vox--2020-05-16--Rep. Justin Amash ends his third-party White House bid

Rep. Justin Amash , the independent Michigan congressman who said in April he was considering running for president as a third party candidate , has announced he ’ s decided not to pursue a bid for the White House .
“ After much reflection , I ’ ve concluded that circumstances don ’ t lend themselves to my success as a candidate for president this year , and therefore I will not be a candidate , ” he tweeted Saturday .
Amash had said last month that he was seeking the Libertarian Party ’ s nomination , and that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a “ principled president who will defend the Constitution and put individuals first.
” It was a decision that , as Vox ’ s Jane Coaston explained , brought an “ angry response ” from a number of groups concerned Amash would draw just enough votes away from their preferred candidate to cost him victory — as well as some concern from libertarians : Reactions to his announcement came fast and furious , particularly from Never Trump conservatives concerned he could pull votes away from Joe Biden and help incumbent Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lack of national name recognition and the historic lack of success for third-party candidates .
A writer at the conservative-leaning blog Ordinary Times said Amash ’ s 2020 campaign would be “ something 10 years from now you will be mildly upset for not remembering during a rousing round of bar trivia while waiting on your wings at B-Dubs.
” And while Amash is popular among libertarians , he has not previously identified with the party , leading some to feel as if the Libertarian Party is , as Reason Magazine ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seconds ” for former Republicans .
“ If he wins the nomination , it ’ s the fourth consecutive former Republican elected official [ to win ] , ” Welch said .
“ It kind of starts making you feel a little bit used.
” When Coaston asked Amash about this less than stellar reception , he emphasized that he believed the presidential race needed a candidate with “ the practical ideas I ’ d bring to the table , ” and that he could bring a vision of government people were hungry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind , ” he told Coaston .
“ They don ’ t feel like they ’ re being treated fairly .
They want to be treated with respect .
And right now we have a government that doesn ’ t do that , and people have an opportunity in this election to change that.
” But since speaking with Vox , Amash has decided that the timing wasn ’ t right .
And a lot of that has to do with the coronavirus pandemic .
In a series of tweets , he explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to drop his exploration of a bid for the White House , including polarization in the media environment , the challenges of fundraising during an economic crisis , and an increased dependence on media appearances due to social distancing .
Amash also suggested the pandemic might make the public less interested in the unorthodox policy discussions that he planned to make central to his libertarian campaign .
“ Today , most Americans are understandably more interested in what life will look like tomorrow than they are in broader policy debates , and news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
Amash , who is 40 years old and has a photo of libertarian icon Ayn Rand displayed in his office , has had a unique political trajectory in congressional politics .
He joined Congress in 2010 as part of the Tea Party wave , and was a founding member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus that has often been a thorn in the GOP leadership ’ s side with its extreme demands .
But he has also been a persistent critic of Trump and the president ’ s influence over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amash became the first — and only — Republican to call for Trump ’ s impeachment .
His dissatisfaction with the party system led him to formally leave the Republican party last summer and declare himself an independent .
And he was the only conservative lawmaker in the House to vote for Trump ’ s impeachment .
Now , Amash has retired from the 2020 presidential race .
But even in doing so , he reflected the thinking that led him to leave his former party , saying Saturday , “ I continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the old parties , offering a vision of government grounded in liberty and equality , can break through in the right environment.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Rep. Justin Amash, the independent Michigan congressman who said in April he was considering running for president as a third party candidate, has announced he’s decided not to pursue a bid for the White House.
“After much reflection, I’ve concluded that circumstances don’t lend themselves to my success as a candidate for president this year, and therefore I will not be a candidate,” he tweeted Saturday.
After much reflection, I’ve concluded that circumstances don’t lend themselves to my success as a candidate for president this year, and therefore I will not be a candidate. — Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 16, 2020
Amash had said last month that he was seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination, and that he’d pursue the White House to be a “principled president who will defend the Constitution and put individuals first.”
It was a decision that, as Vox’s Jane Coaston explained, brought an “angry response” from a number of groups concerned Amash would draw just enough votes away from their preferred candidate to cost him victory — as well as some concern from libertarians:
Reactions to his announcement came fast and furious, particularly from Never Trump conservatives concerned he could pull votes away from Joe Biden and help incumbent Donald Trump win reelection. Others noted Amash’s lack of national name recognition and the historic lack of success for third-party candidates. A writer at the conservative-leaning blog Ordinary Times said Amash’s 2020 campaign would be “something 10 years from now you will be mildly upset for not remembering during a rousing round of bar trivia while waiting on your wings at B-Dubs.” ... And while Amash is popular among libertarians, he has not previously identified with the party, leading some to feel as if the Libertarian Party is, as Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch said, “sloppy seconds” for former Republicans. “If he wins the nomination, it’s the fourth consecutive former Republican elected official [to win],” Welch said. “It kind of starts making you feel a little bit used.”
When Coaston asked Amash about this less than stellar reception, he emphasized that he believed the presidential race needed a candidate with “the practical ideas I’d bring to the table,” and that he could bring a vision of government people were hungry for.
“People are being left behind,” he told Coaston. “They don’t feel like they’re being treated fairly. They want to be treated with respect. And right now we have a government that doesn’t do that, and people have an opportunity in this election to change that.”
But since speaking with Vox, Amash has decided that the timing wasn’t right. And a lot of that has to do with the coronavirus pandemic.
In a series of tweets, he explained that several factors contributed to his decision to drop his exploration of a bid for the White House, including polarization in the media environment, the challenges of fundraising during an economic crisis, and an increased dependence on media appearances due to social distancing.
Amash also suggested the pandemic might make the public less interested in the unorthodox policy discussions that he planned to make central to his libertarian campaign.
“Today, most Americans are understandably more interested in what life will look like tomorrow than they are in broader policy debates, and news coverage has reflected those priorities,” he said.
Amash, who is 40 years old and has a photo of libertarian icon Ayn Rand displayed in his office, has had a unique political trajectory in congressional politics. He joined Congress in 2010 as part of the Tea Party wave, and was a founding member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus that has often been a thorn in the GOP leadership’s side with its extreme demands.
But he has also been a persistent critic of Trump and the president’s influence over the GOP — in May 2019, Amash became the first — and only — Republican to call for Trump’s impeachment. His dissatisfaction with the party system led him to formally leave the Republican party last summer and declare himself an independent. And he was the only conservative lawmaker in the House to vote for Trump’s impeachment.
Now, Amash has retired from the 2020 presidential race. But even in doing so, he reflected the thinking that led him to leave his former party, saying Saturday, “I continue to believe that a candidate from outside the old parties, offering a vision of government grounded in liberty and equality, can break through in the right environment.”


vox--2020-05-16--Trump continues purging inspectors general, removing a State Department watchdog

