vox--2020-05-22--New Fox News poll finds Biden with healthy lead, sends Trump into tailspin

On Thursday afternoon , President Donald Trump said the quiet part loud in a tweet where he attacked Fox News for “ doing nothing to help Republicans , and me , get re-elected on November 3rd.
” Hours later , the network gave him a new thing to get angry about .
Fox ’ s latest poll finds Trump trailing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by a robust 8 points nationwide .
It ’ s enough to put Biden ahead even considering the 3-point margin of error , and a significant swing from last month , when Fox ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s eroding standing versus Biden in the poll of 1,207 registered voters conducted May 17 to 20 correlates with a decline in approval of his handling of the coronavirus , which according to the Fox poll stands at 43 percent , an 8 percent decrease from March and April .
A separate ABC News/Ipsos poll out Friday morning finds approval of Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus hitting a new low of 39 percent .
As I ’ ve written , Trump has a long history of erupting at Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor .
( For all the network ’ s Trump-friendly tilt on TV , its polls are high-quality ; FiveThirtyEight gives Fox News polling an A- rating . )
While he didn ’ t directly address the new Fox poll on Thursday evening , Trump indirectly hit back at it by tweeting outdated polls and out-of-context data points in an effort to portray himself as more popular than he really is .
Fox ’ s poll shows Trump ’ s overall approval sagging to 44 percent , a 5 percent dip from last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Trump approval aggregator , which currently has Trump ’ s approval 10 points underwater ( 43 percent approval , 53 percent disapproval ) , a notable slide from when it was only 4 points underwater last month .
Trump , however , obfuscated reality by tweeting out a more positive poll from the Hill/HarrisX that ’ s at least 10 days old , if not older .
It ’ s also worth noting that the Hill/HarrisX has a significant rightward bias and , unlike Fox , is not highly regarded by FiveThirtyEight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump tweeted out a data point from a poll conducted by a right-wing PAC showing him leading Biden by about 5 points in Pennsylvania .
That ’ s not great for Biden , who was born in the state and may need its Electoral College votes to win the election .
But even this poll contains mostly bad news for Trump .
Had he read the Breitbart article he shared , he would have seen that the poll shows Biden “ enjoying an 8.8 percent advantage in Michigan and 9.1 percent advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump won in 2016 and are central to his reelection hopes .
Trump went on to post another tweet boasting about his “ 96 % Approval Rating in the Republican Party .
Thank you !
” But while he loves touting this specific data point on Twitter , it ’ s possible he ’ s just making it up .
He never cites a specific poll that substantiates the 96 percent figure , and it ’ s inflated in comparison to other polls .
Fox News , for instance , finds that 84 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly lesser percentage than the 88 percent of Democrats who support Biden .
On Friday morning , Trump took aim at Fox News directly , lamenting in one tweet that the network “ should fire their Fake Pollster .
Never had a good Fox Poll !
” and then in another questioning why it doesn ’ t squelch its own polling and just publicize other ones that reflect more positively on him .
Trump , of course , isn ’ t shy about making it known that he regards Fox News as something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation — he thinks it should serve as a propaganda outlet for him , goes into a public tailspin whenever anybody on the network offers even mild criticism , and doesn ’ t try to hide the fact he thinks it should be rigging polls to portray him in the best possible light .
But it ’ s notable that instead of reflecting on why his poll numbers are sliding — that he doesn ’ t really have a plan beyond wishful thinking to pull the country out of the interlocking public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance — the president attacks the messenger .
He simply refuses to acknowledge the increasingly likely possibility that he ’ ll go down as a president who was undone in large part by a pandemic he was unprepared for .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

On Thursday afternoon, President Donald Trump said the quiet part loud in a tweet where he attacked Fox News for “doing nothing to help Republicans, and me, get re-elected on November 3rd.” Hours later, the network gave him a new thing to get angry about.
Fox’s latest poll finds Trump trailing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by a robust 8 points nationwide. It’s enough to put Biden ahead even considering the 3-point margin of error, and a significant swing from last month, when Fox’s polling had the race tied.
Trump is not going to be happy that Fox News didn’t rig their new poll for him pic.twitter.com/e93GjPbRtG — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 21, 2020
Trump’s eroding standing versus Biden in the poll of 1,207 registered voters conducted May 17 to 20 correlates with a decline in approval of his handling of the coronavirus, which according to the Fox poll stands at 43 percent, an 8 percent decrease from March and April. A separate ABC News/Ipsos poll out Friday morning finds approval of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus hitting a new low of 39 percent.
As I’ve written, Trump has a long history of erupting at Fox News for not rigging polls in his favor. (For all the network’s Trump-friendly tilt on TV, its polls are high-quality; FiveThirtyEight gives Fox News polling an A- rating.) While he didn’t directly address the new Fox poll on Thursday evening, Trump indirectly hit back at it by tweeting outdated polls and out-of-context data points in an effort to portray himself as more popular than he really is.
Fox’s poll shows Trump’s overall approval sagging to 44 percent, a 5 percent dip from last month. That tracks with FiveThirtyEight’s Trump approval aggregator, which currently has Trump’s approval 10 points underwater (43 percent approval, 53 percent disapproval), a notable slide from when it was only 4 points underwater last month.
Trump, however, obfuscated reality by tweeting out a more positive poll from the Hill/HarrisX that’s at least 10 days old, if not older. It’s also worth noting that the Hill/HarrisX has a significant rightward bias and, unlike Fox, is not highly regarded by FiveThirtyEight’s pollster rankings.
Later Thursday, Trump tweeted out a data point from a poll conducted by a right-wing PAC showing him leading Biden by about 5 points in Pennsylvania.
“President Trump is leading Joe Biden (D) in the battleground state of Pennsylvania 50.2 percent to 45.5 percent...This is significant, as it reflects a 4.7 percent jump from the previous survey.” https://t.co/wb0deC8LQh — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 22, 2020
That’s not great for Biden, who was born in the state and may need its Electoral College votes to win the election. But even this poll contains mostly bad news for Trump. Had he read the Breitbart article he shared, he would have seen that the poll shows Biden “enjoying an 8.8 percent advantage in Michigan and 9.1 percent advantage in Wisconsin” — both states that Trump won in 2016 and are central to his reelection hopes.
