vox--2020-05-23--How chaos theory helps explain the weirdness of the Covid-19 pandemic

As we ’ ve learned , it takes just one person infected with Covid-19 to unleash chaos .
In Washington state , a person with the virus attended a choir practice , and more than half of the other singers subsequently got sick .
In South Korea , a 29-year-old man went out to nightclubs ; he was Covid-19 positive , and he has since been linked to at least 54 new cases .
In China , nine people sitting in the path of an air conditioning vent in a restaurant all got sick , most likely from one person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across their faces .
Small things could have changed these outcomes .
The clubber could have decided to watch TV instead of going out dancing .
If the choir practice was rescheduled for the next day , maybe the person would have felt sick and stayed home .
The air conditioner in the restaurant could have been turned off .
As Stephen Kissler , an infectious disease modeler , puts it , “ Little shifts can have really disproportionately sized impacts ” in a pandemic .
And scientists have a name for systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What I ’ ve found , talking to scientists like Kissler , is that knowing this pandemic is chaotic is one of the keys to understanding why the future is uncertain .
But it can also help us appreciate why this uncertainty need not be so debilitating .
The double pendulum teaches us about the nature of chaos There ’ s a simple mechanism that is helping me understand the many possible futures we face with the Covid-19 pandemic .
It ’ s the double pendulum , and as a physical object , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pendulum ( a string and a weight ) is attached to the bottom of another .
Its movement is explained by the laws of motion written by Isaac Newton hundreds of years ago .
But slight changes in the initial condition of the pendulum — say it starts its swing from a little higher up , or if the weight of the pendulum balls is a little heavier , or one of the pendulum arms is a bit longer than the other — lead to wildly different outcomes that are very hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the motion of the first pendulum influences the motion of the second , which then influences the entire apparatus .
There isn ’ t a simple scale or ratio to describe how the inputs relate to the outputs .
A one-gram change to the weight of a pendulum ball can result in a very different swing pattern than a two-gram change .
It teaches us to understand the mechanics of a system — the science of how it works — without being able to precisely predict its future .
It helps us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be linear and predictable just isn ’ t .
The double pendulum shows us that simple systems aren ’ t simple at all .
Complicated ones , then ?
God knows .
The pandemic is chaos .
We can still understand it .
An outbreak isn ’ t a double pendulum ; it ’ s much more convoluted .
Myriad chains of events , operating in overlapping networks , conspire to chart its course .
That ’ s why , when pressed , epidemiologists have to say they don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , they know the mechanics of outbreaks .
The chaos “ doesn ’ t necessarily mean we know nothing , ” Kissler says .
They understand the conditions that make an outbreak worse and the conditions that make it better .
There is a tough tension of the current moment that we all need to work through : The future is clouded in chaos , but we know the mechanics of this system .
We know what ’ s possible .
Just as we know that , when pushed , pendulums swing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future of the Covid-19 pandemic is heading .
Here are the mechanics .
Scientists know that if we let up on social distancing , without an alternative plan in place , the virus can infect more people .
They know this virus is likely to persist for at least a few years without a vaccine .
They know it ’ s very contagious .
That it ’ s very deadly .
They also know that its pandemic potential is hardly spent , and that most of the population of the United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so , scientists fear big resurgences of the virus over the next months and years , and their fears are grounded in history and scientific analysis .
But yet , they say , their view of the future is more occluded than ever , as the response to the pandemic grows more varied .
“ I think we have more uncertainty now than almost any other time , ” epidemiologist Eleanor Murray , at Boston University , recently told me .
“ Now at this moment , some places are thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking about opening .
Opening means different things in different places .
There ’ s such a range of possible actions that different areas are taking , that it ’ s really hard to predict.
” Our actions influence the results , which then , in turn , influence our actions .
Will residents keep up with mask-wearing and social distancing , even when their leaders relax regulations ?
Plus , there are scientific questions about the virus still not understood : Will it diminish transmission in a seasonal pattern ?
Do children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long does immunity last after an infection ?
Why do some people breathe out more of the virus than others ?
The answers to these questions will influence the future , and we do not know the answers .
Scientists are still unraveling what makes the difference between a sprawling outbreak in one city and a more manageable one in another .
Some of it is the result of policy , some is the result of demographics , some is about structural inequality and racism , and some comes down to individual behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s chaos for you .
Chaos rules our world .
But it doesn ’ t mean we ’ re powerless .
“ I don ’ t see uncertainty as a lack of knowledge , ” says Philipp Lorenz-Spreen , a physicist who studies the chaos of a different sort of viral dynamics .
“ I think it ’ s a fundamental part of how our world works .
It ’ s not our fault we do not know where this all will go.
” Newton clearly told us what happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But follow his laws , and find that the path of a double pendulum is very , very difficult to predict .
Climate scientists clearly tell us adding CO2 to the air will increase global temperatures .
Yet they argue about when the worst effects of climate change will be felt and how bad it will be .
Epidemiologists are clearly telling us what happens when you bring masses of people together during a pandemic .
But they can ’ t tell us the exact shape this outbreak will take .
Thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrestling with uncertainty , both personally and as a wider community .
It also means dealing with what ’ s not likely to happen : The virus disappears in the next several months .
If it does , it will do so for reasons scientists do not understand or can currently explain .
There ’ s a lot in this chaotic pandemic system we can ’ t control .
Let ’ s be serious about the ones we can .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As we’ve learned, it takes just one person infected with Covid-19 to unleash chaos.
In Washington state, a person with the virus attended a choir practice, and more than half of the other singers subsequently got sick. In South Korea, a 29-year-old man went out to nightclubs; he was Covid-19 positive, and he has since been linked to at least 54 new cases. In China, nine people sitting in the path of an air conditioning vent in a restaurant all got sick, most likely from one person, as the duct blew viral particles across their faces.
Small things could have changed these outcomes. The clubber could have decided to watch TV instead of going out dancing. If the choir practice was rescheduled for the next day, maybe the person would have felt sick and stayed home. The air conditioner in the restaurant could have been turned off.
As Stephen Kissler, an infectious disease modeler, puts it, “Little shifts can have really disproportionately sized impacts” in a pandemic. And scientists have a name for systems that operate like this: chaos.
What I’ve found, talking to scientists like Kissler, is that knowing this pandemic is chaotic is one of the keys to understanding why the future is uncertain. But it can also help us appreciate why this uncertainty need not be so debilitating.
The double pendulum teaches us about the nature of chaos
There’s a simple mechanism that is helping me understand the many possible futures we face with the Covid-19 pandemic.
It’s the double pendulum, and as a physical object, it’s very simple: A pendulum (a string and a weight) is attached to the bottom of another. Its movement is explained by the laws of motion written by Isaac Newton hundreds of years ago.
But slight changes in the initial condition of the pendulum — say it starts its swing from a little higher up, or if the weight of the pendulum balls is a little heavier, or one of the pendulum arms is a bit longer than the other — lead to wildly different outcomes that are very hard to predict.
Is it too late for 2020 celebrations?
Here is a very colorful 20-second animation of 20 pendulums starting from the exactly same position, just with just 20 gram difference in mass. pic.twitter.com/Ue6aENsjeZ — Double Pendulum (@pendulum_bot) January 4, 2020
The double pendulum is chaotic because the motion of the first pendulum influences the motion of the second, which then influences the entire apparatus. There isn’t a simple scale or ratio to describe how the inputs relate to the outputs. A one-gram change to the weight of a pendulum ball can result in a very different swing pattern than a two-gram change.
It teaches us to understand the mechanics of a system — the science of how it works — without being able to precisely predict its future. It helps us visualize how something that seems like it should be linear and predictable just isn’t.
The double pendulum shows us that simple systems aren’t simple at all. Complicated ones, then? God knows.
The pandemic is chaos. We can still understand it.
An outbreak isn’t a double pendulum; it’s much more convoluted. Myriad chains of events, operating in overlapping networks, conspire to chart its course.
That’s why, when pressed, epidemiologists have to say they don’t know what’s going to happen.
Still, they know the mechanics of outbreaks. The chaos “doesn’t necessarily mean we know nothing,” Kissler says. They understand the conditions that make an outbreak worse and the conditions that make it better.
There is a tough tension of the current moment that we all need to work through: The future is clouded in chaos, but we know the mechanics of this system. We know what’s possible. Just as we know that, when pushed, pendulums swing, we can sense the direction the future of the Covid-19 pandemic is heading.
Here are the mechanics. Scientists know that if we let up on social distancing, without an alternative plan in place, the virus can infect more people. They know this virus is likely to persist for at least a few years without a vaccine. They know it’s very contagious. That it’s very deadly. They also know that its pandemic potential is hardly spent, and that most of the population of the United States and the world is still vulnerable to it.
And so, scientists fear big resurgences of the virus over the next months and years, and their fears are grounded in history and scientific analysis. But yet, they say, their view of the future is more occluded than ever, as the response to the pandemic grows more varied.
“I think we have more uncertainty now than almost any other time,” epidemiologist Eleanor Murray, at Boston University, recently told me. “Now at this moment, some places are thinking about continuing lockdown. Some places are thinking about opening. Opening means different things in different places. There’s such a range of possible actions that different areas are taking, that it’s really hard to predict.” Our actions influence the results, which then, in turn, influence our actions.
Will residents keep up with mask-wearing and social distancing, even when their leaders relax regulations? Plus, there are scientific questions about the virus still not understood: Will it diminish transmission in a seasonal pattern? Do children contribute greatly to its spread? How long does immunity last after an infection? Why do some people breathe out more of the virus than others? The answers to these questions will influence the future, and we do not know the answers.
Scientists are still unraveling what makes the difference between a sprawling outbreak in one city and a more manageable one in another. Some of it is the result of policy, some is the result of demographics, some is about structural inequality and racism, and some comes down to individual behavior. Some of it is just luck. That’s chaos for you.
Chaos rules our world. But it doesn’t mean we’re powerless.
“I don’t see uncertainty as a lack of knowledge,” says Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, a physicist who studies the chaos of a different sort of viral dynamics. “I think it’s a fundamental part of how our world works. It’s not our fault we do not know where this all will go.”
Newton clearly told us what happens when an object drops from the sky. But follow his laws, and find that the path of a double pendulum is very, very difficult to predict. Climate scientists clearly tell us adding CO2 to the air will increase global temperatures. Yet they argue about when the worst effects of climate change will be felt and how bad it will be. Epidemiologists are clearly telling us what happens when you bring masses of people together during a pandemic. But they can’t tell us the exact shape this outbreak will take.
Thinking about the future of the pandemic means wrestling with uncertainty, both personally and as a wider community. It also means dealing with what’s not likely to happen: The virus disappears in the next several months. If it does, it will do so for reasons scientists do not understand or can currently explain.
There’s a lot in this chaotic pandemic system we can’t control. Let’s be serious about the ones we can.