President Donald Trump fired State Department Inspector General Steve Linick on Friday , continuing a pattern of ousting independent watchdogs that has alarmed government ethics experts and top Democrats .
Linick ’ s firing is of particular concern to both groups — Democrats have described the inspector general ’ s removal as an apparent attempt to retaliate against Linick for reportedly opening an investigation into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
A Democratic congressional aide told Vox ’ s Alex Ward Linick was looking into the potential “ misuse of a political appointee ” by Pompeo , including having that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the secretary of state and his wife .
And CNN reports that a State Department official “ confirmed that Pompeo made the recommendation that Linick be removed , but the official did not know the reasons why.
” “ The President ’ s late-night , weekend firing of the State Department Inspector General has accelerated his dangerous pattern of retaliation against the patriotic public servants charged with conducting oversight on behalf of the American people , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement .
“ Inspector General Linick was punished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution and our national security , as required by the law and by his oath.
” Rep. Eliot Engel ( D-NY ) , chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , also criticized the president in unusually harsh terms .
“ This firing is the outrageous act of a President trying to protect one of his most loyal supporters , the Secretary of State , from accountability , ” he said in a statement .
“ I have learned that the Office of the Inspector General had opened an investigation into Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid such a probe strongly suggests that this is an unlawful act of retaliation.
” Trump did not specify why he believes Linick needs to be removed in a letter he sent to Pelosi and other leaders , informing them of his intent to remove Linick from his post in 30 days ( the amount of advanced notice that must be given to lawmakers for personnel changes like this ) .
Instead , the president wrote he “ no longer ” has the “ fullest confidence ” in the inspector general .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo may be behind this loss of confidence , it ’ s also possible that Trump plans to release Linick due to his small role in 2019 ’ s impeachment proceedings .
While he did not testify , Linick did hand over documents to Congress that had been given to the State Department by Rudy Giuliani , the president ’ s personal lawyer .
A number of officials involved in those proceedings were removed from their posts , including Michael Atkinson , the former inspector general of the intelligence community ; Gordon Sondland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU ; and Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman .
Linick , who was appointed to his role as the watchdog of the State Department by President Barack Obama in 2013 , will be replaced by Stephen Akard .
A former Foreign Service officer who leads the State Department ’ s Office of Foreign Missions , Akard previously served as chief of staff for the Indiana Economic Development Corporation under then-Gov .
Mike Pence .
In general , the job of an inspector general is a nonpartisan one — they are tasked with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efficiency and detect fraud , waste , abuse , and mismanagement — but Trump ’ s critics fear he has removed Linick for purely political reasons .
And Democrats have signaled plans to investigate Linick ’ s dismissal before his tenure ends in June .
Saturday , Engel and the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations committee , Sen. Bob Menendez , sent the White House a letter promising to “ look deeply into ” the inspector general ’ s removal .
To facilitate this inquiry , the lawmakers requested the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Linick ’ s removal — and to send those documents to Congress by May 22 .
Trump ’ s firing of Linick is only the latest incident of the president removing inspectors general whom he sees as disloyal or a potential obstacle to his political agenda .
At the beginning of May , Trump moved to replace Christi Grimm , the principal deputy inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services , weeks after she put out a report that pointed out shortages of testing supplies at hospitals as the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Vox ’ s Alex Ward explained after the announcement , Trump ’ s anger at Grimm for embarrassing him by publishing a report on the facts of the situation was easy to discern : Trump was asked about this report during an April 6 press conference with the government ’ s coronavirus task force .
He fumed at the conclusions .
“ It ’ s just wrong .
Did I hear the word ‘ inspector general ’ ?
Really ?
It ’ s wrong .
And they ’ ll talk to you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he asserted .
And then he wanted to know exactly who wrote the report .
“ Where did he come from — the inspector general ?
What ’ s his name ?
... No , what ’ s his name ?
What ’ s his name ?
...
If you find me his name , I ’ d appreciate it.
” When it became clear to him that Grimm served in the Obama administration , he derided the report as “ a typical fake-news deal.
” But , Grimm is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government since the Clinton administration and has worked for two Democrats and two Republicans , including Trump .
She took over her current role as acting inspector general after the last person in that position left .
Trump ’ s move to replace Grimm came after firing two other inspector generals the previous month .
In April he fired Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson , who forwarded the Ukraine whistleblower ’ s report to Congress and triggered Trump ’ s impeachment .
Then , just days later , Trump ousted Glenn Fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense Department , from his job overseeing coronavirus relief spending .
Government ethics experts have consistently sounded the alarms over Trump ’ s firing spree and have described it as an authoritarian governance strategy .
“ The assault on the [ inspector generals ] is late-stage corruption , and Trump ’ s kicking down one of the last bulwarks that stand between us and the burgeoning corruption-driven authoritarianism , ” tweeted Walter Shaub , the former White House ethics chief who resigned in 2017 , in response to Linick ’ s ouster , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signs of a “ collapsing republic.
” 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 .

President Donald Trump fired State Department Inspector General Steve Linick on Friday, continuing a pattern of ousting independent watchdogs that has alarmed government ethics experts and top Democrats.
Linick’s firing is of particular concern to both groups — Democrats have described the inspector general’s removal as an apparent attempt to retaliate against Linick for reportedly opening an investigation into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
A Democratic congressional aide told Vox’s Alex Ward Linick was looking into the potential “misuse of a political appointee” by Pompeo, including having that appointee carry out “personal tasks” for the secretary of state and his wife.
And CNN reports that a State Department official “confirmed that Pompeo made the recommendation that Linick be removed, but the official did not know the reasons why.”
“The President’s late-night, weekend firing of the State Department Inspector General has accelerated his dangerous pattern of retaliation against the patriotic public servants charged with conducting oversight on behalf of the American people,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. “Inspector General Linick was punished for honorably performing his duty to protect the Constitution and our national security, as required by the law and by his oath.”
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also criticized the president in unusually harsh terms.
“This firing is the outrageous act of a President trying to protect one of his most loyal supporters, the Secretary of State, from accountability,” he said in a statement. “I have learned that the Office of the Inspector General had opened an investigation into Secretary Pompeo. Mr. Linick’s firing amid such a probe strongly suggests that this is an unlawful act of retaliation.”
Trump did not specify why he believes Linick needs to be removed in a letter he sent to Pelosi and other leaders, informing them of his intent to remove Linick from his post in 30 days (the amount of advanced notice that must be given to lawmakers for personnel changes like this). Instead, the president wrote he “no longer” has the “fullest confidence” in the inspector general.
While Democrats appear to believe an inquiry into Pompeo may be behind this loss of confidence, it’s also possible that Trump plans to release Linick due to his small role in 2019’s impeachment proceedings. While he did not testify, Linick did hand over documents to Congress that had been given to the State Department by Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer. A number of officials involved in those proceedings were removed from their posts, including Michael Atkinson, the former inspector general of the intelligence community; Gordon Sondland, the former US ambassador to the EU; and Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.
Linick, who was appointed to his role as the watchdog of the State Department by President Barack Obama in 2013, will be replaced by Stephen Akard. A former Foreign Service officer who leads the State Department’s Office of Foreign Missions, Akard previously served as chief of staff for the Indiana Economic Development Corporation under then-Gov. Mike Pence.
In general, the job of an inspector general is a nonpartisan one — they are tasked with auditing and investigating government agencies to evaluate efficiency and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement — but Trump’s critics fear he has removed Linick for purely political reasons.
And Democrats have signaled plans to investigate Linick’s dismissal before his tenure ends in June. Saturday, Engel and the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Sen. Bob Menendez, sent the White House a letter promising to “look deeply into” the inspector general’s removal. To facilitate this inquiry, the lawmakers requested the Trump administration to preserve all records related to Linick’s removal — and to send those documents to Congress by May 22.
Trump is developing a habit of firing watchdogs
Trump’s firing of Linick is only the latest incident of the president removing inspectors general whom he sees as disloyal or a potential obstacle to his political agenda.
At the beginning of May, Trump moved to replace Christi Grimm, the principal deputy inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services, weeks after she put out a report that pointed out shortages of testing supplies at hospitals as the coronavirus pandemic was spreading across the US.
As Vox’s Alex Ward explained after the announcement, Trump’s anger at Grimm for embarrassing him by publishing a report on the facts of the situation was easy to discern:
Trump was asked about this report during an April 6 press conference with the government’s coronavirus task force. He fumed at the conclusions. “It’s just wrong. Did I hear the word ‘inspector general’? Really? It’s wrong. And they’ll talk to you about it. It’s wrong,” he asserted. And then he wanted to know exactly who wrote the report. “Where did he come from — the inspector general? What’s his name? ... No, what’s his name? What’s his name? ... If you find me his name, I’d appreciate it.” When it became clear to him that Grimm served in the Obama administration, he derided the report as “a typical fake-news deal.” But, Grimm is a career official who’s been in government since the Clinton administration and has worked for two Democrats and two Republicans, including Trump. She took over her current role as acting inspector general after the last person in that position left.
Trump’s move to replace Grimm came after firing two other inspector generals the previous month.
In April he fired Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who forwarded the Ukraine whistleblower’s report to Congress and triggered Trump’s impeachment. Then, just days later, Trump ousted Glenn Fine, the acting inspector general for the Defense Department, from his job overseeing coronavirus relief spending.
Government ethics experts have consistently sounded the alarms over Trump’s firing spree and have described it as an authoritarian governance strategy.
“The assault on the [inspector generals] is late-stage corruption, and Trump’s kicking down one of the last bulwarks that stand between us and the burgeoning corruption-driven authoritarianism,” tweeted Walter Shaub, the former White House ethics chief who resigned in 2017, in response to Linick’s ouster, adding that Trump’s moves are signs of a “collapsing republic.”