Trump went on to post another tweet boasting about his “96% Approval Rating in the Republican Party. Thank you!” But while he loves touting this specific data point on Twitter, it’s possible he’s just making it up. He never cites a specific poll that substantiates the 96 percent figure, and it’s inflated in comparison to other polls. Fox News, for instance, finds that 84 percent of Republicans support Trump — a slightly lesser percentage than the 88 percent of Democrats who support Biden.
On Friday morning, Trump took aim at Fox News directly, lamenting in one tweet that the network “should fire their Fake Pollster. Never had a good Fox Poll!” and then in another questioning why it doesn’t squelch its own polling and just publicize other ones that reflect more positively on him.
Why doesn’t @FoxNews put up the CNBC POLL or the (believe it or not!) @CNN Poll? Hope Roger A is looking down and watching what has happened to this once beautiful creation! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 22, 2020
Trump, of course, isn’t shy about making it known that he regards Fox News as something akin to an arm of his political operation — he thinks it should serve as a propaganda outlet for him, goes into a public tailspin whenever anybody on the network offers even mild criticism, and doesn’t try to hide the fact he thinks it should be rigging polls to portray him in the best possible light.
But it’s notable that instead of reflecting on why his poll numbers are sliding — that he doesn’t really have a plan beyond wishful thinking to pull the country out of the interlocking public health and economic crises created by the coronavirus, for instance — the president attacks the messenger. He simply refuses to acknowledge the increasingly likely possibility that he’ll go down as a president who was undone in large part by a pandemic he was unprepared for.


vox--2020-05-22--The Secret History ends in incest and gunshots as Vox Book Club’s May pick draws to a close

And so we come to the end of The Secret History — but not to the end of our discussion !
Next week , we ’ ll be meeting on Zoom for our May live event .
“ But Constance , ” you say , “ what could possibly top April ’ s event with N.K .
Jemisin ?
Surely you haven ’ t landed Donna Tartt herself ?
” No I have not , gentle reader ; Donna Tartt does not do events .
But we have found someone we think will be perfect to talk the book with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 pm , I ’ ll be hanging out on Zoom with the queen of the internet herself , Nicole Cliffe , to discuss The Secret History .
We would love to see you there , and you can RSVP here .
Nicole Cliffe co-founded The Toast , a.k.a .
the only good website on the internet , Vox excepted .
She ’ s currently a columnist for Slate , and she ’ s also written for the Guardian and is a former judge of the Morning News ’ Tournament of Books .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Awl in 2012 .
I plan to be extremely starstruck by her .
In the meantime , we ’ ve got chapter 8 and the epilogue of The Secret History to get through , with all of its incestuous reveals , heart-breaking posthumous letters , and final murders .
Let ’ s get to it .
At the end of The Secret History , everything is corrupt Here , at the end of the book , those kids who loafed around a country house quoting The Waste Land at each other seem so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not that they were destroyed or corrupted : It ’ s that the state of innocence they seemed to live in then never truly existed .
Even back when Richard thought nothing was wrong , before Bunny ’ s murder , before the farmer , before all of that , this world was corrupt .
The twins were sleeping together , and Charles was hurting Camilla .
Francis was pining after Charles and planning his life of closeted secrecy .
And Henry and Richard — well .
“ You don ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , do you ?
” Henry asks Richard in this section , adding , “ I don ’ t , either.
” Richard protests that he does feel emotion for other people , but Henry doesn ’ t believe him , and I don ’ t know if I do either .
Richard ’ s whole thing is one of the great ambiguities in The Secret History .
He starts off as our self-insert , this melancholy dreamer who grew up on the West Coast , is from a lower-middle-class , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it , trying to fit in with all these New England snobs who make fun of him when he uses phrases like “ totally weird.
” But then Richard throws in his lot with murderers so quickly .
And he spends so much of his time in a drugged-out haze , trying desperately to deny to himself a number of things that seem very clear from this angle ( that he ’ s in love with Francis , for one ) .
Trying to parse out the motivation for why he does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Henry ’ s suggestion that maybe he ’ s just a sociopath seems as plausible as any .
Henry at last transitions in this last chapter into a fully sinister figure , one whom even Richard is now more afraid of than for .
It helps that it starts to look a lot like Henry was planning to pin Bunny ’ s murder on Richard if it came to that ( remember when Henry wouldn ’ t let Richard share the same alibi that the core four were using ? )
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ things like , “ My life , for the most part , has been very stale and colorless .
Dead , I mean .
… But then it changed .
The night I killed that man , ” and “ Now I know that I can do anything that I want , ” re his discoveries after the aforementioned murder , and it becomes downright impossible for Richard to pass off all this bloodshed as a series of well-intentioned accidents .
But what Henry decides to do in the end — what presumably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to kill himself .
After saying he ’ d like the whiskey-soaked liability that is Charles to disappear from the planet , and after Charles tries to kill him , Henry ends up shooting himself with Charles ’ s gun .
Richard ’ s conclusion is that Henry ’ s suicide is his final tribute to Julian , and to the heroic ideals of Julian ’ s Greek class : duty , piety , loyalty , sacrifice .
But those are not ideals that Henry has ever seemed particularly interested in .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own mind , to lose himself in something bigger .
And he seems to have concluded , in the end , that what he can lose himself in is this fraught and fractured group .
He killed himself in service to them .
In this section , I ’ ve collected stray thoughts and questions I have about chapter 8 and the epilogue of The Secret History .
You can use them as a guide for your own conversation in our comments section , or in your own community .
Or start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just mark your spoilers and be nice to each other .
• Francis mentions that he has lost his sense of smell due to a sinus infection .
Does Francis — a man ahead of his time in so many ways — have the rona ?