vox--2020-05-23--Stanley Tucci’s bookshelf is too messy, says celebrity book curator Thatcher Wine

Welcome to Vox ’ s weekly book link roundup , a curated selection of the internet ’ s best writing on books and related subjects .
This Monday is Memorial Day , which might mean a day off for you .
It does for me , and I am contemplating how best to spend it during this odd and cloistered time .
A long walk through my neighborhood , maybe , with plenty of stops to look at the lush flowers of early summer .
Perhaps I ’ ll try to cook something elaborate and summery , with asparagus and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I will absolutely be reading , because reading is how I am making meaning out of the world right now .
Fiction is a technology designed to help us feel our emotions , and god , do I have a lot to feel these days .
You probably do too .
And so , to help us get in a reading frame of mind , here is the best online writing on books and related subjects for the week of May 17 , 2020 .
• At WBUR , Hannah Harlow explains why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her bookstore : Sure , some of the guidelines the state has provided are useful , but there ’ s still a lot left up to interpretation .
In response to these gray areas , businesses and organizations are jumping in , filling my inbox with checklists and free signage to hang in my store , assuring me they know best .
If actual human lives are at stake , I ’ d really love to hear from some experts .
Perhaps some veteran scientists and public health officials .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the checklist from my local office supply store .
• Town and Country , one of the most reliable sources of hate reads out there , has turned to celebrity book curator Thatcher Wine to critique celebrity bookshelf backgrounds .
Here is Mr. Wine on Stanley Tucci ’ s kitchen bookshelf : • At the Baffler , Maddie Crum investigates writing workshops for essential workers : For her fellow workshop member , Davidson Garrett ( no relation ) , a retired taxi driver of forty years , writing poems is grounding right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the medium is both topical and timeless , giving context to more immediate stimuli .
“ I go to Madison Square Park a lot because I live near there .
It ’ s so beautiful , with the flowers and everything .
The flowers—I just needed something joyful in my life , ” he said .
“ I needed a transfusion of joy .
.
.
.
I wrote a poem about the pipe organ recently because I find music to be healing and very salubrious.
” • At the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic : The writers are an unusually cocooned bunch , safely distant from the world of layoffs , mass graves , Zoom funerals .
( It ’ s only more recently that we ’ ve seen first-person accounts by subway workers , paramedics , ER doctors and nurses . )
Their quarantines are , on the surface , bucolic interludes laced with light anxiety ; panic is sieved through Instagram ’ s tidy grid of artful domesticity , simmering bone broth , early bluebells and the first fledglings spied on solitary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what makes these pieces oddly moving , the damp childlike fright that creeps through resolve .
Together , they represent a struggle in real time to give language to a set of emotions that are , as yet , painfully nameless .
• At LitHub , Gabrielle Bellot looks at how an E.M. Forster short story anticipated social distancing : “ The Machine Stops ” would become famous a century after its publication for supposedly having envisioned technologies like social media—and the dangers thereof—long before they appeared .
In particular , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would allow us to communicate with people across the globe without leaving our rooms .
People live in isolation in chambers , where they can call up music and real-time video-chatting at a click ; the Earth ’ s surface is , authorities declare , uninhabitable , so people are advised to stay in their cozy rooms , which everyone has adapted to as their standard for normality .
In these ways , the story seems chillingly prescient , capturing dim-but-definite elements of the world we inhabit today , like an astronomer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • At Inside Higher Ed , epidemiologist Kirsten Ostherr explains why the humanities matter during a pandemic : Scholars in Asian American studies can identify and document xenophobia , and they can disseminate those findings in real time to legal advocates .
Media scholars can draw on their knowledge of contagion films to alert health organizations to harmful visual iconographies and suggest alternatives .
Literary scholars can identify how narratives are being used to spread misinformation , and they can advise health communicators how to create compelling counternarratives to challenge the fictions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their narrative expertise to craft compelling stories that help us imagine a path forward and the steps we could take to get there — a “ science fiction prototyping ” for pandemic response .
• At LitHub , Edmund White examines the work of Curzio Malaparte , an eccentric Italian writer who tried to cover up his fascism : Curzio Malaparte is a phrasemaker before anything else—sensuous phrases that stick in the imagination for a long time ( “ the sun ’ s baked-honey brilliance ” ) .
Although he fancied himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the renown of Gide , Sartre , and Camus ) , his pronouncements on “ the French ” ( “ France is the last homeland of intelligence ” ) or on communism or existentialism or on women are often confused or repetitive or banal or wrong , whereas his recording of a sensation or a bizarre anecdote or his memory of a strange phrase is always indelible if not unerring .
• At BookForum , Joshua Cohen examines the metaphor of language as virus : And here ’ s the week in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Club , The Secret History , week 3 : Our May pick ends in incest and gunshots • What would have happened if Hillary never married Bill Clinton ?
• The new Hunger Games prequel is introspective and dark as hell As always , you can keep up with all our books coverage by visiting vox.com/books .
Happy reading !
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Welcome to Vox’s weekly book link roundup, a curated selection of the internet’s best writing on books and related subjects.
This Monday is Memorial Day, which might mean a day off for you. It does for me, and I am contemplating how best to spend it during this odd and cloistered time. A long walk through my neighborhood, maybe, with plenty of stops to look at the lush flowers of early summer. Perhaps I’ll try to cook something elaborate and summery, with asparagus and beautiful new lettuce and parmesan cheese.
I will absolutely be reading, because reading is how I am making meaning out of the world right now. Fiction is a technology designed to help us feel our emotions, and god, do I have a lot to feel these days. You probably do too.
And so, to help us get in a reading frame of mind, here is the best online writing on books and related subjects for the week of May 17, 2020.
At WBUR, Hannah Harlow explains why she doesn’t want to reopen her bookstore:
Sure, some of the guidelines the state has provided are useful, but there’s still a lot left up to interpretation. In response to these gray areas, businesses and organizations are jumping in, filling my inbox with checklists and free signage to hang in my store, assuring me they know best. If actual human lives are at stake, I’d really love to hear from some experts. Perhaps some veteran scientists and public health officials. I don’t think I should be relying on the checklist from my local office supply store.
Town and Country, one of the most reliable sources of hate reads out there, has turned to celebrity book curator Thatcher Wine to critique celebrity bookshelf backgrounds. Here is Mr. Wine on Stanley Tucci’s kitchen bookshelf:
“I can’t focus on what Stanley is making with that crisis unfolding on that top bookshelf in the background. Leaning books on the right, no bookend holding them back on the left, and a beautiful bowl about to meet its demise. They’ve probably been that way for years without anyone getting hurt, but there’s a lot of tension, like a good Stanley Tucci film perhaps.” Score: 4/10
At the Baffler, Maddie Crum investigates writing workshops for essential workers:
For her fellow workshop member, Davidson Garrett (no relation), a retired taxi driver of forty years, writing poems is grounding right now because, at least in his approach, the medium is both topical and timeless, giving context to more immediate stimuli. “I go to Madison Square Park a lot because I live near there. It’s so beautiful, with the flowers and everything. The flowers—I just needed something joyful in my life,” he said. “I needed a transfusion of joy. . . . I wrote a poem about the pipe organ recently because I find music to be healing and very salubrious.”
At the New York Times, Parul Sehgal analyzes the literature of the pandemic:
The writers are an unusually cocooned bunch, safely distant from the world of layoffs, mass graves, Zoom funerals. (It’s only more recently that we’ve seen first-person accounts by subway workers, paramedics, ER doctors and nurses.) Their quarantines are, on the surface, bucolic interludes laced with light anxiety; panic is sieved through Instagram’s tidy grid of artful domesticity, simmering bone broth, early bluebells and the first fledglings spied on solitary walks. The uncertainty of the tone is what makes these pieces oddly moving, the damp childlike fright that creeps through resolve. Together, they represent a struggle in real time to give language to a set of emotions that are, as yet, painfully nameless.
At LitHub, Gabrielle Bellot looks at how an E.M. Forster short story anticipated social distancing:
“The Machine Stops” would become famous a century after its publication for supposedly having envisioned technologies like social media—and the dangers thereof—long before they appeared. In particular, it predicted computer interfaces and programs like Skype that would allow us to communicate with people across the globe without leaving our rooms. People live in isolation in chambers, where they can call up music and real-time video-chatting at a click; the Earth’s surface is, authorities declare, uninhabitable, so people are advised to stay in their cozy rooms, which everyone has adapted to as their standard for normality. In these ways, the story seems chillingly prescient, capturing dim-but-definite elements of the world we inhabit today, like an astronomer peering through a faintly clouded lens.
At Inside Higher Ed, epidemiologist Kirsten Ostherr explains why the humanities matter during a pandemic:
Scholars in Asian American studies can identify and document xenophobia, and they can disseminate those findings in real time to legal advocates. Media scholars can draw on their knowledge of contagion films to alert health organizations to harmful visual iconographies and suggest alternatives. Literary scholars can identify how narratives are being used to spread misinformation, and they can advise health communicators how to create compelling counternarratives to challenge the fictions of conspiracy theorists. Creative writers can draw on their narrative expertise to craft compelling stories that help us imagine a path forward and the steps we could take to get there — a “science fiction prototyping” for pandemic response.
At LitHub, Edmund White examines the work of Curzio Malaparte, an eccentric Italian writer who tried to cover up his fascism:
Curzio Malaparte is a phrasemaker before anything else—sensuous phrases that stick in the imagination for a long time (“the sun’s baked-honey brilliance”). Although he fancied himself a thinker (and was quite jealous of the renown of Gide, Sartre, and Camus), his pronouncements on “the French” (“France is the last homeland of intelligence”) or on communism or existentialism or on women are often confused or repetitive or banal or wrong, whereas his recording of a sensation or a bizarre anecdote or his memory of a strange phrase is always indelible if not unerring.
At BookForum, Joshua Cohen examines the metaphor of language as virus:
This quarantine has brought me back to Burroughs, who claimed to believe—which means he didn’t but wanted to believe—that language was a virus. Though it’s difficult to puzzle out the exact pathology—exactness was not Burroughs’s practice—a summary might go like this: Language is a virus that crossed the species barrier from an extraterrestrial civilization.
And here’s the week in books at Vox:
As always, you can keep up with all our books coverage by visiting vox.com/books. Happy reading!