vox--2020-05-16--A US immigration agency could run out of money by the end of summer without a $1.2 billion bailout

US Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) is asking Congress for a $ 1.2 billion bailout .
The agency claims it will run out of money by the end of the summer without aid due to a decline in immigration caused by the coronavirus pandemic .
Unlike other federal agencies , USCIS receives almost no taxpayer dollars , and is dependent on fees associated with filing applications for green cards , visas , work permits , US citizenship , and humanitarian benefits such as asylum .
The pandemic has already brought on a “ dramatic decrease ” in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as applications are estimated to drop by about 61 percent through September , an agency spokesperson said .
President Donald Trump ’ s restrictions on immigration , other countries ’ restrictions on travel and the fact that necessary government offices aren ’ t open to process applications have all contributed to this decline .
To mitigate the budget shortfall , USCIS is planning to implement an additional 10 percent surcharge on all applications and sought Congress ’ s help on Friday , Buzzfeed ’ s Hamed Aleaziz first reported .
The agency has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission-critical activities , but “ without congressional intervention , USCIS will have to take drastic actions to keep the agency afloat , ” the spokesperson said .
Immigration has come nearly to a standstill over the past two months .
The Trump administration has shuttered USCIS offices , closed consulates abroad , shut down the borders with Canada and Mexico and imposed a 60-day ban on the issuance of new green cards .
Asylum processing at the southern border has also practically stopped , as Trump administration officials implemented a program to rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a health exam .
While brought on by the pandemic , this kind of decrease in legal immigration is what Trump has long sought .
He has railed against what he calls “ chain migration , ” referring to US citizens or permanent residents who sponsor their immigrant family members for visas and green cards .
And he has sought to keep poor immigrants out by proposing to reject those who don ’ t have health insurance or who might use public benefits in the future .
( Courts have blocked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going into effect for now , but the policy affecting immigrants who might go on public benefits went into effect in February . )
USCIS hasn ’ t released data on how many applications it has received since the pandemic started , but has acknowledged applications are on the decline .
The latest available comprehensive data , from October 2019 to December 2019 , had actually shown a spike in applications — more than 1.9 million , as compared to 1.7 million in the preceding three months .
Applications dipped in March as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across several temporary visa categories , including visas for people transferring within a multinational company , those who show extraordinary ability or achievement in particular industries , athletes , entertainers , and religious workers .
It ’ s likely that applications plunged even further in April as the US instituted immigration restrictions and stay-at-home orders , and as economic opportunities dried up .
USCIS ’ s funding shortfall could be exacerbated as Trump weighs additional restrictions on temporary visa holders in the coming weeks .
The New York Times reported that he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visas , such as H-1B visas for skilled workers and H-2B visas for seasonal non-agricultural workers , as well as ending a program that allows foreign students to work in the US for up to three years post-graduation .
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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is asking Congress for a $1.2 billion bailout. The agency claims it will run out of money by the end of the summer without aid due to a decline in immigration caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
Unlike other federal agencies, USCIS receives almost no taxpayer dollars, and is dependent on fees associated with filing applications for green cards, visas, work permits, US citizenship, and humanitarian benefits such as asylum. The pandemic has already brought on a “dramatic decrease” in its revenue that is only likely to worsen as applications are estimated to drop by about 61 percent through September, an agency spokesperson said. President Donald Trump’s restrictions on immigration, other countries’ restrictions on travel and the fact that necessary government offices aren’t open to process applications have all contributed to this decline.
To mitigate the budget shortfall, USCIS is planning to implement an additional 10 percent surcharge on all applications and sought Congress’s help on Friday, Buzzfeed’s Hamed Aleaziz first reported. The agency has also already limited spending to salary and mission-critical activities, but “without congressional intervention, USCIS will have to take drastic actions to keep the agency afloat,” the spokesperson said.
Why USCIS is facing a funding shortfall
Immigration has come nearly to a standstill over the past two months. The Trump administration has shuttered USCIS offices, closed consulates abroad, shut down the borders with Canada and Mexico and imposed a 60-day ban on the issuance of new green cards. Asylum processing at the southern border has also practically stopped, as Trump administration officials implemented a program to rapidly return migrants to Mexico without so much as a health exam.
While brought on by the pandemic, this kind of decrease in legal immigration is what Trump has long sought. He has railed against what he calls “chain migration,” referring to US citizens or permanent residents who sponsor their immigrant family members for visas and green cards. And he has sought to keep poor immigrants out by proposing to reject those who don’t have health insurance or who might use public benefits in the future. (Courts have blocked the restrictions on immigrants without health insurance from going into effect for now, but the policy affecting immigrants who might go on public benefits went into effect in February.)
USCIS hasn’t released data on how many applications it has received since the pandemic started, but has acknowledged applications are on the decline. The latest available comprehensive data, from October 2019 to December 2019, had actually shown a spike in applications — more than 1.9 million, as compared to 1.7 million in the preceding three months.
Applications dipped in March as compared to the same month last year across several temporary visa categories, including visas for people transferring within a multinational company, those who show extraordinary ability or achievement in particular industries, athletes, entertainers, and religious workers. It’s likely that applications plunged even further in April as the US instituted immigration restrictions and stay-at-home orders, and as economic opportunities dried up.
USCIS’s funding shortfall could be exacerbated as Trump weighs additional restrictions on temporary visa holders in the coming weeks. The New York Times reported that he is considering barring the issuance of new employment-based visas, such as H-1B visas for skilled workers and H-2B visas for seasonal non-agricultural workers, as well as ending a program that allows foreign students to work in the US for up to three years post-graduation.


vox--2020-05-16--The Navy grants the first exception to Trump’s transgender military ban

A transgender naval officer who is suing the Trump administration over a ban on service by openly trans military personnel was granted a waiver — the first ever — allowing her to serve in the US military according to her gender identity .
The acting Secretary of the Navy , James E. McPherson , approved the waiver on Thursday .
It allows the officer to obtain a gender marker change in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System ( DEERS ) that reflects her “ preferred gender , ” and allows her to adhere to standards associated with that gender , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer is the plaintiff in Doe v. Trump , the only lawsuit against the ban brought by a transgender active servicemember , according to attorneys at the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders ( GLAD ) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights ( NCLR ) who represented the officer in the suit .
In August 2017 , President Donald Trump tweeted that he would ban trans people from serving in the military .
In February the following year , the Department of Defense released formal guidelines instituting the ban that allowed trans people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did so in the gender role matching their assigned sex at birth .
Those guidelines also stated that a trans person could apply for a waiver from the transgender policy but those would only be granted “ on a case by case basis.
” It is unknown how many trans service people have applied for this waiver , but Thursday ’ s is the first that has been granted — and Shannon Minter , legal director at NCLR , believes the pressure created by the lawsuit is why .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place for more than a year and a number of service members seeking a waiver , that the first time the military has acted one way or the other , is with respect to the only person who has filed a lawsuit challenging the application of the policy , ” said Minter .
The lawsuit “ really jumps out as likely the reason that this particular waiver request has been acted upon.
” A Navy spokesperson did not answer detailed questions from Vox about why this particular officer ’ s waiver request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer ’ s lawsuit will move forward ; however , Minter believes it is now likely to be ruled moot because the suit was brought to ensure the officer could continue her service after transitioning , which the waiver now allows .
Three other lawsuits challenging the ban — all of which have plaintiffs who are not on active duty — have yet to be heard , however , meaning the courts could still weigh in on the constitutionality of the rule .
Initially , all four suits won preliminary injunctions against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the US Supreme Court stayed the injunctions in January 2019 , allowing it to be put in place while litigation works its way though the appeals process .
The stay was seen by many legal observers as a sign that the high court would likely uphold the ban if it is eventually heard .
The waiver process is opaque and exposes the hypocrisy of the ban There appear to be no publicly available guidelines for how waivers are adjudicated .
Navy spokesperson Lt. Brittany Stephens told Vox that waiver requests are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case-by-case basis ” in a process that weighs “ the unique facts and circumstances of each request.
” A lack of waiver application criteria — including , for instance , what supporting materials are needed and what sorts of facts are taken into consideration — has led to ambiguity and confusion , as well as concern from advocates like Minter that waivers will be granted on a politically expedient basis .
And what rules do exist expose the hypocrisy behind the ban itself — in part because requesting a waiver could lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines , a trans person being diagnosed with gender dysphoria requiring a gender transition makes a servicemember unfit to serve , resulting in a discharge .
However , trans troops who had already transitioned before the Trump ban was formally put into place were grandfathered in and allowed to continue serving .
This places trans troops in a difficult scenario — besides being forced to out themselves , servicepeople applying for a waiver who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria risk immediate discharge despite many of their colleagues with the same diagnosis being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minter calls “ inherently irrational.
” At the moment , there have been no reported cases of active duty trans servicemembers being discharged under the policy , but it remains an issue of concern — and , Minter says , is both unnecessary and unfair : “ As we know , being transgender in and of itself has no relevance to your ability or fitness to serve.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution @ @ @ @

A transgender naval officer who is suing the Trump administration over a ban on service by openly trans military personnel was granted a waiver — the first ever — allowing her to serve in the US military according to her gender identity.
The acting Secretary of the Navy, James E. McPherson, approved the waiver on Thursday. It allows the officer to obtain a gender marker change in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) that reflects her “preferred gender,” and allows her to adhere to standards associated with that gender, including with uniforms and grooming.
The officer is the plaintiff in Doe v. Trump, the only lawsuit against the ban brought by a transgender active servicemember, according to attorneys at the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) who represented the officer in the suit.
In August 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted that he would ban trans people from serving in the military. In February the following year, the Department of Defense released formal guidelines instituting the ban that allowed trans people to serve, but only if they did so in the gender role matching their assigned sex at birth.
Those guidelines also stated that a trans person could apply for a waiver from the transgender policy but those would only be granted “on a case by case basis.”
It is unknown how many trans service people have applied for this waiver, but Thursday’s is the first that has been granted — and Shannon Minter, legal director at NCLR, believes the pressure created by the lawsuit is why.
“It’s very striking that after the ban being in place for more than a year and a number of service members seeking a waiver, that the first time the military has acted one way or the other, is with respect to the only person who has filed a lawsuit challenging the application of the policy,” said Minter. The lawsuit “really jumps out as likely the reason that this particular waiver request has been acted upon.”
A Navy spokesperson did not answer detailed questions from Vox about why this particular officer’s waiver request was granted.
For now, the officer’s lawsuit will move forward; however, Minter believes it is now likely to be ruled moot because the suit was brought to ensure the officer could continue her service after transitioning, which the waiver now allows. Three other lawsuits challenging the ban — all of which have plaintiffs who are not on active duty — have yet to be heard, however, meaning the courts could still weigh in on the constitutionality of the rule.
Initially, all four suits won preliminary injunctions against the ban, initially delaying its implementation. However, the US Supreme Court stayed the injunctions in January 2019, allowing it to be put in place while litigation works its way though the appeals process. The stay was seen by many legal observers as a sign that the high court would likely uphold the ban if it is eventually heard.
The waiver process is opaque and exposes the hypocrisy of the ban
There appear to be no publicly available guidelines for how waivers are adjudicated. Navy spokesperson Lt. Brittany Stephens told Vox that waiver requests are reviewed by the Navy secretary “on a case-by-case basis” in a process that weighs “the unique facts and circumstances of each request.”
A lack of waiver application criteria — including, for instance, what supporting materials are needed and what sorts of facts are taken into consideration — has led to ambiguity and confusion, as well as concern from advocates like Minter that waivers will be granted on a politically expedient basis.
And what rules do exist expose the hypocrisy behind the ban itself — in part because requesting a waiver could lead to discharge.
According to existing DOD guidelines, a trans person being diagnosed with gender dysphoria requiring a gender transition makes a servicemember unfit to serve, resulting in a discharge. However, trans troops who had already transitioned before the Trump ban was formally put into place were grandfathered in and allowed to continue serving.
This places trans troops in a difficult scenario — besides being forced to out themselves, servicepeople applying for a waiver who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria risk immediate discharge despite many of their colleagues with the same diagnosis being allowed to continue their service, something Minter calls “inherently irrational.”
At the moment, there have been no reported cases of active duty trans servicemembers being discharged under the policy, but it remains an issue of concern — and, Minter says, is both unnecessary and unfair: “As we know, being transgender in and of itself has no relevance to your ability or fitness to serve.”


vox--2020-05-16--The House’s latest coronavirus relief bill gives stimulus payments to unauthorized immigrants

House Democrats voted in favor of offering stimulus payments to unauthorized immigrants Friday night , prevailing over Republican efforts to strike the provision from the latest $ 3 trillion coronavirus relief bill .
The HEROES Act , which passed the House on Friday , would make taxpaying immigrants and their families eligible for federal stimulus funds regardless of their legal status .
Under the $ 2.2 trillion CARES Act signed in late March , only immigrants with Social Security Numbers — and who fulfilled certain residency requirements — were able to receive the payments , meaning unauthorized immigrants and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not convinced that another aid package is warranted after the CARES Act , with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying he hasn ’ t “ yet felt the urgency of acting immediately ” on further legislation .
And Republicans in the House argued emphatically against the HEROES Act ’ s provision offering immigrants stimulus payments , with Rep. Denver Riggleman of Virginia calling it a “ poison pill.
” The Republican position was that relief funds should be dedicated to US citizens only .
Despite being joined in their opposition by 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block the provision in a 198-209 vote .
But it isn ’ t likely to survive the Republican-led Senate , where McConnell has been explicit in his objection to the plan .
“ Another round of checks for illegal immigrants .
Can you believe it ?
” McConnell said in a floor speech May 14 .
“ We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people here illegally .
My goodness , what an oversight .
Thank goodness Democrats are on the case.
” Democrats , on the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid to many immigrant families is an injustice that must be rectified , especially as the public has come to rely on immigrants to provide essential services during the current crisis .
For instance , unauthorized immigrants make up about a quarter of farmworkers and 8 percent of the service sector and production workers .
“ They pay taxes , contribute to our economy , and in many cases are fighting on the front lines of the coronavirus crisis , ” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a call with reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been barred from stimulus relief The new bill would retroactively make unauthorized immigrants and their families eligible for the first round of stimulus checks , which the government started sending out in April , as well as a proposed second round of checks , which would amount to up to $ 1,200 for each tax filer and each of their dependents , depending on household income .
These provisions are meant to correct for language in the CARES Act that left millions of people — some of them US citizens — without access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave most taxpayers up to $ 1,200 — along with $ 500 for each of their children under the age of 17 .
But immigrants without Social Security numbers , and who have not lived in the US long enough ( usually five years ) to file taxes as residents , weren ’ t eligible for the CARES Act ’ s stimulus checks .
The CARES Act also excludes those in households with people of mixed-immigration status , where some tax filers or their children may use what ’ s called an Individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The IRS issues ITINs to unauthorized immigrants , as well as certain legal immigrants so they can pay taxes , even though they don ’ t have Social Security numbers .
If anyone in the household uses an ITIN — either a spouse or a dependent child — no one in the household qualifies for the stimulus checks unless one spouse served in the military in 2019 .
This provision has led immigrant advocacy groups to challenge the CARES Act on the basis that it unlawfully discriminates against US citizens who have unauthorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to distribute this benefit to US citizen children undermines the CARES Act ’ s goals of providing assistance to Americans in need , frustrates the Act ’ s efforts to jumpstart the economy , and punishes citizen children for their parents ’ status — punishment that is particularly nonsensical given that undocumented immigrants , collectively , pay billions of dollars each year in taxes , ” Mary McCord , legal director of Georgetown Law ’ s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection , said in a statement .
An estimated 16.7 million people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8.2 million US-born or naturalized citizens .
This number also includes those with deportation protections under the Obama-era DACA program , children and young adults whose parents often don ’ t have legal status .
They ’ re left wondering how they can help support their families so that their parents don ’ t have to go to work , where they risk getting sick , and how they can help cover the costs of their parents ’ medical care should they need it , Sanaa Abrar , advocacy director at the immigrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox .
“ With the national health crisis and what ’ s becoming a national unemployment crisis , folks are concerned about how they ’ re not only going to stay healthy and safe but also how they ’ re going to keep their jobs and how they ’ re going to find means of financial support , ” she said .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

