vox--2020-12-21--Netflix’s new Regency drama Bridgerton is as shallow as the aristocrats it skewers

As a huge fan of historical romance , I once longed for Netflix to make a lush , extravagant , twisty series in the vein of the books I loved .
But now that it ’ s actually gone ahead and made one , I ’ ve found that I have to eat my words .
Bridgerton , Shonda Rimes ’ s first collaboration with Netflix , promises a story of upper-crust debutantes with secrets and their fight to marry well in Regency London .
But instead of filling that opulent , 19th-century setting with true passion and heart , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the aristocrats it ’ s skewering : soulless and vapid .
That ’ s not to say that I didn ’ t inhale the entire first season anyway .
Written by Shondaland veteran Chris Van Dusen ( Scandal , Grey ’ s Anatomy ) , Bridgerton ’ s eight episodes fly by , and its Regency-era setting is easy to get lost in .
It even utilizes two of the most irresistible plots in romance history : fake dating and a marriage of convenience .
But Bridgerton ’ s story of two neighboring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a debutante and a mysterious duke ultimately contains more window dressing than substance .
It pivots around deeply shallow characters , conniving matchmakers , and turgid sex scenes — and even includes a distressing onscreen rape that ’ s never really addressed .
It all makes for a compulsively snackable marathon , but it ’ s not easy to digest in the end .
Bridgerton is a typical Regency romance , with a few bulletproof tropes working in its favor Bridgerton is based on romance veteran Julia Quinn ’ s epic eight-part romance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( That might sound daunting , but for the romance genre , a series of that size is fairly common . )
The series , like most historical romances , sets itself within a loose version of the Regency period — that particular moment of pre-industrial 19th-century Britain when London aristocracy was rich and bored enough to revolve around an annual “ season ” of nightly parties and events .
( The era was named after George IV , who at the time was prince acting as the Regent — or proxy ruler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who had succumbed to his famous “ madness.
” “ Prinny ” was mainly known for caring more about high society , or the haut ton , than boring government concerns , and the Regency period likewise borrowed his character traits of frivolous vanity . )
London social functions had a complex etiquette and were usually held with the tacit purpose of matchmaking eligible men and women .
This ritual , as the show explains to us early on , was known as the marriage mart , and as ridiculous as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very high .
So many romance novels have been set in this period that “ regencies ” form their own subgenre .
Usually , however , the mainstream media only bothers with the Regency when it ’ s adapting a Jane Austen novel — puzzling since she only wrote six of them , and annoying since they were all set far from London , where all the action of the era was centered .
Indeed , Regency London is the sort of heady , scandal-ripe setting that pairs perfectly with the soapiness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ card for the first episode , “ A Diamond of the First Water , ” appeared , I felt the thrill of recognition known to anyone who ’ s grown up with shelves full of regencies filled with such idiomatic references .
The phrase conjured up the insular , coded vernacular of the regency novel : lords in deerskin trousers and Hessian boots that judged the ton through quizzing glasses and wielded intricate put-downs at the famous gentlemen ’ s club White ’ s , where the layers in a man ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drove his curricle determined where he fell along the narrow spectrum of fashionable gentility — whether he was a true Corinthian or a mere fop .
Women in empire-waisted sprigged muslin dresses would exchange delicious innuendo-filled barbs with reformed rakes over lemonade at the famous assembly rooms at Almack ’ s , and Prinny himself would occasionally appear to create havoc like a deranged Muppet .
Reader , I could not wait .
Bridgerton delivers on some of these luxury items , but it also applies a few prominent twists to this old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in sight ; instead , Golda Rosheuvel as Queen Charlotte , wife of George III , presides over London society , in a casting choice that leans into recent arguments by historians that the queen may have been Black .
The aristocracy itself is likewise peppered with men and women of color elevated to their positions by the benevolent king , whose madness renders their social status precarious .
Chief among these gentry of color is dashing rake Simon , the newly titled Duke of Hastings ( Regé-Jean Page , exuding so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clad ) .
Despite his eligibility , for reasons of his own , Simon has vowed never to marry .
But Simon isn ’ t prepared for the gorgeous debutante Daphne Bridgerton ( Phoebe Dynevor ) , the fourth child of a powerful aristocratic family .
Among Daphne ’ s siblings are the reckless elder son , Anthony ( Jonathan Bailey ) , and her ballroom-hating younger sister Eloise ( Claudia Jessie ) , both of whom loathe the marriage mart for very different reasons .
Daphne , however , immediately becomes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the queen herself and the attention of so many suitors that Anthony begins fending them off in droves , suddenly possessed with a nigh-sociopathic certainty that none of the men are good enough for his sister .
Across the street from the elegant Bridgertons are the hapless Featheringtons .
With a degenerate father and a tasteless mother , the three Featherington daughters are unfortunately dowdy marriage mart goods — and that was before their gorgeous cousin Marina ( Ruby Barker ) abruptly came to stay with them .
Marina trails gossip and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Featheringtons uncomfortably into the spotlight , overshadowing Daphne .
This development unfolds much to the glee of a pseudonymous scandal sheet writer known only as Lady Whistledown ( voiced by Julie Andrews ) , who turns the aristocracy on its ear by naming names .
Daphne , the scandalmonger declares , is out — Marina , in .
As her prospects for a suitable marriage wane thanks to the double whammy of her brother ’ s interference and Whistledown ’ s disapproval , Daphne takes her fate in her own hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having judged correctly that her star will rise once more if she ’ s seen with a duke .
Simon has no plans to marry because of his aforementioned vow , so their arrangement allows him to avoid seriously participating in the marriage mart — but of course , in between bickering and pretending to be in love , the two fake lovebirds soon develop a very real romance .
Because of all those inescapable Jane Austen adaptations , you might think that a show like this would focus on creating then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to marry , ending with a wedding .
Bridgerton isn ’ t done pulling romance tropes out of its pockets , however .
Through an unlucky turn of events involving epic misunderstandings , fights , and secret love trysts — the usual — the storyline scoots Daphne and Simon into a hastily arranged marriage .
This leads to lots and lots of sex scenes , but also creates a whole new set of problems arising from the secret that underpins Simon ’ s original vow never to marry .
This subplot contributes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the relationship between scandal , secrets , and informed consent .
The show highlights the way scandalous withheld secrets can be tools of power or forms of entrapment , particularly for members of society who had little control over their circumstances to begin with .
But this idea also leads to the show ’ s wildest and most alarming moment — a moment of non-consent that arguably undermines all the work done to explore its unwieldy power dynamics .
Bridgerton is a historical Gossip Girl , with even less depth — as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Throughout Bridgerton , characters use secrets to exert control over their social positions .
That ’ s nothing new for such romances or for the Shondaland oeuvre .
But what ’ s interesting is how frequently the show frames these scenarios through the perspective of the non-consenting party who ’ s been duped due to a kept secret .
Simon ’ s secret threatens his entire relationship with Daphne .
The Featheringtons as a household are at the mercy of their father ’ s secret gambling addiction .
And Marina tries in desperation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before a scandal around her own secrets breaks and destroys her reputation — and his along with her .
Yet despite its attempts at raising issues of consent and control and how they operate in society , Bridgerton rarely moves below the surface .
The show fails to consider its potent class differences beyond perfunctory nods , and for all its attention to diversifying its cast , it doesn ’ t actually diversify its focus on characters or explore what interesting perspectives and conflicts its diverse cast might bring to the story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mix come off as nearly homophobic rather than tantalizing .
Simon ’ s best friend , a boxer , is essentially just a device — at times a literal punching bag — to remind Simon of his working-class roots within the Black community and for other characters to react to .
A working-class opera singer and would-be courtesan gets some rote speeches about her lot in life — as does one servant whose only real role is to deliver a hilarious monologue about how none of the Bridgertons ’ servants have any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re too busy being , uh , servants .
Marina ’ s storyline offers the show its best chance for delving into these areas — but instead it ’ s Marina ’ s arc that epitomizes how shallow Bridgerton ultimately feels .
Instead of fueling an interesting exploration of how the aristocracy might react to a poor , clever woman of color like her , she gets turned into a device for drama between the Bridgertons and Featheringtons .
She ’ s used to center the Featherington ’ s own issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; then she ’ s used to raise questions of informed consent surrounding her attempts to marry well .
But after being turned into a convenient social justice megaphone , she ’ s eventually handwaved into the sunset with little to no development or greater lasting impact on the plot or the other characters .
The show ’ s sidelining of its characters of color and its other marginalized characters is an uncomfortable position for the show to leave us with .
It ’ s especially frustrating in Marina ’ s case because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overtly predatory position which the show does little to ameliorate ; she ’ s one of two main characters of color holding a huge secret over the heads of their ( white ) love interest while manipulating them .
In Simon ’ s case , as the other main character of color , his duplicity is a bit more unwitting — but it ’ s still a major plot point , and it contributes to the show ’ s most galling moment , in which a character rapes another character in a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and seemingly brushed-over .
In the Bridgerton novel The Duke and I , author Julia Quinn clearly wrote the corresponding scene as non-consensual , and the creative team changed some details to make it less rapey — but that just makes it unclear to me whether the creative team realized that the scene they left in the storyline was still non-consensual .
This deeply disturbing scene alone undermines the show ’ s work at exploring consent issues — and lacking even that thematic complexity to ground it , Bridgerton falters badly in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — like Simon ’ s precarious place in society as a duke of color or his mysterious time abroad — get almost no attention .
Most of its characters are unlikeable , flat , barely developed , or all of the above .
The other eight books in Quinn ’ s series focus on each of the other Bridgerton siblings , but it seems improbable that the current cast , particularly Bailey as Anthony , the next sibling in line to be married off , can carry such a frivolous story for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Lady Whistledown ’ s identity seems more like an afterthought than a grace note on careful character development .
I hate to conclude as much because Bridgerton has so many flourishes of Regency romance that are delightful to see brought to life on the screen .
The production values are sumptuous ; there are fanciful strolls in Hyde Park and gorgeous lantern shows at Vauxhall .
It certainly looks like a true Regency — but if there ’ s anything the genre has taught us , it ’ s never to judge @ @ @ @ @ @