vox--2020-05-23--The coronavirus crisis is leading to an immunization crisis

If you ’ d asked me , when our baby was born in November , how likely it was that I ’ d decide to delay his vaccinations against the doctor ’ s recommendations for several months , I ’ d have told you there was absolutely no chance .
I report on global health ; I know that the diseases vaccination has virtually eradicated in the US still take the lives of far too many children internationally .
I know that those diseases can come roaring back in any community where vaccination rates dip .
I know that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk for days on foot in the hope of getting their children vaccinated , and I ’ m grateful to live in a country where — until a few months ago — I could take access to vaccines for granted .
Our older child , now 3 years old , was vaccinated on schedule .
That will not be the case for our second child , born last November .
He got his four-month vaccinations two months late , and we ’ re not sure when he ’ ll get his next ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Across the United States , there ’ s been a huge drop-off in vaccinations as coronavirus social distancing measures make people reluctant to leave the house and visit the doctor .
Around the world , critical public health and vaccination programs have been canceled amid the pandemic .
That sets us up for a potential public health disaster down the road .
As the immunized share of the population drops , contagious and deadly childhood diseases — many of them already experiencing a resurgence because of anti-vaxxers — could come right back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ve lived a long time free from the fear of deadly infectious diseases , and vaccination is a big part of the reason why .
But the coronavirus has derailed that progress , and even if a treatment or vaccine for the coronavirus itself is eventually developed , it may take a long time to undo all the complex damage it has done .
In our case , our baby eventually got his shots , albeit several months late .
But it was a nerve-wracking ordeal .
We live in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them at elevated risk from the coronavirus .
The doctor ’ s office required us to come into the central hospital instead of opening outpatient clinics or making home visits .
Our insurance refused to cover getting the shots anywhere else .
We felt adrift , without enough information to compare the risks we were being asked to take : How bad was it to delay the baby ’ s shots ?
How dangerous was it to go to the hospital ?
The doctor ’ s assurances that it would be safe to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us — we understood that the risk was low , but our home situation made even low levels of risk a serious concern for us .
Ultimately , it went fine .
My partner wore a mask , took the baby into the hospital , got him his shots , and came home .
The hospital screened them at the entrance for coronavirus symptoms ; everyone was wearing masks ; the hallways were deserted .
Neither my partner nor the baby got sick .
We ’ ll have to do this again in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hospital will be set up for something lower-exposure , or maybe we ’ ll again take our chances .
But it doesn ’ t have to be that way , and there are ideas out there — from support for home visits by doctors to drive-through clinics — that can help make sure every family can keep up on vaccinations during a disaster .
A drop in vaccinations is well underway — and it might be disastrous Once you ’ ve caught a disease , you usually can not catch it again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to fight it off .
Vaccinations try to induce this immune response without getting you sick in the first place .
The most common approach is introducing dead or weakened viruses , or key parts of bacteria , to your system .
Your immune system will learn how to fight them off , but there ’ s little risk of getting sick .
In the US , children are vaccinated against hepatitis B , whooping cough , rotavirus , diphtheria , tetanus , measles , polio , and chickenpox , among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every year children receive all the recommended childhood immunizations , some 20 million illnesses and 40,000 deaths are prevented .
Vaccinations are , put simply , one of the most transformative technologies in human history .
In the 1800s , historians estimate that more than a third ( and in many places , more like half ) of children died before they turned 5 .
Infectious diseases were the leading killer .
Smallpox alone killed hundreds of millions ; with a massive worldwide vaccination program , we were able to eradicate it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both here and abroad .
A May 15 study with authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) used order data from the federal Vaccines for Children Program to track exactly how much they declined .
As this chart from their study shows , the answer is that vaccinations declined very sharply , right around the time of many state shutdowns in mid-March : Internationally , too , the pandemic has disrupted vaccination programs .
The World Health Organization estimates more than 100 million children worldwide could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been disrupted .
At least 24 countries have paused or postponed their mass immunization programs .
The declines set the world up for a public health crisis .
If there ’ s a significant population of unvaccinated children , highly transmissible diseases like measles ( which has a so-called R0 estimated between 12 and 18 , meaning the average sick person infects 12 to 18 more people ) can spread easily .
The arrival of the coronavirus exacerbates a problem that has grown in recent years .
Already , vaccination rates have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about vaccine risks has led many parents to opt out of immunizing their children .
The anti-vaxx movement , bolstered by misinformation and social media , has convinced more and more families to delay vaccinations , leading to disease outbreaks in communities that had previously eliminated the disease .
The plummet in vaccinations due to the pandemic will make the problem far worse — especially if many of those children never catch up .
Over the last several months as the pandemic ’ s effects hit the US in earnest , many doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shots for newborns , assuming that pushing off boosters for older children wouldn ’ t be a big deal .
But as it is becoming apparent that normalcy might be a year or more away , they ’ re being forced to rethink that .
The CDC study found that declines in vaccination rates were much higher for vaccines for older children , likely because of the focus on younger children .
But while most vaccines for older kids can be put off a few months , they can ’ t be put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreaks as social distancing lessens .
“ US children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases , ” the study concludes .
To vaccinate children in a pandemic , we need a more flexible health system What can be done to make sure children get the vaccinations they need during the pandemic ?
“ Parental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well-child visits might contribute to the declines observed , ” the May 15 study argues .
“ To the extent that this is the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect their children against serious vaccine-preventable diseases , even as the COVID-19 pandemic continues , is critical.
” My experience with trying to get our baby vaccinated suggests the problem is less that parents don ’ t understand the vital need to protect their children , and more that they need options during a pandemic crisis .
In our case , we needed to bring our child in for his four-month wellness check , but we had a few questions for the doctor : Could we go into a clinic instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complex of buildings that would also be treating our city ’ s coronavirus patients ?
Could a nurse come and meet us at our car and give the baby his shots through the car window , without us carrying him into the hospital ?
What about a home visit ?
Every time , the answer was no — the hospital hadn ’ t set up procedures for such alternatives .
They said they might do so at some point , but in the meantime insisted the hospital was safe .
But at that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and living with some at-risk roommates , we really didn ’ t feel comfortable with taking the risk .
We spent a while looking into our other options .
Our insurance would only cover the baby ’ s vaccination at the hospital .
We could find providers not covered by our insurance who ’ d be at least willing to vaccinate him in an outpatient clinic instead of at a hospital — for $ 500 .
In the end , we took him to the hospital , but I can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home , hoping that a safer solution would eventually present itself .
Many individual doctor ’ s offices are making heroic efforts — including drive-up vaccine clinics and home visits — to fill the gap .
But many others aren ’ t , hamstrung by insurance rules or budget cuts ( many pediatricians and their staffs have been laid off as the coronavirus crisis makes doctor ’ s appointments rarer ) or the rapidity with which the coronavirus situation and local laws have been changing in the past few months .
So that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on : Pediatrician offices can offer home visits and drive-through vaccination clinics , and if they can ’ t afford to do that , the government should step in to get them the funding to make it possible .
To be sure , home visits are expensive and can put doctors at risk themselves , and drive-through clinics aren ’ t a good replacement for a full wellness check under ordinary circumstances .
But in extraordinary circumstances , more options mean more flexibility for families .
Also , perhaps more importantly , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have to take our baby back for his next round of shots we can be confident that the doctors seeing him get tested regularly for the coronavirus .
We could also cover vaccinations for all kids regardless of their health insurance situation , recognizing that many people might need to use out-of-network providers to access vaccinations .
In developing countries , public health organizations face difficult choices between risking the spread of the coronavirus or guaranteeing millions of preventable child deaths .
Better data on how the coronavirus spreads will help them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ultimately , of course , the way to solve these problems is to successfully address the coronavirus crisis — either with widespread testing , contact tracing , and isolation , as countries like South Korea and Taiwan have done , or with an effective treatment or vaccine , though such a solution is years away .
Regularly scheduled immunizations are too important , though , to wait for victory over the coronavirus .
We should not be asking parents to figure out coronavirus risks themselves , or accept the risk of exposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sake of preventing others .
And even under ordinary circumstances , giving parents and doctors flexibility has major advantages .
Home visits and drive-through clinics don ’ t just reduce coronavirus risk , they also help parents who don ’ t have child care , parents who can ’ t easily get off work for doctor ’ s appointments , and parents who don ’ t have a good way to get to the nearest doctor ’ s office .
Covering vaccinations regardless of a child ’ s health insurance helps uninsured kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over and over , the coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the flaws in systems that were already a problem .
Vaccination in the US was already under threat , putting us in a position where any further dips in vaccinations put us at great risk .
It ’ s now more urgent than ever that we fix it .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