• Do you think Henry really was trying to frame Richard ?
Why ?
• What do you think Henry whispered to Camilla right before he shot himself ?
• Richard throws Henry one last Sherlock Holmes reference with the suggestion that maybe he isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up seeing Henry in that odd dream , looking at pictures of churches .
What do you think is going on there ?
• Julian finds out about the murders in this section after he receives that heartbreaking final letter from Bunny .
And when Richard sees Julian ’ s reaction , he mentally reclassifies Julian as no longer a “ good parent ” but someone “ ambiguous , a moral neutral , whose beguiling trappings concealed a being watchful , capricious , and heartless.
” Is Richard essentially turning Julian into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Bunny ’ s letter , woof does that one hurt .
Do you think Bunny genuinely believed the rest of the classics kids were going to kill him ?
• Is Richard lowkey more upset that he ’ s losing course credits than about all the murdering ?
• The epilogue sees Richard resentfully back in California , an alcoholic Charles shacked up with a married woman in Texas , Camilla looking after an elderly aunt , and Francis suicidal and engaged to a woman he hates .
How do you feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem right to you ?
• Secret History F/M/K .
There is a correct answer , and I will elaborate on it in the comments .
Sound off in the comments below , or wherever you ’ d like to talk , and meet us back here next week for our live event .
And to make sure you don ’ t miss anything , sign up for our newsletter !

And so we come to the end of The Secret History — but not to the end of our discussion! Next week, we’ll be meeting on Zoom for our May live event.
“But Constance,” you say, “what could possibly top April’s event with N.K. Jemisin? Surely you haven’t landed Donna Tartt herself?”
No I have not, gentle reader; Donna Tartt does not do events. But we have found someone we think will be perfect to talk the book with.
On Thursday, May 28 at 5 pm, I’ll be hanging out on Zoom with the queen of the internet herself, Nicole Cliffe, to discuss The Secret History. We would love to see you there, and you can RSVP here.
Nicole Cliffe co-founded The Toast, a.k.a. the only good website on the internet, Vox excepted. She’s currently a columnist for Slate, and she’s also written for the Guardian and is a former judge of the Morning News’ Tournament of Books. She reviewed The Secret History for The Awl in 2012. I plan to be extremely starstruck by her.
In the meantime, we’ve got chapter 8 and the epilogue of The Secret History to get through, with all of its incestuous reveals, heart-breaking posthumous letters, and final murders. Let’s get to it.
Related Join the Vox Book Club
At the end of The Secret History, everything is corrupt
Here, at the end of the book, those kids who loafed around a country house quoting The Waste Land at each other seem so far away. But the problem is not that they were destroyed or corrupted: It’s that the state of innocence they seemed to live in then never truly existed.
Even back when Richard thought nothing was wrong, before Bunny’s murder, before the farmer, before all of that, this world was corrupt. The twins were sleeping together, and Charles was hurting Camilla. Francis was pining after Charles and planning his life of closeted secrecy. And Henry and Richard — well.
“You don’t feel a great deal of emotion for other people, do you?” Henry asks Richard in this section, adding, “I don’t, either.” Richard protests that he does feel emotion for other people, but Henry doesn’t believe him, and I don’t know if I do either.
Richard’s whole thing is one of the great ambiguities in The Secret History. He starts off as our self-insert, this melancholy dreamer who grew up on the West Coast, is from a lower-middle-class, and has a massive chip on his shoulder about it, trying to fit in with all these New England snobs who make fun of him when he uses phrases like “totally weird.”
But then Richard throws in his lot with murderers so quickly. And he spends so much of his time in a drugged-out haze, trying desperately to deny to himself a number of things that seem very clear from this angle (that he’s in love with Francis, for one). Trying to parse out the motivation for why he does what he does is almost impossible, and Henry’s suggestion that maybe he’s just a sociopath seems as plausible as any.
Henry at last transitions in this last chapter into a fully sinister figure, one whom even Richard is now more afraid of than for. It helps that it starts to look a lot like Henry was planning to pin Bunny’s murder on Richard if it came to that (remember when Henry wouldn’t let Richard share the same alibi that the core four were using?). But then we also get Henry saying things like, “My life, for the most part, has been very stale and colorless. Dead, I mean. … But then it changed. The night I killed that man,” and “Now I know that I can do anything that I want,” re his discoveries after the aforementioned murder, and it becomes downright impossible for Richard to pass off all this bloodshed as a series of well-intentioned accidents.
But what Henry decides to do in the end — what presumably he decides he wants to do — is to kill himself. After saying he’d like the whiskey-soaked liability that is Charles to disappear from the planet, and after Charles tries to kill him, Henry ends up shooting himself with Charles’s gun.
Richard’s conclusion is that Henry’s suicide is his final tribute to Julian, and to the heroic ideals of Julian’s Greek class: duty, piety, loyalty, sacrifice. But those are not ideals that Henry has ever seemed particularly interested in. What Henry wanted was to escape from his own mind, to lose himself in something bigger. And he seems to have concluded, in the end, that what he can lose himself in is this fraught and fractured group. He killed himself in service to them.
Let’s talk!
In this section, I’ve collected stray thoughts and questions I have about chapter 8 and the epilogue of The Secret History. You can use them as a guide for your own conversation in our comments section, or in your own community. Or start off with your own questions! Please just mark your spoilers and be nice to each other.
Francis mentions that he has lost his sense of smell due to a sinus infection. Does Francis — a man ahead of his time in so many ways — have the rona? Do you think Henry really was trying to frame Richard? Why? What do you think Henry whispered to Camilla right before he shot himself? Richard throws Henry one last Sherlock Holmes reference with the suggestion that maybe he isn’t really dead, and then Richard ends up seeing Henry in that odd dream, looking at pictures of churches. What do you think is going on there? Julian finds out about the murders in this section after he receives that heartbreaking final letter from Bunny. And when Richard sees Julian’s reaction, he mentally reclassifies Julian as no longer a “good parent” but someone “ambiguous, a moral neutral, whose beguiling trappings concealed a being watchful, capricious, and heartless.” Is Richard essentially turning Julian into a Greek God on us? Speaking of Bunny’s letter, woof does that one hurt. Do you think Bunny genuinely believed the rest of the classics kids were going to kill him? Is Richard lowkey more upset that he’s losing course credits than about all the murdering? The epilogue sees Richard resentfully back in California, an alcoholic Charles shacked up with a married woman in Texas, Camilla looking after an elderly aunt, and Francis suicidal and engaged to a woman he hates. How do you feel about these final fates? Do they seem right to you? Secret History F/M/K. There is a correct answer, and I will elaborate on it in the comments.