As a huge fan of historical romance, I once longed for Netflix to make a lush, extravagant, twisty series in the vein of the books I loved. But now that it’s actually gone ahead and made one, I’ve found that I have to eat my words.
Bridgerton, Shonda Rimes’s first collaboration with Netflix, promises a story of upper-crust debutantes with secrets and their fight to marry well in Regency London. But instead of filling that opulent, 19th-century setting with true passion and heart, the show comes off like many of the aristocrats it’s skewering: soulless and vapid.
That’s not to say that I didn’t inhale the entire first season anyway. Written by Shondaland veteran Chris Van Dusen (Scandal, Grey’s Anatomy), Bridgerton’s eight episodes fly by, and its Regency-era setting is easy to get lost in. It even utilizes two of the most irresistible plots in romance history: fake dating and a marriage of convenience.
But Bridgerton’s story of two neighboring London families and the blossoming romance between a debutante and a mysterious duke ultimately contains more window dressing than substance. It pivots around deeply shallow characters, conniving matchmakers, and turgid sex scenes — and even includes a distressing onscreen rape that’s never really addressed. It all makes for a compulsively snackable marathon, but it’s not easy to digest in the end.
Bridgerton is a typical Regency romance, with a few bulletproof tropes working in its favor
Bridgerton is based on romance veteran Julia Quinn’s epic eight-part romance novel series of the same name. (That might sound daunting, but for the romance genre, a series of that size is fairly common.) The series, like most historical romances, sets itself within a loose version of the Regency period — that particular moment of pre-industrial 19th-century Britain when London aristocracy was rich and bored enough to revolve around an annual “season” of nightly parties and events. (The era was named after George IV, who at the time was prince acting as the Regent — or proxy ruler — for his father, George III, who had succumbed to his famous “madness.” “Prinny” was mainly known for caring more about high society, or the haut ton, than boring government concerns, and the Regency period likewise borrowed his character traits of frivolous vanity.) London social functions had a complex etiquette and were usually held with the tacit purpose of matchmaking eligible men and women. This ritual, as the show explains to us early on, was known as the marriage mart, and as ridiculous as it might seem now, the stakes were very high.
So many romance novels have been set in this period that “regencies” form their own subgenre. Usually, however, the mainstream media only bothers with the Regency when it’s adapting a Jane Austen novel — puzzling since she only wrote six of them, and annoying since they were all set far from London, where all the action of the era was centered. Indeed, Regency London is the sort of heady, scandal-ripe setting that pairs perfectly with the soapiness of Shondaland storytelling.
The moment the title card for the first episode, “A Diamond of the First Water,” appeared, I felt the thrill of recognition known to anyone who’s grown up with shelves full of regencies filled with such idiomatic references. The phrase conjured up the insular, coded vernacular of the regency novel: lords in deerskin trousers and Hessian boots that judged the ton through quizzing glasses and wielded intricate put-downs at the famous gentlemen’s club White’s, where the layers in a man’s cravat and the elegance with which he drove his curricle determined where he fell along the narrow spectrum of fashionable gentility — whether he was a true Corinthian or a mere fop. Women in empire-waisted sprigged muslin dresses would exchange delicious innuendo-filled barbs with reformed rakes over lemonade at the famous assembly rooms at Almack’s, and Prinny himself would occasionally appear to create havoc like a deranged Muppet. Reader, I could not wait.
Bridgerton delivers on some of these luxury items, but it also applies a few prominent twists to this old formula. The Prince Regent is nowhere in sight; instead, Golda Rosheuvel as Queen Charlotte, wife of George III, presides over London society, in a casting choice that leans into recent arguments by historians that the queen may have been Black. The aristocracy itself is likewise peppered with men and women of color elevated to their positions by the benevolent king, whose madness renders their social status precarious.
Chief among these gentry of color is dashing rake Simon, the newly titled Duke of Hastings (Regé-Jean Page, exuding so much ripped-shirt romance hero energy, even fully clad). Despite his eligibility, for reasons of his own, Simon has vowed never to marry.
But Simon isn’t prepared for the gorgeous debutante Daphne Bridgerton (Phoebe Dynevor), the fourth child of a powerful aristocratic family. Among Daphne’s siblings are the reckless elder son, Anthony (Jonathan Bailey), and her ballroom-hating younger sister Eloise (Claudia Jessie), both of whom loathe the marriage mart for very different reasons. Daphne, however, immediately becomes the prize of society: She draws praise from the queen herself and the attention of so many suitors that Anthony begins fending them off in droves, suddenly possessed with a nigh-sociopathic certainty that none of the men are good enough for his sister.
Across the street from the elegant Bridgertons are the hapless Featheringtons. With a degenerate father and a tasteless mother, the three Featherington daughters are unfortunately dowdy marriage mart goods — and that was before their gorgeous cousin Marina (Ruby Barker) abruptly came to stay with them. Marina trails gossip and scandal in her wake, thrusting all of the Featheringtons uncomfortably into the spotlight, overshadowing Daphne. This development unfolds much to the glee of a pseudonymous scandal sheet writer known only as Lady Whistledown (voiced by Julie Andrews), who turns the aristocracy on its ear by naming names. Daphne, the scandalmonger declares, is out — Marina, in.
As her prospects for a suitable marriage wane thanks to the double whammy of her brother’s interference and Whistledown’s disapproval, Daphne takes her fate in her own hands and negotiates a fake courtship with Simon, having judged correctly that her star will rise once more if she’s seen with a duke. Simon has no plans to marry because of his aforementioned vow, so their arrangement allows him to avoid seriously participating in the marriage mart — but of course, in between bickering and pretending to be in love, the two fake lovebirds soon develop a very real romance.
Because of all those inescapable Jane Austen adaptations, you might think that a show like this would focus on creating then resolving tensions en route for the couple to marry, ending with a wedding. Bridgerton isn’t done pulling romance tropes out of its pockets, however. Through an unlucky turn of events involving epic misunderstandings, fights, and secret love trysts — the usual — the storyline scoots Daphne and Simon into a hastily arranged marriage. This leads to lots and lots of sex scenes, but also creates a whole new set of problems arising from the secret that underpins Simon’s original vow never to marry.
This subplot contributes to Bridgerton’s most interesting thematic idea: the relationship between scandal, secrets, and informed consent. The show highlights the way scandalous withheld secrets can be tools of power or forms of entrapment, particularly for members of society who had little control over their circumstances to begin with. But this idea also leads to the show’s wildest and most alarming moment — a moment of non-consent that arguably undermines all the work done to explore its unwieldy power dynamics.
Bridgerton is a historical Gossip Girl, with even less depth — as well as a deeply disturbing rape scene
Throughout Bridgerton, characters use secrets to exert control over their social positions. That’s nothing new for such romances or for the Shondaland oeuvre. But what’s interesting is how frequently the show frames these scenarios through the perspective of the non-consenting party who’s been duped due to a kept secret. Simon’s secret threatens his entire relationship with Daphne. The Featheringtons as a household are at the mercy of their father’s secret gambling addiction. And Marina tries in desperation to find someone who will marry her before a scandal around her own secrets breaks and destroys her reputation — and his along with her.
Yet despite its attempts at raising issues of consent and control and how they operate in society, Bridgerton rarely moves below the surface. The show fails to consider its potent class differences beyond perfunctory nods, and for all its attention to diversifying its cast, it doesn’t actually diversify its focus on characters or explore what interesting perspectives and conflicts its diverse cast might bring to the story. Half-hearted attempts to inject queer characters into the mix come off as nearly homophobic rather than tantalizing. Simon’s best friend, a boxer, is essentially just a device — at times a literal punching bag — to remind Simon of his working-class roots within the Black community and for other characters to react to. A working-class opera singer and would-be courtesan gets some rote speeches about her lot in life — as does one servant whose only real role is to deliver a hilarious monologue about how none of the Bridgertons’ servants have any time to moonlight as Lady Whistledown because they’re too busy being, uh, servants.
Marina’s storyline offers the show its best chance for delving into these areas — but instead it’s Marina’s arc that epitomizes how shallow Bridgerton ultimately feels. Instead of fueling an interesting exploration of how the aristocracy might react to a poor, clever woman of color like her, she gets turned into a device for drama between the Bridgertons and Featheringtons. She’s used to center the Featherington’s own issues with class, money, and race; then she’s used to raise questions of informed consent surrounding her attempts to marry well. But after being turned into a convenient social justice megaphone, she’s eventually handwaved into the sunset with little to no development or greater lasting impact on the plot or the other characters.
The show’s sidelining of its characters of color and its other marginalized characters is an uncomfortable position for the show to leave us with. It’s especially frustrating in Marina’s case because her story arc puts her in an overtly predatory position which the show does little to ameliorate; she’s one of two main characters of color holding a huge secret over the heads of their (white) love interest while manipulating them.
In Simon’s case, as the other main character of color, his duplicity is a bit more unwitting — but it’s still a major plot point, and it contributes to the show’s most galling moment, in which a character rapes another character in a way that’s fast, fleeting, and seemingly brushed-over. In the Bridgerton novel The Duke and I, author Julia Quinn clearly wrote the corresponding scene as non-consensual, and the creative team changed some details to make it less rapey — but that just makes it unclear to me whether the creative team realized that the scene they left in the storyline was still non-consensual.
This deeply disturbing scene alone undermines the show’s work at exploring consent issues — and lacking even that thematic complexity to ground it, Bridgerton falters badly in the home stretch. Its most interesting ideas — like Simon’s precarious place in society as a duke of color or his mysterious time abroad — get almost no attention. Most of its characters are unlikeable, flat, barely developed, or all of the above. The other eight books in Quinn’s series focus on each of the other Bridgerton siblings, but it seems improbable that the current cast, particularly Bailey as Anthony, the next sibling in line to be married off, can carry such a frivolous story for many more rounds. Even the eventual reveal of Lady Whistledown’s identity seems more like an afterthought than a grace note on careful character development.
I hate to conclude as much because Bridgerton has so many flourishes of Regency romance that are delightful to see brought to life on the screen. The production values are sumptuous; there are fanciful strolls in Hyde Park and gorgeous lantern shows at Vauxhall.
It certainly looks like a true Regency — but if there’s anything the genre has taught us, it’s never to judge a romance by its cover.