If you’d asked me, when our baby was born in November, how likely it was that I’d decide to delay his vaccinations against the doctor’s recommendations for several months, I’d have told you there was absolutely no chance.
I report on global health; I know that the diseases vaccination has virtually eradicated in the US still take the lives of far too many children internationally. I know that those diseases can come roaring back in any community where vaccination rates dip. I know that some parents in impoverished parts of the world walk for days on foot in the hope of getting their children vaccinated, and I’m grateful to live in a country where — until a few months ago — I could take access to vaccines for granted.
Our older child, now 3 years old, was vaccinated on schedule. That will not be the case for our second child, born last November.
He got his four-month vaccinations two months late, and we’re not sure when he’ll get his next ones. And we’re not unique. Across the United States, there’s been a huge drop-off in vaccinations as coronavirus social distancing measures make people reluctant to leave the house and visit the doctor. Around the world, critical public health and vaccination programs have been canceled amid the pandemic.
That sets us up for a potential public health disaster down the road. As the immunized share of the population drops, contagious and deadly childhood diseases — many of them already experiencing a resurgence because of anti-vaxxers — could come right back, killing children and adults alike. We’ve lived a long time free from the fear of deadly infectious diseases, and vaccination is a big part of the reason why. But the coronavirus has derailed that progress, and even if a treatment or vaccine for the coronavirus itself is eventually developed, it may take a long time to undo all the complex damage it has done.
In our case, our baby eventually got his shots, albeit several months late. But it was a nerve-wracking ordeal. We live in a house with 10 people, several of them at elevated risk from the coronavirus. The doctor’s office required us to come into the central hospital instead of opening outpatient clinics or making home visits. Our insurance refused to cover getting the shots anywhere else. We felt adrift, without enough information to compare the risks we were being asked to take: How bad was it to delay the baby’s shots? How dangerous was it to go to the hospital? The doctor’s assurances that it would be safe to show up didn’t fully satisfy us — we understood that the risk was low, but our home situation made even low levels of risk a serious concern for us.
Ultimately, it went fine. My partner wore a mask, took the baby into the hospital, got him his shots, and came home. The hospital screened them at the entrance for coronavirus symptoms; everyone was wearing masks; the hallways were deserted. Neither my partner nor the baby got sick.
We’ll have to do this again in a few months; maybe by then the hospital will be set up for something lower-exposure, or maybe we’ll again take our chances. But it doesn’t have to be that way, and there are ideas out there — from support for home visits by doctors to drive-through clinics — that can help make sure every family can keep up on vaccinations during a disaster.
A drop in vaccinations is well underway — and it might be disastrous
Once you’ve caught a disease, you usually cannot catch it again for a while because your body remembers how to fight it off. Vaccinations try to induce this immune response without getting you sick in the first place. The most common approach is introducing dead or weakened viruses, or key parts of bacteria, to your system. Your immune system will learn how to fight them off, but there’s little risk of getting sick.
In the US, children are vaccinated against hepatitis B, whooping cough, rotavirus, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, polio, and chickenpox, among other diseases. Researchers have estimated that for every year children receive all the recommended childhood immunizations, some 20 million illnesses and 40,000 deaths are prevented.
Vaccinations are, put simply, one of the most transformative technologies in human history. In the 1800s, historians estimate that more than a third (and in many places, more like half) of children died before they turned 5. Infectious diseases were the leading killer. Smallpox alone killed hundreds of millions; with a massive worldwide vaccination program, we were able to eradicate it.
Vaccinations have plummeted during the coronavirus crisis, both here and abroad. A May 15 study with authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used order data from the federal Vaccines for Children Program to track exactly how much they declined. As this chart from their study shows, the answer is that vaccinations declined very sharply, right around the time of many state shutdowns in mid-March:
Internationally, too, the pandemic has disrupted vaccination programs. The World Health Organization estimates more than 100 million children worldwide could be vulnerable to measles as mass vaccination programs have been disrupted. At least 24 countries have paused or postponed their mass immunization programs.
The declines set the world up for a public health crisis. If there’s a significant population of unvaccinated children, highly transmissible diseases like measles (which has a so-called R0 estimated between 12 and 18, meaning the average sick person infects 12 to 18 more people) can spread easily.
The arrival of the coronavirus exacerbates a problem that has grown in recent years. Already, vaccination rates have been declining in the US as misinformation about vaccine risks has led many parents to opt out of immunizing their children. The anti-vaxx movement, bolstered by misinformation and social media, has convinced more and more families to delay vaccinations, leading to disease outbreaks in communities that had previously eliminated the disease. The plummet in vaccinations due to the pandemic will make the problem far worse — especially if many of those children never catch up.
Over the last several months as the pandemic’s effects hit the US in earnest, many doctor’s offices were focused only on shots for newborns, assuming that pushing off boosters for older children wouldn’t be a big deal. But as it is becoming apparent that normalcy might be a year or more away, they’re being forced to rethink that. The CDC study found that declines in vaccination rates were much higher for vaccines for older children, likely because of the focus on younger children. But while most vaccines for older kids can be put off a few months, they can’t be put off indefinitely without risking widespread infectious disease outbreaks as social distancing lessens.
“US children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” the study concludes.
To vaccinate children in a pandemic, we need a more flexible health system
What can be done to make sure children get the vaccinations they need during the pandemic?
“Parental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well-child visits might contribute to the declines observed,” the May 15 study argues. “To the extent that this is the case, reminding parents of the vital need to protect their children against serious vaccine-preventable diseases, even as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, is critical.”
My experience with trying to get our baby vaccinated suggests the problem is less that parents don’t understand the vital need to protect their children, and more that they need options during a pandemic crisis. In our case, we needed to bring our child in for his four-month wellness check, but we had a few questions for the doctor: Could we go into a clinic instead of to the central hospital campus, a complex of buildings that would also be treating our city’s coronavirus patients? Could a nurse come and meet us at our car and give the baby his shots through the car window, without us carrying him into the hospital? What about a home visit?
Every time, the answer was no — the hospital hadn’t set up procedures for such alternatives. They said they might do so at some point, but in the meantime insisted the hospital was safe. But at that stage in the virus’s spread, and living with some at-risk roommates, we really didn’t feel comfortable with taking the risk.
We spent a while looking into our other options. Our insurance would only cover the baby’s vaccination at the hospital. We could find providers not covered by our insurance who’d be at least willing to vaccinate him in an outpatient clinic instead of at a hospital — for $500. In the end, we took him to the hospital, but I can’t blame parents who chose to stay at home, hoping that a safer solution would eventually present itself.
Many individual doctor’s offices are making heroic efforts — including drive-up vaccine clinics and home visits — to fill the gap. But many others aren’t, hamstrung by insurance rules or budget cuts (many pediatricians and their staffs have been laid off as the coronavirus crisis makes doctor’s appointments rarer) or the rapidity with which the coronavirus situation and local laws have been changing in the past few months.
So that’s one area we can focus on: Pediatrician offices can offer home visits and drive-through vaccination clinics, and if they can’t afford to do that, the government should step in to get them the funding to make it possible. To be sure, home visits are expensive and can put doctors at risk themselves, and drive-through clinics aren’t a good replacement for a full wellness check under ordinary circumstances. But in extraordinary circumstances, more options mean more flexibility for families.
Also, perhaps more importantly, we could scale up testing so that when we have to take our baby back for his next round of shots we can be confident that the doctors seeing him get tested regularly for the coronavirus. We could also cover vaccinations for all kids regardless of their health insurance situation, recognizing that many people might need to use out-of-network providers to access vaccinations.
In developing countries, public health organizations face difficult choices between risking the spread of the coronavirus or guaranteeing millions of preventable child deaths. Better data on how the coronavirus spreads will help them identify low-risk ways to resume lifesaving operations.
Ultimately, of course, the way to solve these problems is to successfully address the coronavirus crisis — either with widespread testing, contact tracing, and isolation, as countries like South Korea and Taiwan have done, or with an effective treatment or vaccine, though such a solution is years away.
Regularly scheduled immunizations are too important, though, to wait for victory over the coronavirus. We should not be asking parents to figure out coronavirus risks themselves, or accept the risk of exposing their families to one disease for the sake of preventing others.
And even under ordinary circumstances, giving parents and doctors flexibility has major advantages. Home visits and drive-through clinics don’t just reduce coronavirus risk, they also help parents who don’t have child care, parents who can’t easily get off work for doctor’s appointments, and parents who don’t have a good way to get to the nearest doctor’s office. Covering vaccinations regardless of a child’s health insurance helps uninsured kids, of which there are millions.
Over and over, the coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the flaws in systems that were already a problem. Vaccination in the US was already under threat, putting us in a position where any further dips in vaccinations put us at great risk. It’s now more urgent than ever that we fix it.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.


