my friends, or my friends’ parents, or anyone I know, for that matter. I think we were all just so relieved to breathe again.
In comparison with other years, the 2019 fire season was relatively mild (though tell that to the residents of Sonoma, where the Kincade Fire burned 77,758 acres). Still, California made it through once again. I remain confident in San Francisco’s innate fortifications, bound as it is by three sides of water. For a fire to jump the mouth of the Golden Gate would be an extraordinary feat, and yet it no longer seems entirely unbelievable. Nor does it seem so unlikely that we will be breathing toxic air again this time next year.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, and I had better have an air purifier before the next fire season. Since I no longer live in San Francisco, my concerns were for my family. The house I grew up in is old and somewhat porous, and outdoor pollutants can easily seep through the windows. None of us had noticed the effects of the smoke while indoors, but that doesn’t mean the air was clean. In this year of no control, I can order an air purifier to help keep them healthy.
Only a HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) device can scrub the air of 99 percent of its toxic particles. These are the machines that are found in operating theaters, research laboratories, and nuclear power stations. If a HEPA filter was good enough for Brigham and Women’s Hospital, then it was good enough for my parents’ house.
Despite their seeming ubiquity, however, it was quickly apparent that, to the uninitiated, the world of HEPA filtration devices is vast and ugly. From recommendations in the New York Times I compiled a list of options, but Wired’s researchers came to a different conclusion, and the mothers of Mumsnet had their own forum for debating pros and cons and budget options. Across the board, most models look like industrial fans, and the few that could be loosely deemed attractive are expensive.
But even if I had wanted to spend $600 on something super sleek, I had long missed the window. By the time I was ready to click “buy,” the only products left were shipping three, maybe four weeks down the road. Despite humankind’s ability to dominate delivery times, it seems Mother Nature does always win.
When I started researching air purifiers, there had already been weeks of unhealthy air. I know this because the news reported it, and because I have an air quality monitoring app. Me, who hates phone apps, whose last app download was more than eight months ago, here I am checking the Air Quality Index every morning and texting my friends and family about the orange reading.
In San Francisco, at the intersection of Portola Drive and Clipper Street, where Mount Olympus dips into Twin Peaks, the fog normally breaks into a blue sky. We crossed this hill a lot when I was growing up, and at the moment when the whole city would spill out before us like diamonds, my dad would glance back in the rearview mirror and say, “You kids are the luckiest.” And we were: I grew up with balmy weather and air that smelled like the Pacific, and for the most part it still is like that, though the days that aren’t are growing in number. After a few weeks of clean skies, my parents plugged in their purifier as they faced the October fires.
I worry about their lungs and am glad they have a machine that can vacuum up pollutants and maybe some virus particles, too. In truth, they probably would benefit from a second device, but for now they have one, which is more than most people. While $219 is a small amount to pay for clean air, it is a high price if you can’t afford food or rent or medical bills. It is a high price if the water in your city is already toxic, or landfill runoff leaches into your garden. It is a high price that will probably only get higher. I bought the air purifier to buy my family time, time we do not have, time that politicians keep burning away. Some of us are privileged enough to be able to buy the stuff to protect against the bad air, or dirty water, or vicious storms; most are not as lucky.
I have to say, I hate this stuff. It takes up space and adds to the waste cycle. I know that I am speaking from a fortunate position, but it feels like buying platitudes instead of looking at this crisis and saying, “Okay, we will give up all these things to have fresh air and clean water and trees that stretch on forever.” Why should we think we are entitled to the world, to a new car every year, or meat at every meal, or air conditioning the second the temperature begins to ascend? And to this, we now can add the ability to buy air purifiers, respirators, and, I am sure, a whole range of other products that have yet to be released. Nowhere does the divide between rich and poor seem starker than when planning for an uncertain and hazardous future.
On September 9, the day that never dawned, I discovered that climate change is the color of a blacked-out sun. That morning I had a dentist appointment, and driving through the hills of San Francisco was the closest I have ever come to living in a video game. I made my way gingerly through the city as everyone else also put-putted along with their brights flashing in the dark. Dogs barked loudly in search of the absent sun. A steady stream of ash fell on the cars and frosted the windowpanes. The sky was burning and it never got light.
Grace Linden is a writer and art historian based in London.