House Democrats voted in favor of offering stimulus payments to unauthorized immigrants Friday night, prevailing over Republican efforts to strike the provision from the latest $3 trillion coronavirus relief bill.
The HEROES Act, which passed the House on Friday, would make taxpaying immigrants and their families eligible for federal stimulus funds regardless of their legal status. Under the $2.2 trillion CARES Act signed in late March, only immigrants with Social Security Numbers — and who fulfilled certain residency requirements — were able to receive the payments, meaning unauthorized immigrants and many temporary visa holders were excluded.
Republicans are not convinced that another aid package is warranted after the CARES Act, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying he hasn’t “yet felt the urgency of acting immediately” on further legislation.
And Republicans in the House argued emphatically against the HEROES Act’s provision offering immigrants stimulus payments, with Rep. Denver Riggleman of Virginia calling it a “poison pill.” The Republican position was that relief funds should be dedicated to US citizens only. Despite being joined in their opposition by 13 Democrats, however, Republicans failed to block the provision in a 198-209 vote. But it isn’t likely to survive the Republican-led Senate, where McConnell has been explicit in his objection to the plan.
“Another round of checks for illegal immigrants. Can you believe it?” McConnell said in a floor speech May 14. “We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people here illegally. My goodness, what an oversight. Thank goodness Democrats are on the case.”
Democrats, on the other hand, have asserted that failing to offer financial aid to many immigrant families is an injustice that must be rectified, especially as the public has come to rely on immigrants to provide essential services during the current crisis. For instance, unauthorized immigrants make up about a quarter of farmworkers and 8 percent of the service sector and production workers.
“They pay taxes, contribute to our economy, and in many cases are fighting on the front lines of the coronavirus crisis,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a call with reporters May 1.
Why certain immigrants have been barred from stimulus relief
The new bill would retroactively make unauthorized immigrants and their families eligible for the first round of stimulus checks, which the government started sending out in April, as well as a proposed second round of checks, which would amount to up to $1,200 for each tax filer and each of their dependents, depending on household income. These provisions are meant to correct for language in the CARES Act that left millions of people — some of them US citizens — without access to stimulus funds.
The CARES Act gave most taxpayers up to $1,200 — along with $500 for each of their children under the age of 17. But immigrants without Social Security numbers, and who have not lived in the US long enough (usually five years) to file taxes as residents, weren’t eligible for the CARES Act’s stimulus checks.
The CARES Act also excludes those in households with people of mixed-immigration status, where some tax filers or their children may use what’s called an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). The IRS issues ITINs to unauthorized immigrants, as well as certain legal immigrants so they can pay taxes, even though they don’t have Social Security numbers. If anyone in the household uses an ITIN — either a spouse or a dependent child — no one in the household qualifies for the stimulus checks unless one spouse served in the military in 2019.
This provision has led immigrant advocacy groups to challenge the CARES Act on the basis that it unlawfully discriminates against US citizens who have unauthorized immigrant family members.
“The refusal to distribute this benefit to US citizen children undermines the CARES Act’s goals of providing assistance to Americans in need, frustrates the Act’s efforts to jumpstart the economy, and punishes citizen children for their parents’ status — punishment that is particularly nonsensical given that undocumented immigrants, collectively, pay billions of dollars each year in taxes,” Mary McCord, legal director of Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said in a statement.
An estimated 16.7 million people live in mixed-status households nationwide, including 8.2 million US-born or naturalized citizens.
This number also includes those with deportation protections under the Obama-era DACA program, children and young adults whose parents often don’t have legal status. They’re left wondering how they can help support their families so that their parents don’t have to go to work, where they risk getting sick, and how they can help cover the costs of their parents’ medical care should they need it, Sanaa Abrar, advocacy director at the immigrant advocacy group United We Dream, told Vox.
“With the national health crisis and what’s becoming a national unemployment crisis, folks are concerned about how they’re not only going to stay healthy and safe but also how they’re going to keep their jobs and how they’re going to find means of financial support,” she said.


vox--2020-05-16--California locked down early and took the coronavirus seriously. Why are its cases still rising?