vox--2020-05-24--Is America too libertarian to deal with the coronavirus?

America ’ s public health experts are working hard to map out a plan to combat the coronavirus in America .
And there are indeed many proposals — from academic centers , from think tanks , and from the government .
While the plans differ , nearly all of them rely on some combination of surveillance , mass testing , isolation , and contact tracing .
Many of them point to countries like Singapore , South Korea , and Germany as examples of how to intelligently respond to the pandemic .
But what if the successful strategies in those countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
This question was posed by Keith Humphreys , a Stanford University professor who works on addiction and public health policy , in a viral Twitter thread last week .
Humphreys argued that a lot of his public health colleagues weren ’ t thinking seriously enough about the cultural obstacles that might undercut the country ’ s efforts to test , trace , and isolate Americans .
He later penned a Washington Post column drawing out his arguments in a little more detail .
Humphreys ’ s basic claim is that any plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is useless without “ widespread political consent ” from American citizens .
And the obsession with individual liberties in America , coupled with a general distrust of government , poses an enormous challenge to even the best conceivable plan .
I spoke to Humphreys by phone about what he thinks public health experts are failing to recognize , and if he believes America is too libertarian to handle a collective action problem like the coronavirus pandemic .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
Lay out America ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are you worried that we can ’ t deal with this pandemic the way other countries have ?
Well , I think we ’ re different from the other democracies that have handled this well in our long-term resistance to the growth of the state in general , but also in the domain of health .
Why is it that every other developed country has government-guaranteed health care and we do not ?
The obvious reason is that there ’ s an instinctive aversion to government power in the DNA of America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ which a huge number of people have fought to prevent a government guarantee of health care for all citizens .
This aversion is especially potent now , but it goes back to the very beginning of the country , a country founded by people who lived in fear of a king .
Our Constitution was set up with checks and balances out of fear of the power of the state .
And that libertarian streak is with us through everything and it also applies in the domain of health .
There are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think you admit that , but the problem is that it ’ s just the wrong ideological software to be running in a pandemic— Right .
I don ’ t think we want to live in [ a more authoritarian society ] like Singapore , for example .
But the question is what do you do about an epidemic when we really are all in it together and there is no way to run a test , trace , and isolate a program without seriously increasing government surveillance and having access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Those libertarian impulses stand athwart that .
So I just don ’ t think we can do what Germany does , where there ’ s higher confidence in the state and higher trust in the state .
I don ’ t think we can do what democracies in East Asia are doing , where there ’ s a more recent history of autocracy and a lot of deference to the state .
Even though I ’ m a public health person and I admire all the people working on all the technical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to halt this virus , I just believe that we ’ re underestimating the political and cultural obstacles here .
What , exactly , can countries like South Korea and Germany do that we can ’ t ?
In South Korea , you basically had authoritarian rule up until the ‘ 80s .
The adults in that country grew up in a place where if the government was worried about a parasitic infection , you had to submit stool samples to the officials — it ’ s just what you did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , whether or not to follow the orders of their government or whether to hand over personal information .
And what we ’ ve seen is that most people are willing to do it .
The case of Germany is a little different .
Contrary to stereotypes , Germans are not deferent to their state .
They have a lot of concerns about health information , for example .
But I think the big difference there is that people have comparatively more trust in the state .
They believe their state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling we have on Americans shows that many of them simply don ’ t trust the state , and that ’ s a huge problem when the state is asking you to sacrifice so much for the sake of the public good .
My problem with libertarianism has always been that it gives us a language of rights but it can ’ t give us a language of obligations — it ’ s fundamentally an individualistic philosophy .
What you ’ re really saying , in my mind at least , is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a collective action problem like this .
Yes , that ’ s a very pithy way to express what I ’ m saying , but it ’ s exactly right .
I should say that I ’ m raising all these questions out of anxiety .
In other words , I ’ ll be delighted if I ’ m wrong .
But I keep thinking about other times where we ’ ve been in precisely this situation around health , going back to Harry Truman proposing national health insurance and getting beaten .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so I was right there as we struggled to get some version of the Affordable Care Act passed .
I watched several states turn down Medicaid expansion .
And I saw how the ACA was unable to get a single Republican vote and I don ’ t think anyone lost their seat because of that , because they voted against it .
So I ’ ve seen this dynamic play out over and over again in different contexts and I worry it will be the thing that limits what we ’ re able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out this virus .
I guess I can ’ t put it any better than you : I don ’ t think we can reconcile our libertarianism with the need for a sense of shared purpose in a time of crisis .
If what you ’ re saying is true , then it makes no difference who the president is or which party is in charge , because our problems are fundamentally cultural .
And in that sense , you ’ re defining the problem as insoluble .
I think that would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the president does matter .
I was talking to a friend the other day and he said that if Trump put on a mask at a press conference and said , “ I ’ m doing this because it ’ s a smart thing to do , ” that would matter to some people who are resistant , that signal from someone they trust would matter .
So it ’ s not that leadership is irrelevant , but I do think there are real limits to what ’ s possible in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to our founding .
Alright , Keith , you ’ ve forced me to play the optimist here .
I take all your points and I don ’ t think anyone can deny our libertarian streak , but here ’ s my counter : A majority of Americans have shown a remarkable willingness to cooperate and social distance in spite of the vacuum of leadership at the top — and that ’ s true across party lines .
Does that give you any pause at all ?
That ’ s a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And some of the data I ’ ve seen from across the country shows that most people are choosing to stay home , even in places that have lifted their lockdown , like Georgia .
So there is some consensus on that .
The question for me is , does that translate into behavior ?
The psychologist in me can see that 80 percent of Americans think masks are a good idea , for example , but does that mean 80 percent of Americans are actually wearing masks ?
Because I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the places you ’ d expect to see that .
Wouldn ’ t it , at least , be fair to say that our cultural capacity might be wider than you ’ re suggesting ?
I think we have to be careful not to confuse distrust of this administration with distrust of government as such , even though I agree Americans are unusually distrustful of government .
Still , there are reasons to think that there ’ s a reservoir of goodwill that could be marshaled if we had a competent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deal with this pandemic , a plan that inspired confidence and justified the sacrifices and the inconveniences— Well , there are some places where I think you could establish that empirically by looking around the country .
I live in the Bay Area , for instance , and the governor , Gavin Newsom , is pretty well-regarded .
He was out ahead on this and he imposed a lot of restrictions that people mostly accepted .
I suspect most people will follow their local leaders when the restrictions are wise and explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that I think a lot depends on there being an actual shared interest that ’ s obvious to everyone .
My parents , for example , live in an assisted living community where everyone else is in exactly the same situation , so there ’ s a total consensus .
They do not take visitors , they do not go out .
But they can do it because everyone recognizes the shared risks .
To be even more clear , I recognize that a lot of people are willing to cooperate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask , the question that virologists , in particular , have to ask , is will it be enough ?
If 20 percent of the country opts out , or if several states opt out , will that compromise our national response ?
Or will it be just enough to keep the pandemic raging on ?
My worry is that we ’ ll have just enough dissent , for all the reasons we already discussed , to keep this thing going .
In that case , we might want to factor that into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
We need some idea of the level of compliance we ’ ll need for any plan to work , and if we can ’ t replicate the compliance levels in countries like South Korea or Germany , we probably shouldn ’ t try to replicate their approach .
Those are good questions and I don ’ t know the answers .
Neither do I .
But look , when I say we ’ re different from other countries , I ’ m not saying we ’ re bad or worse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what we ’ re good at and what we ’ re not good at .
I mean , if someone wanted to write a book about how much they hate Keith Humphreys , I ’ d tell them to publish it in America , not Britain , because the libel laws are more lenient here and we value free expression and you can get away with it .
So that ’ s just an assessment based on the legal culture in this country .
We have lots of strengths in America that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times , but in a pandemic , those same strengths can become a liability .
That ’ s all I ’ m really saying .
You conclude your thread by saying we ’ ll probably end up with something like a Swedish coronavirus policy by default .
What does that mean exactly ?
How does that scenario end ?
One of the pushbacks I got was that our approach won ’ t be as good as Sweden ’ s because we don ’ t have universal health care .
So , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue to spread fairly consistently across the country .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised if the death toll has doubled by Labor Day .
I would , of course , be incredibly happy to be wrong about that .
And there ’ s really only two things that could interrupt this : 1 ) a vaccine , which is very unlikely for at least a year or more , or 2 ) increased development of therapeutics .
So maybe we ’ ll have a breakthrough in our ability to treat the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely is that a huge number of people contract this virus and we develop immunity over time .
If that happens , the virus will diminish over time , but it won ’ t be because of our test , trace , and isolate efforts .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