Sound off in the comments below, or wherever you’d like to talk, and meet us back here next week for our live event. And to make sure you don’t miss anything, sign up for our newsletter!


vox--2020-05-22--One reason why coronavirus is hitting black Americans the hardest

Across the US , black people are dying from Covid-19 at disproportionately high rates .
While there are many different factors at play behind the stark racial disparities — there ’ s one possible reason that ’ s been lurking in the air for decades : pollution .
Decades of segregation and housing discrimination have put black Americans at greater risk of living near chemical plants , factories and highways , exposing them to higher levels of air pollutants .
These pollutants have had a chronically negative impact on health , leading to conditions like hypertension and asthma .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more severe cases of Covid-19 .
According to Robert Bullard , a professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University , the combination of racist policies , pollution , and coronavirus , is a lethal mix .
“ All these things converge , and then you get this pandemic , you get this heat-seeking missile that is targeting , that is zeroing in on the most vulnerable community .
And when it targets that community , what we end up with is a death bomb.
” Watch the video above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between toxic air , race , and coronavirus — and how it ’ s all converged in one community in Louisiana called “ cancer alley.
” You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
If you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .
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 @

Across the US, black people are dying from Covid-19 at disproportionately high rates. While there are many different factors at play behind the stark racial disparities — there’s one possible reason that’s been lurking in the air for decades: pollution.
Decades of segregation and housing discrimination have put black Americans at greater risk of living near chemical plants, factories and highways, exposing them to higher levels of air pollutants. These pollutants have had a chronically negative impact on health, leading to conditions like hypertension and asthma. Now, those same diseases are associated with more severe cases of Covid-19.
According to Robert Bullard, a professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University, the combination of racist policies, pollution, and coronavirus, is a lethal mix. “All these things converge, and then you get this pandemic, you get this heat-seeking missile that is targeting, that is zeroing in on the most vulnerable community. And when it targets that community, what we end up with is a death bomb.”
Watch the video above to find out more about the connections between toxic air, race, and coronavirus — and how it’s all converged in one community in Louisiana called “cancer alley.”
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. If you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-05-22--6 feet away isn’t enough. Covid-19 risk involves other dimensions, too.

When states had strict stay-at-home orders and lockdowns in place , many decisions about the risk of getting the coronavirus were simple .
People didn ’ t have to think about whether dining in a restaurant is safe if the restaurant was closed .
Now , as states open up — perhaps prematurely , and with varying degrees of precautions and adherence in place — individuals will need to weigh some risks on their own .
It isn ’ t easy ; information about what ’ s safe , and what ’ s not , can be contradictory and confusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen and concerts to resume : but should you really go ?
Is it safer if people are only allowed to dine outside ?
The hunger for guidance is clear : On May 6 , infectious disease expert Erin Bromage posted a blog post summarizing the evidence of coronavirus transmission risks , and 17 million people have since read it , he says .
As Bromage conveys , the scientific understanding of how the virus transmits in public is improving .
Contact tracing studies around the world have taken a magnifying glass to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one person ends up infecting dozens of others .
These studies shine a light on the key risk factors that create dangerous situations .
From these studies , one thing is clear : The main way people are getting sick from 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) recently updated its guidelines , emphasizing the risk of close contact over other modes of transmission .
“ The virus does not spread easily in other ways , ” the CDC writes .
It ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from touching a contaminated surface ( more on that below. )
.
But it ’ s “ not thought to be the main way the virus spreads , ” the CDC states .
As Bromage put it in his piece , “ We know most people get infected in their own home , ” from housemates or family members who caught the virus in the community .
So how can we assess the risk of going places outside the home ?
The story is a little more complicated than the simple “ stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk is simply not one-dimensional .
We need to think about risk in four dimensions : distance to other people , environment , activity , and time spent together .
A simple suggestion : Imagine people are smoking , or farting really bad , and try to avoid breathing it in It ’ s easy to get into the weeds talking about the risk of catching and spreading the coronavirus as people reenter communal spaces in society .
We can talk about the number of viral-laden droplets expelled by a single breath ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , by a person talking ( 10 times more than breathing ) , about how far a sneeze can propel those droplets ( much farther than 6 feet ) , how long those viral droplets linger in the air ( around eight to 14 minutes , at least in a controlled indoor lab setting ) .
But really , what all this means is that the greatest Covid-19 risk is being around breathing , laughing , coughing , sneezing , talking , people .
It ’ s still hard to visualize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ droplets are invisible to our eyes .
Perhaps helpful : Imagine everyone is smoking , as Ed Yong reported in the Atlantic , and you ’ d like to avoid inhaling as much smoke as possible .
In a cramped indoor space , that smoke is going to get dense and heavy fast .
If the windows are open , some of that smoke will blow away .
If fewer people are in the space , less smoke will accumulate , and it might not waft over to you if you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of time in an enclosed space with those people , and the smoke grows denser .
The denser the smoke , the more likely it is to affect you .
It ’ s the same with this virus : The more of it you inhale , the more likely you are to get sick .
An alternative image to thinking about this risk : “ With my kids , I just sort of joke around that if you can smell their farts , you need to move farther apart , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , imagine everyone is farting .
Keep this in mind and surely you ’ ll realize outdoor activities are better than indoor ones .
“ This tells you the gradient of risk , ” Bromage says .