vox--2020-12-21--Joe Biden got the Covid-19 vaccine on live TV

President-elect Joe Biden received his first dose of the Covid-19 vaccine in Delaware on Monday on live TV .
After rolling up his sleeve and getting the shot , Biden thanked health care workers and scientists .
“ We owe these folks an awful lot , ” he said .
“ The scientists and the people who put this together , the front-line workers , the people who were the ones that did the clinical work.
” Biden made it clear that his decision to get vaccinated on television is part of the urgent effort to show Americans that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s worth saying that this is a great hope .
I ’ m doing this to demonstrate that people should be prepared , when it ’ s available , to take the vaccine , ” he said .
Last week , when Biden announced his decision to get vaccinated publicly , he said getting the vaccine is “ about more than politics.
” “ This is about saving lives , ” he said .
“ I look forward to receiving the vaccine publicly on Monday and continuing to build confidence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t save lives , vaccinations do.
” Nurse practitioner Tabe Mase administered the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to Biden at Christiana Hospital in Newark , Delaware .
Soon-to-be first lady Jill Biden did not take her vaccine publicly as previously announced ; Joe Biden told reporters that she received the shot earlier in the day .
Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff will be vaccinated next week , according to Biden ’ s transition team .
Biden joins a growing list of lawmakers who have lined up for the shot as provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government framework .
Vice President Mike Pence , second lady Karen Pence , and US Surgeon General Jerome Adams all received the vaccine on live television on Friday .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rolled up their sleeves for the vaccine too , with Pelosi touting her confidence in science and McConnell claiming that more Americans need the vaccine “ as fast as possible.
” Other lawmakers , like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) , took to social media to broadcast the process .
Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may help reluctant Americans who still say they want to wait it out , or not take the vaccine at all .
An ABC/Ipsos poll released on December 14 found that more than 80 percent of Americans are willing to take the vaccine , but just 40 percent say they would take it as soon as it ’ s available to them .
Despite the growing effort to convince Americans that the vaccine is safe , President Donald Trump has not announced plans to be vaccinated .
Republicans are also less likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The administration has sent a mixed message about the vaccine as Trump has focused his efforts on attempting to overturn the election results .
The coronavirus has killed more than 310,000 Americans ; experts estimate that 60 percent to 85 percent of Americans must be vaccinated for the country to achieve true herd immunity .
Biden ’ s public vaccination may be effective at swaying some Americans , but it may be harder to convince others — the latest data on vaccine hesitancy shows that specific groups , like Republicans , rural Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wary of the Covid-19 vaccine .
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation ’ s December Covid-19 monitor of public opinion , vaccine hesitancy can be reduced with more information since many Americans , across specific groups , still believe misinformation about the vaccines .
The survey found that about a quarter ( 27 percent ) of the public is still vaccine-hesitant , claiming that they probably or definitely won ’ t get a Covid-19 vaccine .
But the number is higher among Republicans ( 42 percent ) , those ages 30 to 49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 35 percent ) , and Black adults ( 35 percent ) .
Those who reported feeling hesitant about the vaccine claimed to be worried about potential side effects and cited lack of trust in government to ensure vaccine safety and effectiveness .
Respondents also claimed that the vaccine was too new and that politics and partisanship played a negative role in the vaccine ’ s development .
For Black adults , many reported not trusting vaccines in general , and said they worried they might get Covid-19 from the vaccine itself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who said they would get the vaccine has increased by 8 percent since September .
Black Americans ’ willingness to get the vaccine increased from 50 percent in September to 62 percent in December .
Willingness increased for Republicans during those months too , from 47 percent to 56 percent .
This rise gives researchers hope that more information about the vaccine can change minds .
The survey also reported that as more trusted sources reveal they have been vaccinated , more people will sign up to be vaccinated .
Biden plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first 100 days of his administration .
“ The fight against Covid-19 is not yet over , ” he said in a statement .
“ We know the immense challenges ahead , including scaling up manufacturing , distribution , and the monumental task of vaccinating hundreds of millions of Americans .
”