America’s public health experts are working hard to map out a plan to combat the coronavirus in America. And there are indeed many proposals — from academic centers, from think tanks, and from the government.
While the plans differ, nearly all of them rely on some combination of surveillance, mass testing, isolation, and contact tracing. Many of them point to countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Germany as examples of how to intelligently respond to the pandemic.
But what if the successful strategies in those countries just won’t work in America?
This question was posed by Keith Humphreys, a Stanford University professor who works on addiction and public health policy, in a viral Twitter thread last week. Humphreys argued that a lot of his public health colleagues weren’t thinking seriously enough about the cultural obstacles that might undercut the country’s efforts to test, trace, and isolate Americans. He later penned a Washington Post column drawing out his arguments in a little more detail.
Humphreys’s basic claim is that any plan we adopt, no matter how wise, is useless without “widespread political consent” from American citizens. And the obsession with individual liberties in America, coupled with a general distrust of government, poses an enormous challenge to even the best conceivable plan.
I spoke to Humphreys by phone about what he thinks public health experts are failing to recognize, and if he believes America is too libertarian to handle a collective action problem like the coronavirus pandemic.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
Lay out America’s “political-cultural” problem for me. Why are you worried that we can’t deal with this pandemic the way other countries have?
Keith Humphreys
Well, I think we’re different from the other democracies that have handled this well in our long-term resistance to the growth of the state in general, but also in the domain of health. Why is it that every other developed country has government-guaranteed health care and we do not? The obvious reason is that there’s an instinctive aversion to government power in the DNA of America. This is the only major democracy in which a huge number of people have fought to prevent a government guarantee of health care for all citizens.
This aversion is especially potent now, but it goes back to the very beginning of the country, a country founded by people who lived in fear of a king. Our Constitution was set up with checks and balances out of fear of the power of the state. And that libertarian streak is with us through everything and it also applies in the domain of health.
Sean Illing
There are some advantages to that libertarian instinct, and I think you admit that, but the problem is that it’s just the wrong ideological software to be running in a pandemic—
Keith Humphreys
Right. I don’t think we want to live in [a more authoritarian society] like Singapore, for example. But the question is what do you do about an epidemic when we really are all in it together and there is no way to run a test, trace, and isolate program without seriously increasing government surveillance and having access to a lot of quite intimate personal information? Those libertarian impulses stand athwart that.
So I just don’t think we can do what Germany does, where there’s higher confidence in the state and higher trust in the state. I don’t think we can do what democracies in East Asia are doing, where there’s a more recent history of autocracy and a lot of deference to the state. Even though I’m a public health person and I admire all the people working on all the technical problems and thinking about what we should do to halt this virus, I just believe that we’re underestimating the political and cultural obstacles here.
Sean Illing
What, exactly, can countries like South Korea and Germany do that we can’t?
Keith Humphreys
In South Korea, you basically had authoritarian rule up until the ’80s. The adults in that country grew up in a place where if the government was worried about a parasitic infection, you had to submit stool samples to the officials — it’s just what you did. And these are the people deciding, right now, whether or not to follow the orders of their government or whether to hand over personal information. And what we’ve seen is that most people are willing to do it.
The case of Germany is a little different. Contrary to stereotypes, Germans are not deferent to their state. They have a lot of concerns about health information, for example. But I think the big difference there is that people have comparatively more trust in the state. They believe their state is fundamentally competent. Virtually all the polling we have on Americans shows that many of them simply don’t trust the state, and that’s a huge problem when the state is asking you to sacrifice so much for the sake of the public good.
Sean Illing
My problem with libertarianism has always been that it gives us a language of rights but it can’t give us a language of obligations — it’s fundamentally an individualistic philosophy. What you’re really saying, in my mind at least, is that America is too libertarian to deal with a collective action problem like this.
Is that fair?
Keith Humphreys
Yes, that’s a very pithy way to express what I’m saying, but it’s exactly right.
I should say that I’m raising all these questions out of anxiety. In other words, I’ll be delighted if I’m wrong. But I keep thinking about other times where we’ve been in precisely this situation around health, going back to Harry Truman proposing national health insurance and getting beaten. And I worked for President Obama, so I was right there as we struggled to get some version of the Affordable Care Act passed. I watched several states turn down Medicaid expansion. And I saw how the ACA was unable to get a single Republican vote and I don’t think anyone lost their seat because of that, because they voted against it.
So I’ve seen this dynamic play out over and over again in different contexts and I worry it will be the thing that limits what we’re able to do in our efforts to stamp out this virus. I guess I can’t put it any better than you: I don’t think we can reconcile our libertarianism with the need for a sense of shared purpose in a time of crisis.
Sean Illing
If what you’re saying is true, then it makes no difference who the president is or which party is in charge, because our problems are fundamentally cultural. And in that sense, you’re defining the problem as insoluble.
Keith Humphreys
I think that would be a little bleak. I would say that the president does matter. I was talking to a friend the other day and he said that if Trump put on a mask at a press conference and said, “I’m doing this because it’s a smart thing to do,” that would matter to some people who are resistant, that signal from someone they trust would matter. So it’s not that leadership is irrelevant, but I do think there are real limits to what’s possible in the country and the origins of that stretch back to our founding.
Sean Illing
All right, Keith, you’ve forced me to play the optimist here. I take all your points and I don’t think anyone can deny our libertarian streak, but here’s my counter: A majority of Americans have shown a remarkable willingness to cooperate and social distance in spite of the vacuum of leadership at the top — and that’s true across party lines.
Does that give you any pause at all?
Keith Humphreys
That’s a very good point and it is encouraging. And some of the data I’ve seen from across the country shows that most people are choosing to stay home, even in places that have lifted their lockdown, like Georgia. So there is some consensus on that.
The question for me is, does that translate into behavior? The psychologist in me can see that 80 percent of Americans think masks are a good idea, for example, but does that mean 80 percent of Americans are actually wearing masks? Because I’m not seeing that and I live in one of the places you’d expect to see that.
Sean Illing
Wouldn’t it, at least, be fair to say that our cultural capacity might be wider than you’re suggesting? I think we have to be careful not to confuse distrust of this administration with distrust of government as such, even though I agree Americans are unusually distrustful of government.
Still, there are reasons to think that there’s a reservoir of goodwill that could be marshaled if we had a competent leader who mapped out a clear plan to deal with this pandemic, a plan that inspired confidence and justified the sacrifices and the inconveniences—
Keith Humphreys
Well, there are some places where I think you could establish that empirically by looking around the country. I live in the Bay Area, for instance, and the governor, Gavin Newsom, is pretty well-regarded. He was out ahead on this and he imposed a lot of restrictions that people mostly accepted. I suspect most people will follow their local leaders when the restrictions are wise and explained decently.
I would say, though, that I think a lot depends on there being an actual shared interest that’s obvious to everyone. My parents, for example, live in an assisted living community where everyone else is in exactly the same situation, so there’s a total consensus. They do not take visitors, they do not go out. But they can do it because everyone recognizes the shared risks.
To be even more clear, I recognize that a lot of people are willing to cooperate and sacrifice. The question we have to ask, the question that virologists, in particular, have to ask, is will it be enough? If 20 percent of the country opts out, or if several states opt out, will that compromise our national response? Or will it be just enough to keep the pandemic raging on?
My worry is that we’ll have just enough dissent, for all the reasons we already discussed, to keep this thing going. In that case, we might want to factor that into our thinking about what’s possible here. We need some idea of the level of compliance we’ll need for any plan to work, and if we can’t replicate the compliance levels in countries like South Korea or Germany, we probably shouldn’t try to replicate their approach.
Sean Illing
Those are good questions and I don’t know the answers.
Keith Humphries
Neither do I. But look, when I say we’re different from other countries, I’m not saying we’re bad or worse. I’m just making an assessment of what we’re good at and what we’re not good at. I mean, if someone wanted to write a book about how much they hate Keith Humphreys, I’d tell them to publish it in America, not Britain, because the libel laws are more lenient here and we value free expression and you can get away with it. So that’s just an assessment based on the legal culture in this country.
We have lots of strengths in America that can be of incredible value in normal times, but in a pandemic, those same strengths can become a liability. That’s all I’m really saying.
Sean Illing
You conclude your thread by saying we’ll probably end up with something like a Swedish coronavirus policy by default. What does that mean exactly? How does that scenario end?
Keith Humphreys
One of the pushbacks I got was that our approach won’t be as good as Sweden’s because we don’t have universal health care. So, I think what this means is that the virus will continue to spread fairly consistently across the country. I wouldn’t be surprised if the death toll has doubled by Labor Day. I would, of course, be incredibly happy to be wrong about that.
And there’s really only two things that could interrupt this: 1) a vaccine, which is very unlikely for at least a year or more, or 2) increased development of therapeutics. So maybe we’ll have a breakthrough in our ability to treat the symptoms. What I think is most likely is that a huge number of people contract this virus and we develop immunity over time. If that happens, the virus will diminish over time, but it won’t be because of our test, trace, and isolate efforts.