“ The closer you are , the more it ’ s gon na smell , the more dangerous it is.
“ At a barbecue , you can still imagine being close enough to people to smell their farts .
So even in outdoor spaces , we need to limit our contacts .
A crowded indoor place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
There are many scenarios in between .
“ In general , outdoors is lower risk , ” Muge Cevik , a physician and virology expert at the University of St. Andrews , says .
But “ if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and you spent all day together with your friends , your risk is still higher.
” What recent contact tracing studies can teach us about risk Scientists pointed out a few recent contact tracing studies that nicely illustrate the dimensions of Covid-19 risk .
In China , 8,437 shoppers and employees of a supermarket were tracked in late January after one of the employees was confirmed positive with Covid-19 while working in the store .
The risk for infection was much higher for the workers than for the shoppers .
Around 9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of 120 employees ) got sick as a result .
But just 0.02 percent of the shoppers ( 2 out of 8,224 shoppers ) got sick .
What does this show ?
The employees are at a much larger risk due to the time they spent working in the store .
Both the employees and shoppers were in the same physical space , but their risk was not the same .
( The study did not note whether the shoppers and customers were wearing masks in the store . )
The employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but they also had a greater chance of breathing in the virus .
What we should learn from this : If we have to spend time with people indoors , try to make it quick !
Another recent study out of China investigated an outbreak that started at a Buddhist temple event .
Two buses brought people to the function .
On one of the buses , there was a person who later tested positive for the coronavirus who had not yet started to feel symptoms .
The other bus was free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to the same temple , where they mixed and mingled .
But who was most at risk of getting sick ?
Those who rode the bus with the infected person .
Twenty-four out of 67 people on that bus got sick .
No one on the other bus did .
The event was attended by another 172 people who arrived by other transportation .
Only seven of these people got sick .
The lesson ?
The confines of a bus are a much , much riskier environment for viral spread than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temple .
The risk in the temple was not zero .
But it was much reduced compared to the confines of the bus .
So if you have to choose between a big open indoor space and a smaller one , choose the larger one , where people can spread out .
“ When you look at public transport , work spaces , restaurants — places where we ’ re just trying to fit many people in a small confined space — respiratory viruses like those spaces , ” Cevik says .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s no set time that ’ s safe to be in these places .
“ Generally , for droplet transmission , we say 15 minutes , ” Cevik says .
“ So if you spend 15 minutes face to face with somebody , you ’ re close contact [ and at high risk ] , but that doesn ’ t mean if you spend 14 minutes your risk is zero.
” And it ’ s not just the location or the time spent together : The activity people are engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a person with the virus attended a choir practice , and more than half of the other singers subsequently got sick .
This was labeled a “ superspreading ” event , as one infection led to 32 others .
Why was this so risky ?
“ The superspreading event is about the behavior of the person involved , ” Cevik says .
There are many reasons why a person could become a “ superspreader ” : Some people shed more of the virus than others , and it appears people shed most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to feel symptoms .
But what made this event so risky was the convergence of many risk factors : the singing activity ( during which the infected person released viral particles into the air ) , the time spent together ( the practice was 2.5 hours ) , and the interaction between the choir members in an enclosed space ( not only did they all practice together , they also split up into smaller groups and shared cookies and tea ) .
What about touching something with infected droplets ?
Is that still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the CDC says the coronavirus does not spread easily from people touching surfaces .
That is , if someone with Covid-19 touches a hand railing , does that make that hand railing dangerous for other people to touch ?
The CDC is now saying that such events are not a huge risk for Covid-19 transmission .
But , there ’ s a catch : It is still the case that surface transmission is possible .
Scientists believe the virus can remain viable on a hard , non-porous surface like plastic or steel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rough surface like cardboard for about a day .
You could , conceivably , touch a contaminated surface , and then touch your face , and get sick .
( Good news is that even though some virus can remain on a surface for a day or more , the amount of virus on a given surface drops by half after several hours , and then continues dropping . )
Bromage cautions that it ’ s just really hard to study surface transmission .
In contact tracing studies , it ’ s much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been in contact with than to have them remember every surface they ’ ve touched .
“ I agree with this [ CDC ] statement , ” Cevik says , agreeing that surfaces aren ’ t the most significant mode of transmission .
“ But this does not mean it does not happen.
” Cevik points me to a contact tracing study that suggests ( with a good deal of uncertainty ) that some people caught the infection in a mall via the restroom .
“ Bottom line , ” she says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maintain personal hygiene and wash hands.
” Also consider how scientists recently found live Covid-19 virus in feces .
So good bathroom hygiene is still as important as ever .
There are no magic numbers to eliminate risk It would be great if there were very specific numbers and guidelines we could follow to minimize coronavirus risk to zero .
But there aren ’ t .
While 6 feet away from another person , it ’ s not like the virus will immediately decide to drop dead .
That ’ s why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of many dimensions : so we can each think critically and not fall back on rules that are too simplified .
“ When I first said restaurants were risks , people interpreted that as ‘ every restaurant is a risk , ’ ” Bromage says .
“ Each restaurant has its own unique environment , its own unique challenges that need to be worked out .
If you ’ ve got a large open-seating area , and you can open up the windows and doors ... the risk there is much lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that creates that really intimate atmosphere.
” When we venture out into the world , we need to remember we can reduce risk , but never eliminate it .
“ Wearing a mask is not going to completely reduce your risk , hand-washing is not going to completely reduce your risk , and staying a distance away from people in an enclosed space is not going to completely reduce your risk , ” Haas , the Drexel professor says .
“ But the concurrent use of all those strategies will hopefully reduce your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can never get to zero .
There ’ s no such thing as zero risk.
” And we still need more data .
Contact tracing studies have taught us a lot so far .
But as of now , most of this work has been done in Asian countries , which may have different expectations around mask-wearing , among other differences .
“ Contact tracing , testing , isolating — these are the building blocks to understand where the transmission is occurring , ” Cevik says .