President-elect Joe Biden received his first dose of the Covid-19 vaccine in Delaware on Monday on live TV. After rolling up his sleeve and getting the shot, Biden thanked health care workers and scientists.
“We owe these folks an awful lot,” he said. “The scientists and the people who put this together, the front-line workers, the people who were the ones that did the clinical work.”
Biden made it clear that his decision to get vaccinated on television is part of the urgent effort to show Americans that the vaccine is safe and effective. “It’s worth saying that this is a great hope. I’m doing this to demonstrate that people should be prepared, when it’s available, to take the vaccine,” he said.
Joe Biden gets a coronavirus vaccine shot, then says, "We owe these folks a lot. The scientists and the people who put this together, the frontline workers, the people what were the ones that did the clinical work." pic.twitter.com/b3ieZTjxn1 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 21, 2020
Last week, when Biden announced his decision to get vaccinated publicly, he said getting the vaccine is “about more than politics.”
“This is about saving lives,” he said. “I look forward to receiving the vaccine publicly on Monday and continuing to build confidence in the scientific process. Vaccines don’t save lives, vaccinations do.”
Nurse practitioner Tabe Mase administered the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to Biden at Christiana Hospital in Newark, Delaware. Soon-to-be first lady Jill Biden did not take her vaccine publicly as previously announced; Joe Biden told reporters that she received the shot earlier in the day. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff will be vaccinated next week, according to Biden’s transition team.
Biden joins a growing list of lawmakers who have lined up for the shot as provided under the country’s continuity of government framework. Vice President Mike Pence, second lady Karen Pence, and US Surgeon General Jerome Adams all received the vaccine on live television on Friday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rolled up their sleeves for the vaccine too, with Pelosi touting her confidence in science and McConnell claiming that more Americans need the vaccine “as fast as possible.” Other lawmakers, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), took to social media to broadcast the process.
Biden’s decision to get vaccinated before the public may help reluctant Americans who still say they want to wait it out, or not take the vaccine at all. An ABC/Ipsos poll released on December 14 found that more than 80 percent of Americans are willing to take the vaccine, but just 40 percent say they would take it as soon as it’s available to them.
Despite the growing effort to convince Americans that the vaccine is safe, President Donald Trump has not announced plans to be vaccinated. Republicans are also less likely to say they will get the vaccine. The administration has sent a mixed message about the vaccine as Trump has focused his efforts on attempting to overturn the election results.
The coronavirus has killed more than 310,000 Americans; experts estimate that 60 percent to 85 percent of Americans must be vaccinated for the country to achieve true herd immunity.
Vaccine hesitancy remains high among certain groups
Biden’s public vaccination may be effective at swaying some Americans, but it may be harder to convince others — the latest data on vaccine hesitancy shows that specific groups, like Republicans, rural Americans, and Black people, are more wary of the Covid-19 vaccine.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s December Covid-19 monitor of public opinion, vaccine hesitancy can be reduced with more information since many Americans, across specific groups, still believe misinformation about the vaccines.
The survey found that about a quarter (27 percent) of the public is still vaccine-hesitant, claiming that they probably or definitely won’t get a Covid-19 vaccine. But the number is higher among Republicans (42 percent), those ages 30 to 49 (36 percent), rural residents (35 percent), and Black adults (35 percent).
Those who reported feeling hesitant about the vaccine claimed to be worried about potential side effects and cited lack of trust in government to ensure vaccine safety and effectiveness. Respondents also claimed that the vaccine was too new and that politics and partisanship played a negative role in the vaccine’s development. For Black adults, many reported not trusting vaccines in general, and said they worried they might get Covid-19 from the vaccine itself.
The survey found that the share of people who said they would get the vaccine has increased by 8 percent since September. Black Americans’ willingness to get the vaccine increased from 50 percent in September to 62 percent in December. Willingness increased for Republicans during those months too, from 47 percent to 56 percent. This rise gives researchers hope that more information about the vaccine can change minds. The survey also reported that as more trusted sources reveal they have been vaccinated, more people will sign up to be vaccinated.
Biden plans to have 100 million vaccine shots administered in the first 100 days of his administration. “The fight against Covid-19 is not yet over,” he said in a statement. “We know the immense challenges ahead, including scaling up manufacturing, distribution, and the monumental task of vaccinating hundreds of millions of Americans.”


vox--2020-12-21--How to get your next coronavirus stimulus check, and other questions, answered

Congress looks just about ready to approve a stimulus package after recently reaching a deal on the provisions of the $ 900 billion plan .
Like the $ 2.2 trillion CARES Act that Congress passed in late March , the second coronavirus stimulus will distribute cash directly to individual Americans as the coronavirus crisis inevitably stretches into 2021 .
But the new stimulus checks won ’ t be exactly like the first ones : Eligible adults will receive up to $ 600 each — half the amount allotted during the first round of payouts .
As with the first round @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with higher incomes , at a decreasing rate of $ 5 less for every additional $ 100 of income starting at $ 75,000 and cutting off entirely at $ 99,000 .
Couples can receive up to $ 1,200 and households with children under the age of 17 are eligible for $ 600 per child .
On Monday , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would have preferred the checks to be bigger but added they are still “ significant ” and “ going out soon.
” The payments will either be sent via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mailed as a paper check or prepaid debit card .
It ’ s clear top lawmakers and administration officials like Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin want to get direct stimulus payments out in the coming weeks .
Speaking on CNBC Monday morning , Mnuchin laid out an optimistic timeline for when Americans will see relief .
“ The good news is this is a very , very fast way of getting money into the economy , ” Mnuchin said .
“ Let me emphasize : People are going to see this money at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tense deliberations and stalemates over a second relief package , questions are emerging about when and how checks will be distributed this time around , and how long the process could take .
Here ’ s what we know so far .
The one-off stimulus checks will be distributed according to the adjusted gross income reported on an individual or couple ’ s 2019 tax returns .
The payments will be adjusted as follows : • Each adult who earned $ 75,000 or less is eligible to receive up to $ 600 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligible .
A family with two adults and two children would be eligible for a $ 2,400 check .
Heads of household making up to $ 112,500 are also eligible for a check .
• Adults who earned more than $ 75,000 will have their payout reduced by $ 5 for every additional $ 100 in income .
There are some calculators out there for you to get an estimate on how much a second stimulus check could be based on your income , filing status , and number of defendants .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not eligible for the direct payments .
• As with the first round of payments in the spring , adults who are claimed as dependents ( including many students ) are not eligible for direct payments .
• Undocumented immigrants will not be eligible for a direct payment , though households in which one parent has legal residency and another does not would be eligible for checks , according to the Washington Post .
• Those who did not file a tax return for 2019 will need to complete a separate form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will people receive their direct payments ?
With Congress passing the bill just days before the end of the year , checks definitely won ’ t be distributed ahead of the holidays .
On Monday , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said millions of Americans would begin to receive stimulus checks as early as next week .
This is a faster timeline than the spring , when the IRS started to disburse checks within two weeks of Congress ’ approval of the CARES Act .
On an individual basis , the time it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether an individual or couple filed taxes in 2019 .
• If an individual filed taxes during 2019 , the IRS already has their information on file .
The payment is expected to be delivered to their bank account in a matter of weeks .
Mnuchin estimates IRS could begin depositing an estimated 100 million checks on December 28 .
• If the IRS does not have your bank information on file , the agency will send checks via mail .
This process could take up to five months .
How can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you get your stimulus check deposited directly into your bank account or mailed out in the form of a paper check or prepaid debit card largely depends on whether your bank information is on file with the IRS .
The first round of stimulus payments going out this spring showed that direct deposit payments are usually faster than mailed checks .
Here ’ s what to expect .
• For many adults , there ’ s no additional action required to obtain the direct payment : If people have filed a tax return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deposit information in these filings , the payment will likely be automatically deposited by the IRS in the coming weeks .
These people will likely be the first ones to receive a payment , since their information is already on file with the IRS .
• Those without bank information on file with the IRS can expect to receive payments in the mail , either in the form of a paper check or prepaid debit card .
Remember , after the CARES Act was passed this spring , the first round of paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those making less than $ 20,000 per year — in other words , those Americans with the lowest incomes .
The Treasury Department sent those out in waves in the spring , week by week .
So , it could take longer for higher earners who don ’ t have their bank information on file with the IRS to get their payments .
• For those who have filed a tax return in 2019 , but who did not include direct deposit information in those filings , the IRS rolled out an online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submit these details and expedite their payment .
That website is still up and running , and allows people who didn ’ t get their first stimulus check to file for it .
When is Congress expected to pass this latest relief bill ?
Congress is slated to pass the second Covid-19 relief bill , which includes the stimulus checks , on Monday .
But the exact timeline is still up in the air .
As of Monday afternoon , the House released its bill text , which you can read here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill is 5,593 pages long because the Covid-19 bill is being combined with an annual federal appropriations bill .
The House is expected to vote on the bill Monday evening , setting up the Senate for a vote either late Monday night or early Tuesday morning .
“ We ’ re gon na stay here until we finish tonight , ” McConnell told reporters , signaling it could be a long night for Congress .
There could be snags in between now and when a bill travels to President Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers in both parties , including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) and Andy Biggs ( R-AZ ) , said Monday they ’ re frustrated at the lack of time they ’ re being given to review such large legislation before they vote .
And there ’ s always the possibility something could happen to further disrupt the bill , but Congress will likely have wrapped up business by early Tuesday morning , with the goal of getting relief out as soon as possible .
What else do I need to know ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in the coming days after Congress passes this bill into law and Trump signs it .
When it comes to stimulus checks , information is expected to be available through the IRS ’ s “ Get My Payment ” tool .