In late February and early March , when much of the United States wasn ’ t yet taking the coronavirus pandemic seriously , the state of California — the first place in the country to spot community transmission — largely was .
Major tech companies in the state told their employees to work from home by the end of February or the first week of March .
LA ’ s enormous TV and film industry largely shut down voluntarily in early March out of fears of spreading the virus among the hundreds of crew members and actors who circulate on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the governor declared a state of emergency early in March while , in New York , Mayor Bill de Blasio was still infamously encouraging people to get out and enjoy themselves .
For a while , the state was touted as a success story — and in some sense it is one .
San Francisco , with only 36 coronavirus deaths , certainly deserves a victory lap .
Statewide , the death toll has reached more than 3,000 in a state with 39 million people .
If the country had managed the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did , America likely would have had far fewer deaths than the about 90,000 tallied so far .
But now , California is in limbo and is making very little progress toward an exit strategy .
Case numbers aren ’ t falling , despite the lockdown .
Testing is increasing , but too slowly .
The state can ’ t meet its goals for contact tracing and isolating exposed people .
The state ’ s guidelines for when to reopen look reasonable , but it ’ s not clear when ( or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is bad news .
It ’ s also jarring , because California has more resources , more public cooperation , and in many respects better leadership than most states .
If all those advantages have nonetheless left the state with no real path to reopen , it seems as though most states should expect even worse .
California ’ s experience illustrates just how vexing the coronavirus has been to deal with — and just how steep the challenge is for the country as a whole as it inches its way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t yet earned .
California ’ s public health leadership has been pretty good .
It hasn ’ t been enough .
On March 20 , when a statewide stay-at-home order was put into place across California ( one had already gone into effect four days earlier in the Bay Area ) , about 1,000 cases had been detected in the state and about 20 people had died .
The hope at the time was that the stay-at-home order would not just “ flatten the curve ” — causing new case numbers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , getting case numbers much lower so that the state could safely reopen .
For weeks , public health officials watched to see if the stay-at-home order had worked .
Case numbers in California grew more slowly than elsewhere in the country — but they did keep growing .
The order , originally set to expire April 7 , was extended through April , and then extended through May .
( The state has inched — more slowly than most other states — toward opening low-risk businesses , with social distancing measures in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 75,000 cases reported in California .
The first week in May had a spike in confirmed cases .
The second week had even more , with cases at their highest numbers yet .
That might be partially an artifact of improved testing — as more tests become available , more people test positive .
But other indicators not dependent on testing aren ’ t that great , either .
New deaths in the state have been effectively flat , at about 70 a day .
The number of hospitalized coronavirus patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declining very slightly .
( The state is not homogeneous ; things look better in the Bay Area and worse in Los Angeles . )
That ’ s a problem .
One of the hopes for stay-at-home orders was that they would cause significant declines in new case numbers , not just get to a plateau .
Once new cases become relatively rare , states could set up contact tracing , isolation of confirmed and possible cases , and other less restrictive strategies for combating the virus .
That remains the best way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are harder to implement when case numbers keep rising .
The fact that California ’ s stay-home order didn ’ t decrease , or only slightly decreased , the number of new cases means that the road ahead will be a very hard one .
“ The US was not able to reach suppression with our lockdown , ” virologist Trevor Bedford wrote last week , “ and so we ’ re left with agonizing decisions about how to keep society functioning while holding the virus in check.
” What went wrong ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stay-home order , like many orders around the country , did not get the so-called R0 for the coronavirus to significantly below 1 ( some preprints estimate it around 0.9 ) .
Let ’ s spell that out .
An R0 of 1 means that the average person with the coronavirus transmits it to about one additional person .
Things won ’ t get exponentially worse , but nor will they start to improve .
Over time , case numbers will stay relatively flat and “ crushing the curve ” will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds up to is that , despite months of lockdown , case numbers are not going back down .
The California stay-at-home order still involves more face-to-face contact with other people than the lockdowns in places that successfully controlled the virus .
California hasn ’ t adopted centralized isolation , for instance , which would let sick people avoid infecting family members , and has a large homeless population exempted from the stay-home orders .
A CDC estimate suggests about 50 percent of Californians were still leaving their homes regularly after the stay-home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mobility fell 85 percent under their lockdown .
“ That ’ s still 50 percent ” at risk of exposure and of transmitting the virus , UC San Francisco epidemiologist and infectious disease expert George Rutherford told the Los Angeles Times .
If we take China ’ s statistics from Wuhan at face value — and , to be clear , while China is an authoritarian state with a long history of lying to the international community about infectious disease , there ’ s some virology data suggesting their numbers are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comprehensive lockdown reduced the transmission of the coronavirus to an R0 of about 0.3 .
That means three infected patients will , between them , infect just one new person , so case numbers will drop fast .
“ Big interventions in Wuhan , China , took about three weeks to start to reverse things .
And then every day after the situation got better , ” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security director Tom Inglesby explained on March 23 .
Eventually , the virus was squashed , with China reporting no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve started to reopen , they ’ ve found a few tiny clusters of more cases , but not many — letting the region focus its public health resources on each cluster as it appears .
New Zealand has done something similar .
The country maintained one of the world ’ s strictest lockdowns while case numbers declined , and residents are now exiting lockdown with lots of capacity for testing and almost no new cases .
The country estimates that R0 was 0.4 under lockdown .
That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ d find themselves on when they issued stay-home orders in March .
Instead , new confirmed case numbers suggest that many states — like California — entered a lockdown that was not strict enough to actually reduce case numbers and that instead produces a long plateau .
( You can see this pattern in Nevada , Tennessee , Oklahoma , and South Carolina , for instance . )
Successful suppression of the virus remains far in the distance .
And even worse , California has largely been unable to take advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to increase testing capacity , provide hospital workers with sufficient personal protective equipment ( PPE ) , or establish large-scale contact tracing programs .
The state ’ s much-praised leadership had a hard job ahead of them , to be sure — but they haven ’ t gotten it done .
In other words , the state is in limbo .
Lockdown isn ’ t much improving things , but the state is increasingly itching to get out of it .
Case numbers do not get better week to week despite the huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not improve until testing and tracing step up , which they did not meaningfully do in April and may be doing only very slowly in May .
“ The whole point of this social distancing is to buy us time to build up capacity to do the types of public health interventions we know work , ” Natalie Dean , a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida , told my colleague German Lopez .
“ If we ’ re not using this time to scale up testing to the level that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have an exit strategy .
And then when we lift things , we ’ re no better equipped than we were before.
” The fact that California is in this boat portends poorly for other states .
California was praised early in the pandemic for having good public health leadership .
It is a relatively wealthy state with unusually high state revenues , a strong medical system , and lots of biotech companies .
If California can ’ t make it out of limbo , what does that mean for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accomplished the things on their list of must-dos to reopen California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) said in April it would require contact tracing capacity , declining case numbers , PPE in hospitals and nursing homes , and 60,000-80,000 tests per day to consider reopening the state .
That ’ s 150-200 tests per 100,000 residents .
But even this modest goal has been excruciatingly difficult to achieve .
Throughout the month of April , testing in California mostly didn ’ t increase , stuck at just over 25,000 tests each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally started to change , but at a glacial pace .
Last week , the state averaged 34,000 tests per day .
Overall , the state is in the bottom half of states in tests per capita , worse than Mississippi , as of May 11 .
The progress has been uneven .
San Francisco is currently conducting about 168 tests per 100,000 residents a day , while neighboring Alameda County , where I live , is testing just 28 per 100,000 .
Efforts to expand testing have run into difficulty on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , supply constraints , and a shortage of trained personnel , ” MIT Technology Review argued in early May .
Other experts have pointed to overreliance on commercial labs in March and April as an explanation for the state ’ s slow start .
Whatever the exact cause , it ’ s clear that the political leadership wasn ’ t able to deliver on one of the most critical elements of a reopening plan .
When it comes to contact tracing , progress has been even slower .
Mass hiring is needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracers needed to reach out to people exposed to the virus .
But all of April went by before California got started on substantially expanding its tracing ability .
It is only in the last week that UCSF and UCLA announced plans to train 3,000 tracers a week .
And PPE remains in short supply at hospitals across the state — a reflection of worldwide shortages , to be sure , but still one of the problems the lockdown was supposed to help with and has not .
California isn ’ t alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ e all went into lockdown at incredible cost to ourselves right now , and to our kids in the future … and still six weeks go by and I don ’ t see huge improvements in testing capacity , in serology , in PPE , in hospital capacity .
These things just haven ’ t happened , ” the Center for Health Security ’ s Tara Kirk Sell said last week .
Much of the blame there lies with the federal government .
By refusing to exercise any national leadership on testing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right policies on their own .
By seizing state shipments of PPE , they ’ ve made it much harder for states to get the equipment they need .
But ultimately , the White House has abdicated all responsibility for improving the coronavirus situation , and states can only be judged by how well they perform in the face of that abdication .
California might have been one of the states expected to perform well .
After all , Newsom , an established critic of Trump , seems to have been well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid from Washington .
Instead , he formed reopening pacts with many neighboring states , caused a stir by referring to California as a “ nation state ” in its own right , and has proceeded with adjustments to the state lockdown order while ignoring the president .
And yet , the state remains stalled , both when it comes to case numbers and when it comes to the other criteria for reopening .
Some states are seeing a decline in cases .
What makes them different ?
While California is stuck in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have more promising statistics .
Take Connecticut , New Jersey , and New York , the hardest-hit part of the country : In those areas , new case numbers , new hospitalizations , and new deaths dramatically declined ( though Connecticut ’ s new case counts have leveled off in recent days ) .
In the US overall , excluding those states , new confirmed case numbers haven ’ t been falling .
What ’ s going on in the rest of the country is pretty clear : There ’ s a mix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with stagnant or slowly declining case numbers , and “ trouble ” states where case numbers are actually increasing .
But what ’ s going on in New York and New Jersey ?
Their progress could stall .
But one possibility is that the severity of the outbreak in those areas produced higher compliance with stay-home orders , which meant that R0 actually fell below 1 .
Another is that those states , by virtue of testing more , drove R0 down , and California might start to see the same results if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels .
A more discouraging explanation is that , since something like 15 percent of people in those states have now been exposed to the coronavirus , it ’ s easier to reduce transmission .
A similarly strict stay-home order to California ’ s will do more to reduce transmission in a state where many people have already been infected .
That interpretation would suggest that states can only get out of limbo at a horrific human price : New York has lost more than 25,000 people to the virus , and tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effects .
Overall , this paints a scary picture ; lockdowns alone , no matter how long they last , won ’ t save us .
All they can do is buy us time , which doesn ’ t matter if we don ’ t have the capacity to use it well .
Even the early success stories are now floundering when it comes to that .
Lockdowns are worth it if they buy us successful suppression .
But they can not possibly replace lasting suppression , no matter how much economic hardship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In limbo , we lose the economy and lose lives to the virus .
There has to be a better way out .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