And the more we learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop the spread of this pandemic .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

When states had strict stay-at-home orders and lockdowns in place, many decisions about the risk of getting the coronavirus were simple. People didn’t have to think about whether dining in a restaurant is safe if the restaurant was closed.
Now, that states are opening up — with varying degrees of precautions and adherence in place — individuals will need to weigh some risks on their own.
It isn’t easy; information about what’s safe, and what’s not, can be contradictory and confusing. A state may allow restaurants to reopen and concerts to resume, but should you really go? Is it safer if people are only allowed to dine outside?
The hunger for guidance is clear: On May 6, infectious disease expert Erin Bromage posted a blog post summarizing the evidence of coronavirus transmission risks, and 17 million people have since read it, he says. The CDC didn’t post its own updated guidance for individuals and events venturing out into a post-lockdown world until June 12. Perhaps a bit too late, as new cases and hospitalizations are currently rising in several states.
As Bromage conveys, the scientific understanding of how the virus transmits in public is improving. Contact tracing studies around the world have taken a magnifying glass to the “superspreading” events, where one person ends up infecting dozens of others. These studies shine a light on the key risk factors that create dangerous situations.
From these studies, one thing is clear: 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).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) emphasizes the risk of close contact over other modes of transmission. “The virus does not spread easily in other ways,” the CDC writes. It’s still possible that a person can catch it from touching a contaminated surface (more on that below.). But it’s “not thought to be the main way the virus spreads,” the CDC states.
As Bromage put it in his piece, “We know most people get infected in their own home,” from housemates or family members who caught the virus in the community.
So how can we assess the risk of going places outside the home?
The story is a little more complicated than the simple “stay 6 feet away” guidelines. Coronavirus risk is simply not one-dimensional. We need to think about risk in four dimensions: distance to other people, environment, activity, and time spent together.
Let’s walk through them.
A simple suggestion: Imagine people are smoking, or farting really bad, and try to avoid breathing it in
It’s easy to get into the weeds talking about the risk of catching and spreading the coronavirus as people reenter communal spaces in society. We can talk about the number of viral-laden droplets expelled by a single breath (a lot, perhaps 100 or more), by a person talking (10 times more than breathing), about how far a sneeze can propel those droplets (much farther than 6 feet), how long those viral droplets linger in the air (around eight to 14 minutes, at least in a controlled indoor lab setting).
But really, what all this means is that the greatest Covid-19 risk is being around breathing, laughing, coughing, sneezing, talking, people.
It’s still hard to visualize the risk, though, as the respiratory droplets are invisible to our eyes.
Perhaps helpful: Imagine everyone is smoking, as Ed Yong reported in the Atlantic, and you’d like to avoid inhaling as much smoke as possible. In a cramped indoor space, that smoke is going to get dense and heavy fast. If the windows are open, some of that smoke will blow away. If fewer people are in the space, less smoke will accumulate, and it might not waft over to you if you’re standing far enough away. But spend a lot of time in an enclosed space with those people, and the smoke grows denser.
The denser the smoke, the more likely it is to affect you. It’s the same with this virus: The more of it you inhale, the more likely you are to get sick.
An alternative image to thinking about this risk: “With my kids, I just sort of joke around that if you can smell their farts, you need to move farther apart,” Bromage says. So if not smoking, imagine everyone is farting. Keep this in mind and surely you’ll realize outdoor activities are better than indoor ones. “This tells you the gradient of risk,” Bromage says. “The closer you are, the more it’s gonna smell, the more dangerous it is.“
At a barbecue, you can still imagine being close enough to people to smell their farts. So even in outdoor spaces, we need to limit our contacts.
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.
There are many scenarios in between. “In general, outdoors is lower risk,” Muge Cevik, a physician and virology expert at the University of St. Andrews, says. But “if you have a gathering or a barbecue outside, and you spent all day together with your friends, your risk is still higher.”
What recent contact tracing studies can teach us about risk
Scientists pointed out a few recent contact tracing studies that nicely illustrate the dimensions of Covid-19 risk.
In China, 8,437 shoppers and employees of a supermarket were tracked in late January after one of the employees was confirmed positive with Covid-19 while working in the store.
The risk for infection was much higher for the workers than for the shoppers. Around 9 percent of the supermarket employees (11 out of 120 employees) got sick as a result. But just 0.02 percent of the shoppers (2 out of 8,224 shoppers) got sick.
What does this show?
The employees are at a much larger risk due to the time they spent working in the store. Both the employees and shoppers were in the same physical space, but their risk was not the same. (The study did not note whether the shoppers and customers were wearing masks in the store.) The employees may have interacted more with their colleagues, but they also had a greater chance of breathing in the virus.
What we should learn from this: If we have to spend time with people indoors, try to make it quick.
Another recent study out of China investigated an outbreak that started at a Buddhist temple event.
Two buses brought people to the function. On one of the buses, there was a person who later tested positive for the coronavirus who had not yet started to feel symptoms. The other bus was free of infected people.
Both buses brought people to the same temple, where they mixed and mingled outdoors*. But who was most at risk of getting sick? Those who rode the bus with the infected person. Twenty-four out of 67 people on that bus got sick. No one on the other bus did. The event was attended by another 172 people who arrived by other transportation. Only seven of these people got sick.
The lesson? The confines of a bus are a much riskier environment for viral spread than a larger outdoor space, like at the temple. The risk at the temple was not zero. But it was much reduced compared to the confines of the bus. And it appears those who were exposed at the temple were in close contact with the infected person.
“When you look at public transport, work spaces, restaurants — places where we’re just trying to fit many people in a small confined space — respiratory viruses like those spaces,” Cevik says. It’s “just common sense.”
There’s no set time that’s safe to be in these places. “Generally, for droplet transmission, we say 15 minutes,” Cevik says. “So if you spend 15 minutes face to face with somebody, you’re close contact [and at high risk], but that doesn’t mean if you spend 14 minutes your risk is zero.” And if you have to choose between a big open indoor space and a smaller one, choose the larger one, where people can spread out.