Congress approved a stimulus package on Monday after reaching a deal on the provisions of the $900 billion plan. Like the $2.2 trillion CARES Act that Congress passed in late March, the second coronavirus stimulus will distribute cash directly to individual Americans as the coronavirus crisis inevitably stretches into 2021.
But the new stimulus checks won’t be exactly like the first ones: Eligible adults will receive up to $600 each — half the amount allotted during the first round of payouts. As with the first round of stimulus, checks will get smaller with higher incomes, at a decreasing rate of $5 less for every additional $100 of income starting at $75,000 and cutting off entirely at $99,000. Couples can receive up to $1,200 and households with children under the age of 17 are eligible for $600 per child.
On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would have preferred the checks to be bigger but added they are still “significant” and “going out soon.” The payments will either be sent via direct deposit in the coming weeks or mailed as a paper check or prepaid debit card.
It’s clear top lawmakers and administration officials like Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin want to get direct stimulus payments out in the coming weeks. Speaking on CNBC Monday morning, Mnuchin laid out an optimistic timeline for when Americans will see relief.
“The good news is this is a very, very fast way of getting money into the economy,” Mnuchin said. “Let me emphasize: People are going to see this money at the beginning of next week.”
After months of tense deliberations and stalemates over a second relief package, questions are emerging about when and how checks will be distributed this time around, and how long the process could take. Here’s what we know so far.
Who qualifies for a $600 direct payment?
The one-off stimulus checks will be distributed according to the adjusted gross income reported on an individual or couple’s 2019 tax returns. The payments will be adjusted as follows:
Each adult who earned $75,000 or less is eligible to receive up to $600, and children under 17 are also eligible. A family with two adults and two children would be eligible for a $2,400 check. Heads of household making up to $112,500 are also eligible for a check.
Adults who earned more than $75,000 will have their payout reduced by $5 for every additional $100 in income. There are some calculators out there for you to get an estimate on how much a second stimulus check could be based on your income, filing status, and number of dependents.
Adults who earned $99,000 or more are not eligible for the direct payments.
As with the first round of payments in the spring, adults who are claimed as dependents (including many students) are not eligible for direct payments.
Undocumented immigrants will not be eligible for a direct payment, though households in which one parent has legal residency and another does not would be eligible for checks, according to the Washington Post.
Those who did not file a tax return for 2019 will need to complete a separate form to receive the one-time payment.
When will people receive their direct payments?
With Congress passing the bill just days before the end of the year, checks definitely won’t be distributed ahead of the holidays. On Monday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said millions of Americans would begin to receive stimulus checks as early as next week. This is a faster timeline than the spring, when the IRS started to disburse checks within two weeks of congressional approval of the CARES Act. On an individual basis, the time it will take to receive a stimulus check depends on whether an individual or couple filed taxes in 2019.
If an individual filed taxes during 2019, the IRS already has their information on file. The payment is expected to be delivered to their bank account in a matter of weeks. Mnuchin estimates the IRS could begin depositing 100 million checks on December 28.
If the IRS does not have your bank information on file, the agency will send checks via mail. This process could take up to five months.
How can I get my direct payment?
Whether you get your stimulus check deposited directly into your bank account or mailed out in the form of a paper check or prepaid debit card largely depends on whether your bank information is on file with the IRS.
The first round of stimulus payments going out this spring showed that direct deposit payments are usually faster than mailed checks. Here’s what to expect.
For many adults, there’s no additional action required to obtain the direct payment: If people have filed a tax return in 2019 and included their direct deposit information in these filings, the payment will likely be automatically deposited by the IRS in the coming weeks. These people will likely be the first ones to receive a payment since their information is already on file with the IRS.
Those without bank information on file with the IRS can expect to receive payments in the mail, either in the form of a paper check or prepaid debit card. Remember, after the CARES Act was passed this spring, the first round of paper checks that were mailed out went to those making less than $20,000 per year — in other words, those Americans with the lowest incomes. The Treasury Department sent those out in waves in the spring, week by week. So, it could take longer for higher earners who don’t have their bank information on file with the IRS to get their payments.
For those who have filed a tax return in 2019 but who did not include direct deposit information in those filings, the IRS rolled out an online tool in March that allowed people to submit these details and expedite their payment. That website is still up and running, and it allows people who didn’t get their first stimulus check to file for it.
What else do I need to know?
There will likely be more guidance rolled out in the coming days. When it comes to stimulus checks, information is expected to be available through the IRS’s “Get My Payment” tool.


vox--2020-12-21--Today, Explained looks at how the coronavirus pandemic reshaped the world

2020 is a year that changed everything .
As December draws to a close , Today , Explained is taking a look back at how the coronavirus pandemic impacted every aspect of our lives in the new series You , Me , and Covid-19 .
Host Sean Rameswaram , along with the Today , Explained team , will examine how the virus changed our relationships to each other and the places we live , how it upended our livelihoods , and how it redefined what we thought of as “ normal.
” The series includes a special interview with Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Vox reporters Brian Resnick and Haleema Shah .
The first episode is out Monday , December 21 , with new episodes dropping through December 29 , 2020 .
Subscribe to Today , Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , and Spotify — to automatically get new episodes when they publish .
Episode 1 , December 21 | Millennials are moving back in with their parents ( again ) , but they are discovering multigenerational living has its perks .
A mother and daughter reflect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together , and a professor examines the American stigma of living with your parents .
Episode 2 , December 22 | First it was SXSW .
Then Coachella .
Then just about every concert and live show you can imagine .
2020 devastated the music industry and its fans as live performances were canceled or postponed indefinitely because of the pandemic .
Vox ’ s Haleema Shah reports on how , in the wake of economic challenges and struggles to connect with audiences , musicians like DVSN did what artists do best : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Episode 3 , December 23 | The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , Dr. Fauci has spent a lot of time in the spotlight recently .
In a livestreamed interview with the unofficial human of the year , he told Sean Rameswaram that 85 percent of the US needs to get the Covid-19 vaccine for “ true herd immunity.
” Fauci also reflects on how this year has impacted him both professionally and personally .
Episode 4 , December 28 | We can ’ t stop talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but what about the animals ?
Some of them are dying .
Some of them are thriving .
Oh , and they started it .
Vox ’ s Brain Resnick and science writer David Quammen explain .
Episode 5 , December 29 | Reflections on how the pandemic and the year ’ s ensuing politics , economics , and social upheaval changed people ’ s ways of looking at the world .
Featuring a guy who bought a gun , and then bought another ; a woman who never wanted kids and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to shut out family over Black Lives Matter ; and an incarcerated individual who felt helpless about preventative measures on the inside , and then the outside .

2020 is a year that changed everything. As December draws to a close, Today, Explained is taking a look back at how the coronavirus pandemic impacted every aspect of our lives in the new series You, Me, and Covid-19.
Host Sean Rameswaram, along with the Today, Explained team, will examine how the virus changed our relationships to each other and the places we live, how it upended our livelihoods, and how it redefined what we thought of as “normal.”
The series includes a special interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, as well as reporting from Vox reporters Brian Resnick and Haleema Shah. The first episode is out Monday, December 21, with new episodes dropping through December 29, 2020.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify — to automatically get new episodes when they publish.
Moving home
Episode 1, December 21 | Millennials are moving back in with their parents (again), but they are discovering multigenerational living has its perks. A mother and daughter reflect on how the pandemic has brought them closer together, and a professor examines the American stigma of living with your parents.
The year live music died
Episode 2, December 22 | First it was SXSW. Then Coachella. Then just about every concert and live show you can imagine. 2020 devastated the music industry and its fans as live performances were canceled or postponed indefinitely because of the pandemic. Vox’s Haleema Shah reports on how, in the wake of economic challenges and struggles to connect with audiences, musicians like DVSN did what artists do best: get creative and find a way through.
Dr. Fauci’s nightmare before Christmas
Episode 3, December 23 | The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Fauci has spent a lot of time in the spotlight recently. In a livestreamed interview with the unofficial human of the year, he told Sean Rameswaram that 85 percent of the US needs to get the Covid-19 vaccine for “true herd immunity.” Fauci also reflects on how this year has impacted him both professionally and personally.
Animals catch Covid-19, too
Episode 4, December 28 | We can’t stop talking about how the coronavirus has changed humanity, but what about the animals? Some of them are dying. Some of them are thriving. Oh, and they started it. Vox’s Brian Resnick and science writer David Quammen explain.
How 2020 changed us
Episode 5, December 29 | Reflections on how the pandemic and the year’s ensuing politics, economics, and social upheaval changed people’s ways of looking at the world. Featuring a guy who bought a gun, and then bought another; a woman who never wanted kids and then decided to try; someone who had to shut out family over Black Lives Matter; and an incarcerated individual who felt helpless about preventative measures on the inside, and then the outside.


vox--2020-12-21--Want to help animals? Here’s where to donate your money.