In late February and early March, when much of the United States wasn’t yet taking the coronavirus pandemic seriously, the state of California — the first place in the country to spot community transmission — largely was.
Major tech companies in the state told their employees to work from home by the end of February or the first week of March. LA’s enormous TV and film industry largely shut down voluntarily in early March out of fears of spreading the virus among the hundreds of crew members and actors who circulate on sets every day.
Local leaders and the governor declared a state of emergency early in March while, in New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio was still infamously encouraging people to get out and enjoy themselves. For a while, the state was touted as a success story — and in some sense it is one. San Francisco, with only 36 coronavirus deaths, certainly deserves a victory lap. Statewide, the death toll has reached more than 3,000 in a state with 39 million people. If the country had managed the virus as well as the state of California did, America likely would have had far fewer deaths than the about 90,000 tallied so far.
But now, California is in limbo and is making very little progress toward an exit strategy. Case numbers aren’t falling, despite the lockdown. Testing is increasing, but too slowly. The state can’t meet its goals for contact tracing and isolating exposed people. The state’s guidelines for when to reopen look reasonable, but it’s not clear when (or if) they’ll actually be met.
This is bad news. It’s also jarring, because California has more resources, more public cooperation, and in many respects better leadership than most states. If all those advantages have nonetheless left the state with no real path to reopen, it seems as though most states should expect even worse. California’s experience illustrates just how vexing the coronavirus has been to deal with — and just how steep the challenge is for the country as a whole as it inches its way to a reopening that it hasn’t yet earned.
California’s public health leadership has been pretty good. It hasn’t been enough.
On March 20, when a statewide stay-at-home order was put into place across California (one had already gone into effect four days earlier in the Bay Area), about 1,000 cases had been detected in the state and about 20 people had died. The hope at the time was that the stay-at-home order would not just “flatten the curve” — causing new case numbers to grow more slowly — but crush it, getting case numbers much lower so that the state could safely reopen.
For weeks, public health officials watched to see if the stay-at-home order had worked. Case numbers in California grew more slowly than elsewhere in the country — but they did keep growing. The order, originally set to expire April 7, was extended through April, and then extended through May. (The state has inched — more slowly than most other states — toward opening low-risk businesses, with social distancing measures in place.)
Now there have been more than 75,000 cases reported in California. The first week in May had a spike in confirmed cases. The second week had even more, with cases at their highest numbers yet. That might be partially an artifact of improved testing — as more tests become available, more people test positive. But other indicators not dependent on testing aren’t that great, either. New deaths in the state have been effectively flat, at about 70 a day. The number of hospitalized coronavirus patients has also been effectively flat, maybe declining very slightly. (The state is not homogeneous; things look better in the Bay Area and worse in Los Angeles.)
That’s a problem. One of the hopes for stay-at-home orders was that they would cause significant declines in new case numbers, not just get to a plateau. Once new cases become relatively rare, states could set up contact tracing, isolation of confirmed and possible cases, and other less restrictive strategies for combating the virus.
That remains the best way out of lockdown, but those strategies are harder to implement when case numbers keep rising. The fact that California’s stay-home order didn’t decrease, or only slightly decreased, the number of new cases means that the road ahead will be a very hard one.
“The US was not able to reach suppression with our lockdown,” virologist Trevor Bedford wrote last week, “and so we’re left with agonizing decisions about how to keep society functioning while holding the virus in check.”
What went wrong? The best explanation is that California’s stay-home order, like many orders around the country, did not get the so-called R0 for the coronavirus to significantly below 1 (some preprints estimate it around 0.9).
Let’s spell that out. An R0 of 1 means that the average person with the coronavirus transmits it to about one additional person. Things won’t get exponentially worse, but nor will they start to improve. Over time, case numbers will stay relatively flat and “crushing the curve” will be out of reach. What this all adds up to is that, despite months of lockdown, case numbers are not going back down.
The California stay-at-home order still involves more face-to-face contact with other people than the lockdowns in places that successfully controlled the virus. California hasn’t adopted centralized isolation, for instance, which would let sick people avoid infecting family members, and has a large homeless population exempted from the stay-home orders.
A CDC estimate suggests about 50 percent of Californians were still leaving their homes regularly after the stay-home order. In Italy, by contrast, mobility fell 85 percent under their lockdown. “That’s still 50 percent” at risk of exposure and of transmitting the virus, UC San Francisco epidemiologist and infectious disease expert George Rutherford told the Los Angeles Times.
California is in limbo
If we take China’s statistics from Wuhan at face value — and, to be clear, while China is an authoritarian state with a long history of lying to the international community about infectious disease, there’s some virology data suggesting their numbers are in approximately the right ballpark — Wuhan’s comprehensive lockdown reduced the transmission of the coronavirus to an R0 of about 0.3. That means three infected patients will, between them, infect just one new person, so case numbers will drop fast.
“Big interventions in Wuhan, China, took about three weeks to start to reverse things. And then every day after the situation got better,” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security director Tom Inglesby explained on March 23. Eventually, the virus was squashed, with China reporting no new internally transmitted cases. Now that they’ve started to reopen, they’ve found a few tiny clusters of more cases, but not many — letting the region focus its public health resources on each cluster as it appears.
New Zealand has done something similar. The country maintained one of the world’s strictest lockdowns while case numbers declined, and residents are now exiting lockdown with lots of capacity for testing and almost no new cases. The country estimates that R0 was 0.4 under lockdown.
That’s the path many US states likely were hoping they’d find themselves on when they issued stay-home orders in March. Instead, new confirmed case numbers suggest that many states — like California — entered a lockdown that was not strict enough to actually reduce case numbers and that instead produces a long plateau. (You can see this pattern in Nevada, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, for instance.) Successful suppression of the virus remains far in the distance.
And even worse, California has largely been unable to take advantage of the time the lockdown buys them to increase testing capacity, provide hospital workers with sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE), or establish large-scale contact tracing programs. The state’s much-praised leadership had a hard job ahead of them, to be sure — but they haven’t gotten it done.
In other words, the state is in limbo. Lockdown isn’t much improving things, but the state is increasingly itching to get out of it. Case numbers do not get better week to week despite the huge sacrifices of a lockdown. The situation will not improve until testing and tracing step up, which they did not meaningfully do in April and may be doing only very slowly in May.
“The whole point of this social distancing is to buy us time to build up capacity to do the types of public health interventions we know work,” Natalie Dean, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida, told my colleague German Lopez. “If we’re not using this time to scale up testing to the level that we need it to be … we don’t have an exit strategy. And then when we lift things, we’re no better equipped than we were before.”
The fact that California is in this boat portends poorly for other states. California was praised early in the pandemic for having good public health leadership. It is a relatively wealthy state with unusually high state revenues, a strong medical system, and lots of biotech companies. If California can’t make it out of limbo, what does that mean for other states?
California hasn’t accomplished the things on their list of must-dos to reopen
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in April it would require contact tracing capacity, declining case numbers, PPE in hospitals and nursing homes, and 60,000-80,000 tests per day to consider reopening the state. That’s 150-200 tests per 100,000 residents.
But even this modest goal has been excruciatingly difficult to achieve. Throughout the month of April, testing in California mostly didn’t increase, stuck at just over 25,000 tests each day. In May, that has finally started to change, but at a glacial pace. Last week, the state averaged 34,000 tests per day. Overall, the state is in the bottom half of states in tests per capita, worse than Mississippi, as of May 11.
The progress has been uneven. San Francisco is currently conducting about 168 tests per 100,000 residents a day, while neighboring Alameda County, where I live, is testing just 28 per 100,000. Efforts to expand testing have run into difficulty on all fronts, “complicated by regulatory restrictions, supply constraints, and a shortage of trained personnel,” MIT Technology Review argued in early May.
Other experts have pointed to overreliance on commercial labs in March and April as an explanation for the state’s slow start. Whatever the exact cause, it’s clear that the political leadership wasn’t able to deliver on one of the most critical elements of a reopening plan.
When it comes to contact tracing, progress has been even slower. Mass hiring is needed to field the teams of thousands of contact tracers needed to reach out to people exposed to the virus. But all of April went by before California got started on substantially expanding its tracing ability. It is only in the last week that UCSF and UCLA announced plans to train 3,000 tracers a week.
And PPE remains in short supply at hospitals across the state — a reflection of worldwide shortages, to be sure, but still one of the problems the lockdown was supposed to help with and has not.
California isn’t alone in this. “[W]e all went into lockdown at incredible cost to ourselves right now, and to our kids in the future … and still six weeks go by and I don’t see huge improvements in testing capacity, in serology, in PPE, in hospital capacity. These things just haven’t happened,” the Center for Health Security’s Tara Kirk Sell said last week.
Much of the blame there lies with the federal government. By refusing to exercise any national leadership on testing, officials have left states trying to invent the right policies on their own. By seizing state shipments of PPE, they’ve made it much harder for states to get the equipment they need.
But ultimately, the White House has abdicated all responsibility for improving the coronavirus situation, and states can only be judged by how well they perform in the face of that abdication. California might have been one of the states expected to perform well. After all, Newsom, an established critic of Trump, seems to have been well aware he couldn’t expect any aid from Washington. Instead, he formed reopening pacts with many neighboring states, caused a stir by referring to California as a “nation state” in its own right, and has proceeded with adjustments to the state lockdown order while ignoring the president.
And yet, the state remains stalled, both when it comes to case numbers and when it comes to the other criteria for reopening.
Some states are seeing a decline in cases. What makes them different?
While California is stuck in limbo, some parts of the country have more promising statistics. Take Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, the hardest-hit part of the country: In those areas, new case numbers, new hospitalizations, and new deaths dramatically declined (though Connecticut’s new case counts have leveled off in recent days). In the US overall, excluding those states, new confirmed case numbers haven’t been falling.
What’s going on in the rest of the country is pretty clear: There’s a mix of “limbo” states like California with stagnant or slowly declining case numbers, and “trouble” states where case numbers are actually increasing.
But what’s going on in New York and New Jersey?
Their progress could stall. But one possibility is that the severity of the outbreak in those areas produced higher compliance with stay-home orders, which meant that R0 actually fell below 1. Another is that those states, by virtue of testing more, drove R0 down, and California might start to see the same results if officials ramp up testing to New York levels.
A more discouraging explanation is that, since something like 15 percent of people in those states have now been exposed to the coronavirus, it’s easier to reduce transmission. A similarly strict stay-home order to California’s will do more to reduce transmission in a state where many people have already been infected. That interpretation would suggest that states can only get out of limbo at a horrific human price: New York has lost more than 25,000 people to the virus, and tens of thousands of others may suffer long-lasting effects.
Overall, this paints a scary picture; lockdowns alone, no matter how long they last, won’t save us. All they can do is buy us time, which doesn’t matter if we don’t have the capacity to use it well. Even the early success stories are now floundering when it comes to that. Lockdowns are worth it if they buy us successful suppression. But they cannot possibly replace lasting suppression, no matter how much economic hardship you’re willing to permit. In limbo, we lose the economy and lose lives to the virus. There has to be a better way out.