vox--2020-05-24--One German church service resulted in more than 100 coronavirus infections

A single church service in Frankfurt , Germany , held in early May appears to have led to at least 107 reported cases of coronavirus in the area , according to a report from the Wall Street Journal .
The outbreak highlights the risks that accompany easing lockdowns even in countries that have managed to control the spread of the virus relatively well .
And it also serves as a reminder of the acute threat posed by “ superspreader ” events involving crowds , a pressing concern in the US as President Donald Trump encourages churches nationwide to reopen their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows how important it is — especially during loosening of restrictions , which is now possible again — that we remain vigilant and do not become careless , ” Kai Klose , health minister for Hesse ( the state Frankfurt is in ) said .
“ The virus is still there and wants to spread.
” The striking feature of the event is how many people appear to have contracted the coronavirus at the same time — and all while the church worked to promote social distancing and hygiene .
The Baptist church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with government lockdown orders , but it resumed them after Germany loosened restrictions on May 1 .
The church reportedly followed government guidelines for services , which included reductions on the total number of people allowed in the church and a requirement of 1.5 meters ( about five feet ) between congregants .
But a service held on May 10 has resulted in more than 100 infections , and appears to be the source of at least 16 cases in the town of Hanau , 15 miles east of Frankfurt .
The town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the area due to the risk of further spread .
The Frankfurt case is a reminder of the risks of crowds in enclosed spaces The community spread in Frankfurt is notable because it shows how easily increases in Covid-19 cases can occur even in countries with relatively manageable overall case numbers .
Germany flattened the curve of new infections fairly quickly and has a low fatality rate compared to its neighbors in Europe .
But since relaxing its lockdown in May , the number of cases has risen , raising questions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public safety and social and economic needs to keep the country running .
Experts have long warned that events involving crowds , like concerts , sporting events and gatherings for religious services , are high risk environments for spread of the virus .
But in spite of that , in the US , President Trump has insisted churches should be reopened as quickly as possible .
At a press conference Friday , Trump said governors need to reopen churches “ right now , ” and that if they decline to do so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Vox ’ s Ian Millhiser has explained , he can ’ t really do that — but the Frankfurt case illustrates why reopening houses of worship is a matter of concern .
Worshippers in Frankfurt were maintaining social distancing , but as Vox ’ s Brian Resnick has explained , that may not always be enough when a lot of respiratory droplets are being expelled in a contained space : The main way people are getting sick with SARS-CoV-2 is from respiratory droplets spreading between people in close quarters .
The risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ is breathing in everybody ’ s breath , ” says Charles Haas , an environmental engineer at Drexel University .
Droplets fly from people ’ s mouths and noses when they breathe , talk , or sneeze .
Other people can breathe them in .
That ’ s the main risk , and that ’ s why face masks are an essential precaution ( they help stop the droplets from spewing far from a person ’ s mouth or nose ) .
A crowded indoor place , then , with poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouting , or singing for hours on end will be the riskiest scenario .
A sparsely populated indoor space with open windows is less risky ( but not completely safe ) .
Running quickly past another jogger outside is on the other end of the spectrum ; minimal risk .
Given these risks , there is concern the US could see incidences of infection similar to the Frankfurt case should churches reopen — particularly if there is poor social distancing .
And given both Trump ’ s advocacy for the issue and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open in some states , that concern is not abstract .
Which means finding ways to reduce the risk of infection in places like the Frankfurt church will be important not just for Germany , but for the US and other countries as well .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