If you care about animals and want to reduce their suffering , but aren ’ t sure exactly how , Animal Charity Evaluators ( ACE ) has you covered .
The California-based nonprofit has released its annual list of top recommended animal charities .
( Disclosure : ACE helped fund some of Future Perfect ’ s work in 2020 . )
Most of these charities focus on strategies that aim to improve conditions on factory farms — or to get around factory farming altogether by promoting the transition to a plant-based diet .
Concentrating on factory farms makes sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive scale .
It ’ s not just the death that takes place there — in the US alone , factory farming kills about 9 billion land animals each year — but the suffering that animals are forced to endure while they ’ re alive .
Hens , calves , and pigs are often confined in spaces so small they can barely move , and conditions are so galling that “ ag-gag ” laws exist to hide the cruelty from the public .
When we hear about some of these conditions — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to produce eggs at such a fast rate that their intestines sometimes partially fall out under the strain — we may want to put a stop to them .
But it can be hard to know which charities will actually make good use of our dollars .
ACE researches and promotes the most high-impact , effective ways to help animals .
The group uses three main criteria when deciding whether to recommend an organization , as my colleague Kelsey Piper previously explained : • Charities must be “ likely to produce the greatest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ re doing high-impact work and they ’ ve got the evidence to back it up .
• Charities must “ actively evaluate and improve their programs ” — they ’ re constantly trying to figure out the most effective way to advocate for animals ( which may change over time ) and adjusting their programming accordingly .
• Charities must “ have a demonstrated need for more funding ” — they actually need more money on hand in order to reach everyone they know how to reach ( which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With this in mind , ACE has selected its four top charities of 2020 : 1 ) The Albert Schweitzer Foundation : This group does outreach to corporations to demand they use humanely raised products .
It also does legal work ; for example , it defended undercover investigators in a case in Germany .
It ’ s also one of the first animal charities starting to prioritize corporate outreach on behalf of farmed fish .
“ We believe that farmed fish advocacy can be particularly impactful , ” ACE writes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neglectedness of farmed fish suffering.
” There ’ s good reason to think fish feel pain and that fish are more emotionally complex than you might think .
2 ) The Good Food Institute : This organization promotes the development of delicious plant-based alternatives to meat , dairy , and eggs .
( Think Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat . )
It offers business , legal , scientific , and strategic advice to plant-based companies , and advocates for regulations that won ’ t penalize their products in the consumer market .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could prove very effective at weakening the animal agriculture industry — possibly more effective than moral arguments against factory farming .
“ There are few charities working in this area , and GFI has shown strong leadership and efficiency , ” ACE writes .
3 ) The Humane League : This organization runs successful campaigns urging corporations to adopt higher animal welfare standards .
It also conducts grassroots legislative advocacy .
Importantly , it has an evidence-driven outlook , collecting and using data to guide its approach , and testing news ways to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Animal Initiative : A new entry this year ( the other three were also on last year ’ s list ) , this group is doing something unique : researching and advocating for ways to help wild animals .
Instead of focusing on the welfare of animals in factory farms , it ’ s focused on the welfare of free-ranging animals from birds to raccoons to insects .
It studies questions like : Which animals are capable of subjective experiences ?
What is the quality of their lives like in the wild ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ them ?
ACE also named some standout charities — organizations it says are doing good work despite not making it into the top four — such as Anima International , which runs corporate campaigns , releases undercover investigations , organizes protests and conferences on animal advocacy , and pushes restaurants and food service companies to make plant-based options available .
If you donate to one of the charities above , you can be reasonably confident that your money will be used effectively to minimize animal suffering .
And if you ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to donate to , you can give to the Recommended Charity Fund and leave it up to ACE to distribute the money based on what their research suggests is most effective at the time .
Is it misguided to worry about animals when so many humans are suffering ?
Americans are increasingly concerned with animal welfare .
The incredibly rapid embrace of plant-based meat products like Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat is , in part , attributable to a growing sense that we can and should be inflicting far less suffering on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 62 percent of Americans said animals deserve some legal protections .
Another 32 percent — nearly one-third — expressed an even stronger pro-animal stance , saying they believe animals should get the same rights as people .
In 2008 , only 25 percent voiced that view .
It seems more and more Americans are coming to see animals as part of our moral circle , the imaginary boundary we draw around those we consider worthy of ethical consideration .
Some people , however , react to this with a bout of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems like the pandemic and poverty ?
Underlying this objection is typically a sense that we can ’ t afford to “ waste ” compassion on animal suffering , because every bit of caring we devote to that cause means we have less to devote to human suffering .
But as Ezra Klein wrote , recent research from Harvard ’ s Yon Soo Park and Dartmouth ’ s Benjamin Valentino showed that concern for human suffering and concern for animal suffering is not zero-sum — in fact , where you find one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In one half of the study , they used General Social Survey data to see whether people who supported animal rights were likelier to support a variety of human rights , a test of whether abstract compassion is zero-sum .
Then they compared how strong animal treatment laws were in individual states to how strong laws were protecting human beings , a test of whether political activism is zero-sum .
The answer , in both cases , is that compassion seems to beget compassion .
People who strongly favored government help for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to support animal rights than those who strongly opposed it , ” the authors write .
The finding held even after controlling for factors like political ideology .
Support for animal rights was also correlated — though the size of the effect was smaller — with support for LGBT individuals , racial and ethnic minorities , unauthorized immigrants , and low-income people .
Similarly , states that did the most to protect animal rights also did the most to protect and expand human rights .
States with strong laws protecting LGBT residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and inclusive policies for undocumented immigrants were much likelier to have strong protections for animals .
The question of why these correlations exist is up for debate , but the bottom line is that we ’ d better hope our society takes action on animal suffering : If it does , we ’ re more likely to see it taking action on human suffering , too .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good .

If you care about animals and want to reduce their suffering, but aren’t sure exactly how, Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) is an organization that might be able to help. The California-based nonprofit puts out an annual guide for recommended animal charities, and it just released its list for this year. (Disclosure: ACE helped fund some of Future Perfect’s work in 2020 and 2021.)
Most of the top charities focus on improving conditions on factory farms — which makes sense, given that they’re sites of suffering on a massive scale. It’s not just the death that takes place there — in the US, factory farming kills about 10 billion land animals each year — but the suffering that animals are forced to endure while they’re alive. Hens, calves, and pigs are often confined in spaces so small they can barely move, and conditions are so galling that “ag-gag” laws exist to hide the cruelty from the public.
Sign up for the Meat/Less newsletter course Want to eat less meat but don’t know where to start? Sign up for Vox’s five-day newsletter full of practical tips — and food for thought — to incorporate more plant-based food into your diet.
When we hear about some of these conditions — like the fact that chickens are forced to produce eggs at such a fast rate that their intestines sometimes partially fall out under the strain — we may want to put a stop to them. But it can be hard to know which charities will actually make good use of our dollars.
ACE researches and promotes the most high-impact, effective ways to help animals. The group uses three main criteria when deciding whether to recommend an organization, as my colleague Kelsey Piper previously explained:
Charities must be “likely to produce the greatest gains for animals” — that is, they’re doing high-impact work and they’ve got the evidence to back it up.
Charities must “actively evaluate and improve their programs” — they’re constantly trying to figure out the most effective way to advocate for animals (which may change over time) and adjusting their programming accordingly.
Charities must “have a demonstrated need for more funding” — they actually need more money on hand in order to reach everyone they know how to reach (which is not the case for every charity).
With this in mind, ACE has selected its four top charities of 2022:
1) The Good Food Institute: This organization works to make alternative proteins (think plant-based burgers or cell-cultured meat) competitive with conventional proteins like beef, which could help reduce livestock consumption. It engages in scientific research, industry partnerships, and government advocacy that improves the odds of alternative proteins going mainstream.
The charity evaluator Giving Green also recommends this organization as one of the best climate charities of 2022, so if you want to donate to helping the climate as well as helping animals, here’s your two-for-one deal.
2) Faunalytics: This US-based nonprofit is a bit meta in its approach to animal advocacy: It conducts and publishes independent research, mostly related to farmed animals, in an effort to make other animal advocates more impactful and evidence-based.
For example, it examines social psychology data on how to influence public opinion about animals in a way that actually leads to behavior change. ACE notes that advocacy research is a neglected intervention, writing, “Faunalytics’ programs support the animal advocacy movement by examining effective advocacy strategies, problem areas, and tactics, and by providing advocates with a curated database of academic research summaries.”
3) The Humane League: Founded in 2005, this organization operates in the US, Mexico, the UK, and Japan. It runs successful campaigns urging corporations to adopt higher animal welfare standards. It has worked to end the use of battery cages internationally and improve conditions for chickens raised for meat. It also conducts grassroots legislative advocacy. Importantly, The Humane League has an evidence-driven outlook, collecting and using data to guide its approach, and testing new ways to improve its programs.
4) Wild Animal Initiative: As my colleague Dylan Matthews has documented, this group is doing something unique: researching and advocating for ways to help wild animals. Instead of focusing on the welfare of animals in factory farms, it’s focused on the welfare of free-ranging animals from birds to raccoons to insects. It studies questions like: Which animals are capable of subjective experiences? What is the quality of their lives like in the wild? How can we safely and sustainably help them?
ACE also named some standout charities — organizations it says are doing good work despite not making it into the top four — such as xiaobuVEGAN, a Chinese organization that aims to reduce the suffering of farmed animals and increase the availability of animal-free products in China, and the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organizations, which pursues similar goals in India. It’s nice to see such non-US-based groups highlighted given that, as Marc Gunther explained in Vox, the vast majority of farmed animals are outside of the US and EU.
If you donate to one of the charities above, you can be reasonably confident that your money will be used effectively to minimize animal suffering. And if you’re not sure which of them you’d like to donate to, you can give to the Recommended Charity Fund and leave it up to ACE to distribute the money based on what their research suggests is most effective at the time.
Is it misguided to worry about animals when so many humans are suffering?
Americans are increasingly concerned with animal welfare. The incredibly rapid embrace of plant-based meat products like Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat is, in part, attributable to a growing sense that we can and should be inflicting far less suffering on animals.
A 2015 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans said animals deserve some legal protections. Another 32 percent — nearly one-third — expressed an even stronger pro-animal stance, saying they believe animals should get the same rights as people. In 2008, only 25 percent voiced that view.
It seems more and more Americans are coming to see animals as part of our moral circle, the imaginary boundary we draw around those we consider worthy of ethical consideration.
Some people, however, react to this with a bout of “whataboutism”: What about urgent human problems like poverty? Underlying this objection is typically a sense that we can’t afford to “waste” compassion on animal suffering, because every bit of caring we devote to that cause means we have less to devote to human suffering.
But as Ezra Klein wrote, research from Harvard’s Yon Soo Park and Dartmouth’s Benjamin Valentino showed that concern for human suffering and concern for animal suffering is not zero-sum — in fact, where you find one, you tend to find the other:
In one half of the study, they used General Social Survey data to see whether people who supported animal rights were likelier to support a variety of human rights, a test of whether abstract compassion is zero-sum. Then they compared how strong animal treatment laws were in individual states to how strong laws were protecting human beings, a test of whether political activism is zero-sum. The answer, in both cases, is that compassion seems to beget compassion. People who strongly favored government help for the sick “were over 80 percent more likely to support animal rights than those who strongly opposed it,” the authors write. The finding held even after controlling for factors like political ideology. Support for animal rights was also correlated — though the size of the effect was smaller — with support for LGBT individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, unauthorized immigrants, and low-income people. Similarly, states that did the most to protect animal rights also did the most to protect and expand human rights. States with strong laws protecting LGBT residents, strong protections against hate crimes, and inclusive policies for undocumented immigrants were much likelier to have strong protections for animals.
The question of why these correlations exist is up for debate, but the bottom line is that we’d better hope our society takes action on animal suffering: If it does, we’re more likely to see it taking action on human suffering, too.
Update, November 29, 2022: This story was originally published in 2019 and has been updated for 2022.
Correction, November 29: This story now reflects the dates Animal Charity Evaluators funded some of Future Perfect’s work. It was in 2020, 2021, and 2022.