It’s not just the location or the time spent together: The activity people are engaged in matters, too.
In Washington state, a person with the virus attended a choir practice, and more than half of the other singers subsequently got sick. This was labeled a “superspreading” event, as one infection led to 32 others. Why was this so risky?
“The superspreading event is about the behavior of the person involved,” Cevik says. There are many reasons why a person could become a “superspreader”: Some people shed more of the virus than others, and it appears people shed most of it when they are just starting to feel symptoms.
But what made this event so risky was the convergence of many risk factors: the singing activity (during which the infected person released viral particles into the air), the time spent together (the practice was 2.5 hours), and the interaction between the choir members in an enclosed space (not only did they all practice together, they also split up into smaller groups and shared cookies and tea).
In a new paper published by CDC, researchers in Japan identified 61 clusters (five or more cases stemming from a common event) of Covid-19 cases. The researchers found most commonly the clusters originated in health care facilities. But outside of that they note “many Covid-19 clusters were associated with heavy breathing in close proximity, such as singing at karaoke parties, cheering at clubs, having conversations in bars, and exercising in gymnasiums,” the scientists wrote.
Notably, too, were the ages of the people who instigated spread outside of the health care settings. “Half ... were 20–39 years of age,” the report finds. Which is a reminder: younger people can catch the virus, survive, but at the same time spread it to others who may die from it.
What about touching something with infected droplets? Is that still a risk?
According to the CDC, the coronavirus does not often spread from people touching surfaces. That is, if someone with Covid-19 touches a hand railing, does that make that hand railing dangerous for other people to touch? The CDC is now saying that such events are not a huge risk for Covid-19 transmission.
But, there’s a catch: It is still the case that surface transmission is possible. Scientists believe the virus can remain viable on a hard, non-porous surface like plastic or steel for around three days, and a rough surface like cardboard for about a day. You could, conceivably, touch a contaminated surface, and then touch your face, and get sick. (The good news is that even though some virus can remain on a surface for a day or more, the amount of virus on a given surface drops by half after several hours, and then continues dropping.)
Bromage cautions it’s just really hard to study surface transmission. In contact tracing studies, it’s much easier to ask people who they’ve been in contact with than to have them remember every surface they’ve touched.
“I agree with this [CDC] statement,” Cevik says, agreeing that surfaces aren’t the most significant mode of transmission. “But this does not mean it does not happen.” Cevik points me to a contact tracing study that suggests (with a good deal of uncertainty) that some people caught the infection in a mall via the restroom. “Bottom line,” she says, “it’s still important to maintain personal hygiene and wash hands.”
Also consider how scientists recently found live Covid-19 virus in feces. So good bathroom hygiene is still as important as ever.
There are no magic numbers to eliminate risk
It would be great if there were very specific numbers and guidelines we could follow to minimize coronavirus risk to zero.
But there aren’t. While 6 feet away from another person, it’s not like the virus will immediately decide to drop dead. That’s why we need to think of risk in terms of many dimensions: so we can each think critically and not fall back on rules that are too simplified.
“When I first said restaurants were risks, people interpreted that as ‘every restaurant is a risk,’” Bromage says. “Each restaurant has its own unique environment, its own unique challenges that need to be worked out. If you’ve got a large open-seating area, and you can open up the windows and doors ... the risk there is much lower than a boutique restaurant with five tables that creates that really intimate atmosphere.”
When we venture out into the world, we need to remember we can reduce risk, but never eliminate it.
“Wearing a mask is not going to completely reduce your risk, hand-washing is not going to completely reduce your risk, and staying a distance away from people in an enclosed space is not going to completely reduce your risk,” Haas, the Drexel professor, says. “But the concurrent use of all those strategies will hopefully reduce your risk down to a lower level. We can never get to zero. There’s no such thing as zero risk.”
And we still need more data, and follow-up on potential exposures. A hair salon in Missouri made headlines when a couple of their hair stylists were reportedly back at work after testing positive for Covid-19. Both hairdressers wore masks, and so did their clients, and a follow-up investigation by their county health department revealed no new infections among the 140 clients they saw.
This data point is a bit anecdotal. “I think they got lucky,” Bromage says. “But it does highlight the importance of masks.” Perhaps more data will reveal that getting a haircut while everyone is wearing a mask is a low-risk activity.
Contact tracing studies have taught us a lot so far. But as of now, most of this work has been done in Asian countries, which may have different expectations around mask-wearing, among other differences.
“Contact tracing, testing, isolating — these are the building blocks to understand where the transmission is occurring,” Cevik says. And the more we learn, the more power we have to stop the spread of this pandemic.
*This piece was updated to clarify the temple event occured outdoors.


vox--2020-05-22--How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic, in one chart

How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic , in one chart Share All sharing options for : How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic , in one chart Since coronavirus lockdowns began in the US , most Americans have drastically changed their patterns : following instructions to stay home , limiting almost all contact with others , and venturing out only for essential trips and exercise .
As states begin to ease social distancing restrictions , people are beginning to have more options .
Between those wanting to patronize newly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more employers calling people back to work , survey and cellphone data suggests people are already starting to trickle out of their homes .
But for many people , it ’ s really not clear which kinds of gatherings are safe and which aren ’ t .
And that uncertainty can spark anxiety .
Fortunately , health experts know more about the coronavirus than they did when the lockdowns began , and they can point us to different levels of risk as we begin to reengage .
There ’ s also advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s been a polarization between two purported options of staying home indefinitely … versus going back to business as usual , ” Julia Marcus , an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard , told me .
“ The idea of harm reduction gives us a way of thinking about risk as a continuum and thinking about the middle ground between those two options.
” Marcus and Boston University epidemiologist Eleanor Murray created an infographic showing the different scales of risk .
We at Vox were inspired by it and , with Marcus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it : “ A lot of people , when they hear that you can ’ t completely get rid of your risk , they think , ‘ Well , that means that it ’ s inevitable , and I ’ ll just go and do everything that I was normally doing before , and if I get sick , I get sick , ’ ” Murray told me .