A single church service in Frankfurt, Germany, held in early May appears to have led to at least 107 reported cases of coronavirus in the area, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.
The outbreak highlights the risks that accompany easing lockdowns even in countries that have managed to control the spread of the virus relatively well. And it also serves as a reminder of the acute threat posed by “superspreader” events involving crowds, a pressing concern in the US as President Donald Trump encourages churches nationwide to reopen their doors to worshippers.
“This situation shows how important it is — especially during loosening of restrictions, which is now possible again — that we remain vigilant and do not become careless,” Kai Klose, health minister for Hesse (the state Frankfurt is in) said. “The virus is still there and wants to spread.”
The striking feature of the event is how many people appear to have contracted the coronavirus at the same time — and all while the church worked to promote social distancing and hygiene.
The Baptist church had suspended services in March in accordance with government lockdown orders, but it resumed them after Germany loosened restrictions on May 1. The church reportedly followed government guidelines for services, which included reductions on the total number of people allowed in the church and a requirement of 1.5 meters (about five feet) between congregants.
But a service held on May 10 has resulted in more than 100 infections, and appears to be the source of at least 16 cases in the town of Hanau, 15 miles east of Frankfurt. The town has subsequently called off other religious gatherings in the area due to the risk of further spread.
The Frankfurt case is a reminder of the risks of crowds in enclosed spaces
The community spread in Frankfurt is notable because it shows how easily increases in Covid-19 cases can occur even in countries with relatively manageable overall case numbers. Germany flattened the curve of new infections fairly quickly and has a low fatality rate compared to its neighbors in Europe. But since relaxing its lockdown in May, the number of cases has risen, raising questions of how to strike the right balance between public safety and social and economic needs to keep the country running.
Experts have long warned that events involving crowds, like concerts, sporting events and gatherings for religious services, are high-risk environments for spread of the virus. But in spite of that, in the US, President Trump has insisted churches should be reopened as quickly as possible.
At a press conference Friday, Trump said governors need to reopen churches “right now,” and that if they decline to do so, he will “override the governors.” As Vox’s Ian Millhiser has explained, he can’t really do that — but the Frankfurt case illustrates why reopening houses of worship is a matter of concern.
Worshippers in Frankfurt were maintaining social distancing, but as Vox’s Brian Resnick has explained, that may not always be enough when a lot of respiratory droplets are being expelled in a contained space:
The main way people are getting sick with SARS-CoV-2 is from respiratory droplets spreading between people in close quarters. The risk of catching the coronavirus, simply put, “is breathing in everybody’s breath,” says Charles Haas, an environmental engineer at Drexel University. Droplets fly from people’s mouths and noses when they breathe, talk, or sneeze. Other people can breathe them in. That’s the main risk, and that’s why face masks are an essential precaution (they help stop the droplets from spewing far from a person’s mouth or nose). ... A crowded indoor place, then, with poor ventilation, filled with people talking, shouting, or singing for hours on end will be the riskiest scenario. A sparsely populated indoor space with open windows is less risky (but not completely safe). Running quickly past another jogger outside is on the other end of the spectrum; minimal risk.
Given these risks, there is concern the US could see incidences of infection similar to the Frankfurt case should churches reopen — particularly if there is poor social distancing. And given both Trump’s advocacy for the issue and that houses of worship have been allowed to open in some states, that concern is not abstract. Which means finding ways to reduce the risk of infection in places like the Frankfurt church will be important not just for Germany, but for the US and other countries as well.


vox--2020-05-24--As crowds flock outdoors for Memorial Day weekend, government officials stress caution

Federal public health officials worked to remind Americans celebrating Memorial Day weekend of the importance of maintaining social distancing Sunday , highlighting that although the coronavirus crisis appears to be gradually improving in many regions of the United States , many still remain at risk of infection .
“ With the country starting to open up this holiday weekend , I again remind everyone that the coronavirus is not yet contained , ” Stephen Hahn , commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration , tweeted .
“ It is up to every individual to protect themselves and their community .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks protect us all.
” And on ABC ’ s This Week , Deborah Birx , the White House coronavirus response coordinator , also emphasized the need to keep space between people , even outdoors .
“ Social distancing is absolutely critical , and if you can ’ t social distance and you ’ re outside , you must wear a mask , ” Birx said .
“ These are items that are really critical to protect individuals .
We ’ ve learned a lot about this virus , but we now need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior that stays with us so we can continue to drive down the number of cases.
” The reminders came as the US Covid-19 death toll approaches 100,000 — and as reports and photos circulate online showing large crowds at beaches and other vacation spots , some of them enclosed .
With outdoor recreational areas like beaches and parks drawing large numbers of people across the US , ideal social distancing is not always possible .
Video went viral Sunday of a packed pool in Missouri , and there were reports of long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , water parks in Texas , and beaches in Florida .
“ Without a doubt , this is one of the busiest weekends I ’ ve seen in many years , ” Volusia County Beach Safety Deputy Chief Andrew Ethridge told the Daytona Beach News-Journal , in Florida .
“ We have 47 miles of beach in Volusia County and every bit of it has crowds.
” In many photos and videos it ’ s unclear how close together strangers are standing , but in some images it ’ s evident that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that people are not wearing masks .
This is a cause for concern , not because going out is inherently unsafe , or because pools and beaches are dangerous spaces , but because crowds offer unique opportunities for infection .
As Vox ’ s German Lopez has explained , there are a number of ways to stay safe while outdoors — the most important of which Birx and Hahn highlighted : wearing masks and staying distant from others .
But : The risk here is close and prolonged contact .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of seconds isn ’ t the end of the world .
But if you ’ re within 6 feet of someone else for longer than that — especially for hours — it could be dangerous .
“ The two variables we worry about is that distance from another person who might be sick and the time spent with them , ” Crystal Watson , senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
This applies to the outdoors , too .
While the outdoors are generally safer than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good idea to avoid packed parks or beaches .
People who don ’ t live together just shouldn ’ t be stacked together for long in any setting .
So if you ’ re going out to eat , consider skipping the packed restaurant .
If you ’ re going to a park or beach , look for an area without too many people around .
Birx was asked about these images of crowded areas Sunday on Meet the Press , and said there are ways “ to be together socially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This only works if we all follow the guidelines and protect one another.
” And following those guidelines — staying 6 feet apart and wearing masks — limits the sort of prolonged contact experts believe is dangerous .
By doing that , those hoping to enjoy a holiday weekend can do so while minimizing the risks of becoming infected , or infecting others .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today @

Federal public health officials worked to remind Americans celebrating Memorial Day weekend of the importance of maintaining social distancing Sunday, highlighting that although the coronavirus crisis appears to be gradually improving in many regions of the United States, many still remain at risk of infection.
“With the country starting to open up this holiday weekend, I again remind everyone that the coronavirus is not yet contained,” Stephen Hahn, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, tweeted. “It is up to every individual to protect themselves and their community. Social distancing, hand washing and wearing masks protect us all.”
And on ABC’s This Week, Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, also emphasized the need to keep space between people, even outdoors.
“Social distancing is absolutely critical, and if you can’t social distance and you’re outside, you must wear a mask,” Birx said. “These are items that are really critical to protect individuals. We’ve learned a lot about this virus, but we now need to translate that learning into real changed behavior that stays with us so we can continue to drive down the number of cases.”
The reminders came as the US Covid-19 death toll approaches 100,000 — and as reports and photos circulate online showing large crowds at beaches and other vacation spots, some of them enclosed.
With outdoor recreational areas like beaches and parks drawing large numbers of people across the US, ideal social distancing is not always possible. Video went viral Sunday of a packed pool in Missouri, and there were reports of long lines and crowds at the Jersey Shore, water parks in Texas, and beaches in Florida.
“Without a doubt, this is one of the busiest weekends I’ve seen in many years,” Volusia County Beach Safety Deputy Chief Andrew Ethridge told the Daytona Beach News-Journal, in Florida. “We have 47 miles of beach in Volusia County and every bit of it has crowds.”
In many photos and videos it’s unclear how close together strangers are standing, but in some images it’s evident that there is less than 6 feet between strangers, and that people are not wearing masks.
This is a cause for concern, not because going out is inherently unsafe or because pools and beaches are dangerous spaces, but because crowds offer unique opportunities for infection. As Vox’s German Lopez has explained, there are a number of ways to stay safe while outdoors — the most important of which Birx and Hahn highlighted: wearing masks and staying distant from others. But:
The risk here is close and prolonged contact. A jogger running by you for a couple of seconds isn’t the end of the world. But if you’re within 6 feet of someone else for longer than that — especially for hours — it could be dangerous. “The two variables we worry about is that distance from another person who might be sick and the time spent with them,” Crystal Watson, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. This applies to the outdoors, too. While the outdoors are generally safer than the indoors, it’s still a good idea to avoid packed parks or beaches. People who don’t live together just shouldn’t be stacked together for long in any setting. So if you’re going out to eat, consider skipping the packed restaurant. If you’re going to a park or beach, look for an area without too many people around.
Birx was asked about these images of crowded areas Sunday on Meet the Press and said there are ways “to be together socially, yet distant.” She also stressed, “This only works if we all follow the guidelines and protect one another.”
And following those guidelines — staying 6 feet apart and wearing masks — limits the sort of prolonged contact experts believe is dangerous. By doing that, those hoping to enjoy a holiday weekend can do so while minimizing the risks of becoming infected or infecting others.