vox--2020-12-21--Congress has finally reached a deal on coronavirus stimulus

At long last , Congress has reached a deal on a new coronavirus stimulus bill .
After eight months of back and forth , Democratic and Republican leaders announced on Sunday that they ’ ve arrived at an agreement on a roughly $ 900 billion plan .
The House of Representatives will vote on the bill Monday , according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer .
“ We can finally report what our nation has needed to hear for a long time : More help is on the way , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed .
The legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 300 enhancement in unemployment insurance , a new round of $ 600 stimulus checks , and renewed support for small businesses .
As of Monday afternoon , the House released its bill text , which you can read here .
It ’ s a long read ; the bill weighs in at 5,593 pages because the Covid-19 bill is being combined with an annual federal appropriations bill .
Some lawmakers in both parties , including progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , said Monday they ’ re frustrated at the lack of time they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive piece of legislation before they vote .
Congress on Sunday approved a one-day continuing resolution in order to keep the government funded beyond the December 20 deadline they previously faced , setting up the Monday vote .
The final bill sidesteps some sticking points : Contentious provisions ( including state and local aid , as well as liability protections for businesses ) have been stripped out , and a last-minute disagreement over the Federal Reserve ’ s emergency lending authorities — one that seemed as if it might completely derail negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 900 billion legislation ultimately offers far less aid than a prior $ 2.2 trillion proposal House Democrats had put forth , and significantly more than the narrow $ 550 billion bill that Senate Republicans have favored .
Democrats signaled Sunday that this wasn ’ t the last of the relief they planned to send out .
For now , however , this deal is the only option for additional coronavirus relief as millions of Americans grapple with unemployment , looming evictions , and soaring coronavirus case counts .
“ This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to be done , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday .
What the stimulus deal contains While there ’ s a lot that the stimulus agreement omits , it is expected to offer much-needed aid on a few different fronts .
Lawmakers have yet to release the final bill text , so here ’ s what we know so far : Stimulus checks : There is a second round of stimulus checks , though they represent less money than the first wave did earlier this year .
These direct payments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 75,000 a year or less in adjusted gross income , rather than the $ 1,200 provided in the CARES Act , the Washington Post reports .
Couples who make $ 150,000 or less in total would be eligible for $ 1,200 in direct payments .
Individuals and couples with children who qualify for the stimulus checks would also receive an additional $ 600 per child .
Payments will be incrementally reduced for people who make more in annual income , much like they were earlier this year .
Unemployment insurance ( UI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 300 in weekly federal UI payments through March 14 , 2021 .
This supplemental payment is set to bolster the weekly payment that recipients would get from their state unemployment programs , much like a prior provision did in the CARES Act .
The bill would also extend the pandemic unemployment insurance programs that are expiring at the end of December .
These pandemic-specific programs currently provide roughly 12 million Americans with UI benefits .
Small-business support : $ 325 billion is dedicated to small-business aid including repurposed funding for the Paycheck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that business owners can apply for to cover payroll and operational costs .
These loans are aimed at businesses that have seen revenue declines this year .
For many , however , this aid comes too late — according to a Fortune report , almost 100,000 small businesses have already closed permanently during the pandemic .
Rental assistance and eviction moratorium : $ 25 billion in rental assistance is included as well as the establishment of a federal eviction moratorium .
As Vox ’ s Jerusalem Demsas previously reported , advocates have argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rental aid is needed to cover current shortfalls .
Additional action would be required to ensure that millions of Americans would not be evicted at the end of January .
Food aid : $ 13 billion for food aid to help fund a monthly 15 percent increase in individual SNAP benefits , aid for children who received food support at school , and money for other programs including Meals on Wheels and WIC ( the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women , Infants , and Children ) .
Demand for such aid has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food banks across the country facing overwhelming need in recent months .
Paid sick leave : There is an extension of paid leave tax credits for businesses , which continues a policy established in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act .
It ’ s not clear , however , whether the new legislation would guarantee leave for workers who have coronavirus or those caring for children dealing with school closures .
The legislation contains a number of other provisions as well , including $ 82 billion to help schools reopen ; $ 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be required to bring furloughed employees back , according to Reuters ; and language that bans surprise medical bills for emergency care .
It also has new guidelines for the Federal Reserve after Republicans — led by Sen. Pat Toomey ( R-PA ) — demanded emergency lending programs at the Fed be canceled in any final version of the bill .
As Vox ’ s Emily Stewart has explained , the Fed will be forced to eliminate several emergency lending programs created with CARES Act funding in the spring , and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval .
It will also return the unused portion of the $ 454 billion Congress allotted it under the CARES Act to the Treasury Department , something the Fed had agreed to do in November .
The bill doesn ’ t provide direct aid for state and local governments , a Democratic priority , or the liability protections to shield businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits Republicans had advocated for .
Additional deferment of federal student loan payments is also not included in the agreement , Politico ’ s Michael Stratford reports .
How long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Based on the timing of aid from the CARES Act , it could be a few weeks before people see direct relief from the legislation .
Earlier this year , the first round of direct payments was deposited in people ’ s bank accounts around mid-April : “ Within two weeks of the CARES Act going into effect in March , more than 81 million payments were disbursed , totaling more than $ 147 billion , all through electronic transfers to recipients ’ bank accounts , according to the Government Accountability Office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have bank accounts or whose information is not on file with the IRS will likely see a more delayed distribution of the payments .
The timing of the implementation of enhanced unemployment insurance payments will also depend on the state .
States began distributing $ 600 in supplemental UI roughly two weeks after the CARES Act was approved this past spring , which means the weekly $ 300 addition could begin in early January .
And when it comes to the Paycheck Protection Program , banks and other financial institutions began taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were approved by Congress in March .
That could set up applications for a new round of loans to kick off at the end of December or early January .
This lag time could be costly for those waiting on assistance ; by the time much of this money gets to those who need it , the programs they are meant to extend will have been expired for weeks .
Nevertheless , such aid comes at a crucial time : According to the latest Labor Department report , 19 million people are currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job growth slowed significantly compared to the prior month , suggesting that the unemployed are facing limited opportunities for new work .
And this winter , coronavirus cases are projected to soar , forcing thousands of businesses to shutter or slow their operations in order to prevent the spread of the illness .