“ But there are lots of things you can do in between nothing and everything.
” First and foremost , the advice that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few months remains true : Your home is still the safest place to be during this pandemic .
You should continue trying to stay home as much as possible , because the virus is still circulating at a very high rate in many communities .
( If you want to be extra careful , some resources , like Covid Act Now , help show how much transmission there is in your area . )
But whether you need to for work or you ’ re simply tired of looking at your home ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mitigate risk when you go out .
For one , outdoors is generally safer , thanks to the open air — where the virus can more easily disperse — and , potentially , the warm , sunny weather .
As Duke health policy expert Mark McClellan told me , “ It ’ s a good year for outdoor dining and outdoor shopping and outdoor all kinds of activities.
” It also matters who you ’ re hanging out with .
It ’ s okay to closely interact with people you live with ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then whoever ’ s sick should isolate ) .
But you should try to keep your distance from people you don ’ t live with .
And you should try to avoid interacting with too many people at once ; even if it ’ s theoretically possible to keep 6 feet from others in a crowded space , it ’ s still better to avoid it .
That ’ s true for the outdoors , but it ’ s especially true for the indoors .
When you go out , also take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t touch your face .
Wear a mask , particularly in indoor public spaces .
Avoid shared surfaces and crowded settings , and keep physical distance — at least 6 feet — from people you don ’ t live with .
If you ’ re 65 or older or have chronic health conditions that could exacerbate Covid-19 , you should take all of this advice more seriously .
Separately , experts say it ’ s a good idea to space out trips outside your home as much as possible — ideally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus ’ s incubation period .
You could also establish a “ closed circle ” with people you want to regularly interact with , in which both sides agree to minimize contact with anyone else ( although some experts are skeptical of this idea ) .
With these tips , you can ’ t completely eliminate the risk of leaving your home .
But you can greatly reduce that risk .
For some , that could make the prospects of going out — and the benefits going out can entail for your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feasible .
It all begins , though , with the understanding that risk during the coronavirus pandemic is really a spectrum , not a black-and-white choice .
“ People will take risks , whether we like it or not , ” Marcus said .
“ The best thing we can do is give them strategies to reduce harm in those situations .
If we don ’ t do that , we ’ re missing an opportunity.
” For more detailed tips for going out and the explanations for them , read Vox ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic, in one chart
Share All sharing options for: How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic, in one chart
Since coronavirus lockdowns began in the US, most Americans have drastically changed their patterns: following instructions to stay home, limiting almost all contact with others, and venturing out only for essential trips and exercise.
As states have eased social distancing restrictions, and with the July Fourth weekend approaching, people are beginning to have more options. Between those wanting to patronize newly reopened businesses or socialize in person, and more employers calling people back to work, survey and cellphone data suggests people are already starting to trickle out of their homes.
But for many people, it’s really not clear which kinds of gatherings are safe and which aren’t. And that uncertainty can spark anxiety.
Fortunately, health experts know more about the coronavirus than they did when the lockdowns began, and they can point us to different levels of risk as we begin to reengage. There’s also advice on how to minimize harm.
“There’s been a polarization between two purported options of staying home indefinitely … versus going back to business as usual,” Julia Marcus, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard, told me. “The idea of harm reduction gives us a way of thinking about risk as a continuum and thinking about the middle ground between those two options.”
Marcus and Boston University epidemiologist Eleanor Murray created an infographic showing the different scales of risk. We at Vox were inspired by it and, with Marcus and Murray’s permission, adapted it:
“A lot of people, when they hear that you can’t completely get rid of your risk, they think, ‘Well, that means that it’s inevitable, and I’ll just go and do everything that I was normally doing before, and if I get sick, I get sick,’” Murray told me. “But there are lots of things you can do in between nothing and everything.”
First and foremost, the advice that has been repeated for much of the past few months remains true: Your home is still the safest place to be during this pandemic. You should continue trying to stay home as much as possible, because the virus is still circulating at a very high rate in many communities. (If you want to be extra careful, some resources, like Covid Act Now, help show how much transmission there is in your area.)
But whether you need to for work or you’re simply tired of looking at your home’s walls, there are ways to mitigate risk when you go out.
For one, outdoors is generally safer, thanks to the open air — where the virus can more easily disperse — and, potentially, the warm, sunny weather. As Duke health policy expert Mark McClellan told me, “It’s a good year for outdoor dining and outdoor shopping and outdoor all kinds of activities.”
It also matters who you’re hanging out with. It’s okay to closely interact with people you live with (unless one of you gets sick; then whoever’s sick should isolate). But you should try to keep your distance from people you don’t live with. And you should try to avoid interacting with too many people at once; even if it’s theoretically possible to keep 6 feet from others in a crowded space, it’s still better to avoid it. That’s true for the outdoors, but it’s especially true for the indoors.
When you go out, also take the now-familiar precautions: Wash your hands. Don’t touch your face. Wear a mask, particularly in indoor public spaces. Avoid shared surfaces and crowded settings, and keep physical distance — at least 6 feet — from people you don’t live with. If you’re 65 or older or have chronic health conditions that could exacerbate Covid-19, you should take all of this advice more seriously.
Separately, experts say it’s a good idea to space out trips outside your home as much as possible — ideally, by two weeks, to match the virus’s incubation period. You could also establish a “closed circle” with people you want to regularly interact with, in which both sides agree to minimize contact with anyone else (although some experts are skeptical of this idea).
With these tips, you can’t completely eliminate the risk of leaving your home. But you can greatly reduce that risk. For some, that could make the prospects of going out — with the benefits that going out can entail for your physical and mental health — much more feasible.
It all begins, though, with the understanding that risk during the coronavirus pandemic is really a spectrum, not a black-and-white choice.
“People will take risks, whether we like it or not,” Marcus said. “The best thing we can do is give them strategies to reduce harm in those situations. If we don’t do that, we’re missing an opportunity.”
For more detailed tips for going out and the explanations for them, read Vox’s full explainer.