At long last, Congress has reached a deal on a new coronavirus stimulus bill.
After eight months of back and forth, Democratic and Republican leaders arrived at an agreement on a roughly $900 billion plan. The House of Representatives will vote on the bill Monday, according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
“We can finally report what our nation has needed to hear for a long time: More help is on the way,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed.
The legislation contains much-needed coronavirus relief including a weekly $300 enhancement in unemployment insurance, a new round of $600 stimulus checks, and renewed support for small businesses. The House released its bill text, which you can read here.
It’s a long read; the bill weighs in at 5,593 pages because the Covid-19 bill is being combined with an annual federal appropriations bill. Some lawmakers in both parties, including progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said they’re frustrated at the lack of time were given to review such a massive piece of legislation before voting.
It’s not good enough to hear about what’s in the bill. Members of Congress need to see & read the bills we are expected to vote on.
I know it’s “controversial” & I get in trouble for sharing things like this, but the people of this country deserve to know. They deserve better. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 21, 2020
The final bill sidesteps some sticking points: Contentious provisions (including state and local aid, as well as liability protections for businesses) have been stripped out, and a last-minute disagreement over the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending authorities — one that seemed as if it might completely derail negotiations — has also been resolved.
The $900 billion legislation ultimately offers far less aid than a prior $2.2 trillion proposal House Democrats had put forth, and significantly more than the narrow $550 billion bill that Senate Republicans have favored. Democrats signaled that this wasn’t the last of the relief they planned to send out.
For now, however, this deal is the only option for additional coronavirus relief as millions of Americans grapple with unemployment, looming evictions, and soaring coronavirus case counts. “This is a good start, but a lot more needs to be done,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday.
What the stimulus deal contains
While there’s a lot that the stimulus agreement omits, it is expected to offer much-needed aid on a few different fronts. Lawmakers have yet to release the final bill text, so here’s what we know so far:
Stimulus checks: There is a second round of stimulus checks, though they represent less money than the first wave did earlier this year. These direct payments include $600 for individuals who make $75,000 a year or less in adjusted gross income, rather than the $1,200 provided in the CARES Act, the Washington Post reports. Couples who make $150,000 or less in total would be eligible for $1,200 in direct payments. Individuals and couples with children who qualify for the stimulus checks would also receive an additional $600 per child. Payments will be incrementally reduced for people who make more in annual income, much like they were earlier this year.
Unemployment insurance (UI): The plan includes an additional $300 in weekly federal UI payments through March 14, 2021. This supplemental payment is set to bolster the weekly payment that recipients would get from their state unemployment programs, much like a prior provision did in the CARES Act. The bill would also extend the pandemic unemployment insurance programs that are expiring at the end of December. These pandemic-specific programs currently provide roughly 12 million Americans with UI benefits.
Small-business support: $325 billion is dedicated to small-business aid including repurposed funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, a forgivable loan program that business owners can apply for to cover payroll and operational costs. These loans are aimed at businesses that have seen revenue declines this year. For many, however, this aid comes too late — according to a Fortune report, almost 100,000 small businesses have already closed permanently during the pandemic.
Rental assistance and eviction moratorium: $25 billion in rental assistance is included as well as the establishment of a federal eviction moratorium. As Vox’s Jerusalem Demsas previously reported, advocates have argued that at least $100 billion in rental aid is needed to cover current shortfalls. Additional action would be required to ensure that millions of Americans would not be evicted at the end of January.
Food aid: $13 billion for food aid to help fund a monthly 15 percent increase in individual SNAP benefits, aid for children who received food support at school, and money for other programs including Meals on Wheels and WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children). Demand for such aid has spiked dramatically during the pandemic, with food banks across the country facing overwhelming need in recent months.
Paid sick leave: There is an extension of paid leave tax credits for businesses, which continues a policy established in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. It’s not clear, however, whether the new legislation would guarantee leave for workers who have coronavirus or those caring for children dealing with school closures.
The legislation contains a number of other provisions as well, including $82 billion to help schools reopen; $15 billion in aid for airlines, which would be required to bring furloughed employees back, according to Reuters; and language that bans surprise medical bills for emergency care.
It also has new guidelines for the Federal Reserve after Republicans — led by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) — demanded emergency lending programs at the Fed be canceled in any final version of the bill.
As Vox’s Emily Stewart has explained, the Fed will be forced to eliminate several emergency lending programs created with CARES Act funding in the spring, and will be barred from restarting them without congressional approval. It will also return the unused portion of the $454 billion Congress allotted it under the CARES Act to the Treasury Department, something the Fed had agreed to do in November.
The bill doesn’t provide direct aid for state and local governments, a Democratic priority, or the liability protections to shield businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits Republicans had advocated for. Additional deferment of federal student loan payments is also not included in the agreement, Politico’s Michael Stratford reports.
How long it will take people to receive help
Based on the timing of aid from the CARES Act, it could be a few weeks before people see direct relief from the legislation.
Earlier this year, the first round of direct payments was deposited in people’s bank accounts around mid-April: “Within two weeks of the CARES Act going into effect in March, more than 81 million payments were disbursed, totaling more than $147 billion, all through electronic transfers to recipients’ bank accounts, according to the Government Accountability Office,” CNBC reports.
People who do not have bank accounts or whose information is not on file with the IRS will likely see a more delayed distribution of the payments.
The timing of the implementation of enhanced unemployment insurance payments will also depend on the state. States began distributing $600 in supplemental UI roughly two weeks after the CARES Act was approved this past spring, which means the weekly $300 addition could begin in early January.
And when it comes to the Paycheck Protection Program, banks and other financial institutions began taking applications about a week after the funds were approved by Congress in March. That could set up applications for a new round of loans to kick off at the end of December or early January.
This lag time could be costly for those waiting on assistance; by the time much of this money gets to those who need it, the programs they are meant to extend will have been expired for weeks.
Nevertheless, such aid comes at a crucial time: According to the latest Labor Department report, 19 million people are currently receiving unemployment insurance. In November, job growth slowed significantly compared to the prior month, suggesting that the unemployed are facing limited opportunities for new work. And this winter, coronavirus cases are projected to soar, forcing thousands of businesses to shutter or slow their operations in order to prevent the spread of the illness.


vox--2020-12-21--Second stimulus bill: News and updates

Second stimulus bill: News and updates

After months of impasse , Congress has finally brokered a deal on a more than $ 900 billion coronavirus economic relief bill , expected to be passed by the House and Senate on Monday .
President Trump is expected to sign it .
The final deal includes $ 600 stimulus checks for individuals who make $ 75,000 a year or less , a $ 300 boost to weekly unemployment insurance , a second round of forgivable loans for small businesses , $ 25 billion in rental assistance , and targeted aid for schools and struggling public transit systems .
Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for states and local governments that have been struggling with lost revenue , and Republicans had hoped to get liability protections for businesses , but neither measure made it into the final bill .
Economic relief is badly needed ; the Labor Department estimates 19 million people are currently on unemployment insurance , and coronavirus cases and deaths in the US are reaching record highs .
Emergency use of two different coronavirus vaccines has been authorized by the federal government , but experts say it will be a painful few months until enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference in daily life .

After months of impasse, Congress has finally brokered a deal on a more than $900 billion coronavirus economic relief bill, expected to be passed by the House and Senate on Monday. President Trump is expected to sign it.
The final deal includes $600 stimulus checks for individuals who make $75,000 a year or less, a $300 boost to weekly unemployment insurance, a second round of forgivable loans for small businesses, $25 billion in rental assistance, and targeted aid for schools and struggling public transit systems. Democrats had been hoping to get broader aid for states and local governments that have been struggling with lost revenue, and Republicans had hoped to get liability protections for businesses, but neither measure made it into the final bill.
Economic relief is badly needed; the Labor Department estimates 19 million people are currently on unemployment insurance, and coronavirus cases and deaths in the US are reaching record highs. Emergency use of two different coronavirus vaccines has been authorized by the federal government, but experts say it will be a painful few months until enough Americans are vaccinated to make a measurable difference in daily life.