vox--2020-05-16--The results of a Spanish study on Covid-19 immunity have a scary takeaway

Spain has had one of the worst Covid-19 outbreaks in the world , which makes a recently completed antibody-testing study of the Spanish population so significant — and so scary .
Preliminary results from a well-designed survey of antibody presence among Spaniards suggest that even as the Spanish outbreak exploded and then was brought under control , only 5 percent of the country ’ s population has been infected with the coronavirus so far .
This means that the vast majority of the Spanish population remains susceptible to infection if the lifting of restrictions there leads to a new spike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the world is that as awful as the pandemic has been in Spain — where more than 27,000 people have died , a far higher per-capita death rate than in the US or even Italy — it ’ s not even close to an upper limit on how bad things can get .
When people talk about coronavirus testing , they usually mean a test to detect the presence of the virus in your body and to determine whether you need to isolate .
An antibody test , by contrast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the antibodies that typically form when a person successfully fights off a case of Covid-19 .
A positive test means you likely already had the infection ( perhaps without realizing it ) and may have some degree of immunity to it .
Serology testing can be useful because people with Covid-19 antibodies could potentially socialize with each other at greatly reduced levels of risk .
Also , people with antibodies could be good candidates for working at nursing homes and in other capacities that involve interacting with vulnerable populations .
Unfortunately , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly clear at this point , so it ’ s difficult to react to antibody test results with much confidence .
Antibody testing , if done right , can also help us answer important research questions like : How lethal is this virus , really ?
When a new disease is first identified , it typically looks very deadly , as it ’ s known only on the basis of a handful of cases that were serious enough to warrant hospitalization .
It often comes to light later that other people were sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be hospitalized ) , so the math changes .
Because the coronavirus first started spreading during the winter cold-and-flu season , there have been questions about how many minor ailments might really have been the coronavirus , as well as how many truly non-symptomatic people may have been infected nonetheless .
Covid-19 optimists have pointed to a couple of flawed studies from California , both of which suggested that infection has been much more widespread than commonly assumed , and that consequently , the virus is much less lethal than commonly assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still underway ) has a much higher-quality research design , and unfortunately , it has a much less reassuring result at this point : Only about 5 percent of people in the study have tested positive for Covid-19 antibodies , suggesting that just 5 percent of the Spanish population has had the coronavirus .
Even Spain is far from “ herd immunity ” The study was carried out by the Carlos III Institute for Health and Spain ’ s National Statistics Institute , and thanks to that official backing , researchers were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 36,000 randomly selected households across the country .
( They tested nearly 70,000 people in total , meaning it ’ s a robust sample . )
And precisely because the outbreak in Spain has been very bad , there was a much lower risk of the preliminary results being twisted by false positives .
What they found was that about 10-14 percent of the population in and around Madrid has antibodies , along with about 7 percent of the population of Barcelona and smaller numbers outside of Spain ’ s two major cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to roughly 5 percent .
This means that even if the news is good and people with antibodies have a strong and long-lasting form of protection against reinfection , “ there is no herd immunity ” in the Spanish population , according to the country ’ s health minister .
Cases in Spain have dropped dramatically over the past month , and the country is moving to lift some restrictions on activities ( its lockdown orders were much stricter than anything that has been done anywhere in America ) .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to new waves of outbreaks .
Spain has had one of the worst Covid-19 outbreaks to afflict a sizable country , but there ’ s no reason to think things couldn ’ t get much worse elsewhere if a region has bad luck and bad policy .
Things could get much worse That is the fundamentally sobering lesson for America .
The US ’ s case volumes and daily death tolls have fallen over the course of May , which has generated lots of talk of bent curves and peaks .
But there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t rise as people start to travel again , as businesses reopen , and as even basic precautions like wearing a mask become fodder for culture wars .
Spain has suffered more than double America ’ s per-capita death toll , but that ’ s based on just 5 percent of the population becoming infected .
If the US reaches infection rates of 10-20 percent — to say nothing of the 60 percent threshold some scientists think is necessary for herd immunity to kick in — there will likely be many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 1.15 percent of those who got infected in Spain ended up dying .
Spain has a significantly older age profile than the US , so Americans might be better off .
But the fact remains that if the virus fully blows through our population , the US could end up with millions of deaths — there ’ s no secret pool of hidden infections to indicate the virus is much less deadly than assumed .
But fundamentally , unless the United States finds a way to genuinely suppress the virus ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the country runs the persistent risk of sparking a genuinely catastrophic outcome .
The Spanish experience has been horrific , but the new data confirms that the worst-case scenario is much worse than what Spain has endured .
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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Spain has had one of the worst Covid-19 outbreaks in the world, which makes a recently completed antibody-testing study of the Spanish population so significant — and so scary.
Preliminary results from a well-designed survey of antibody presence among Spaniards suggest that even as the Spanish outbreak exploded and then was brought under control, only 5 percent of the country’s population has been infected with the coronavirus so far. This means that the vast majority of the Spanish population remains susceptible to infection if the lifting of restrictions there leads to a new spike in cases.
The message to the rest of the world is that as awful as the pandemic has been in Spain — where more than 27,000 people have died, a far higher per-capita death rate than in the US or even Italy — it’s not even close to an upper limit on how bad things can get.
Serology surveys, explained
When people talk about coronavirus testing, they usually mean a test to detect the presence of the virus in your body and to determine whether you need to isolate.
An antibody test, by contrast, checks to see whether your blood contains the antibodies that typically form when a person successfully fights off a case of Covid-19. A positive test means you likely already had the infection (perhaps without realizing it) and may have some degree of immunity to it.
Serology testing can be useful because people with Covid-19 antibodies could potentially socialize with each other at greatly reduced levels of risk. Also, people with antibodies could be good candidates for working at nursing homes and in other capacities that involve interacting with vulnerable populations.
Unfortunately, the science of Covid-19 immunity isn’t particularly clear at this point, so it’s difficult to react to antibody test results with much confidence.
Antibody testing, if done right, can also help us answer important research questions like: How lethal is this virus, really? When a new disease is first identified, it typically looks very deadly, as it’s known only on the basis of a handful of cases that were serious enough to warrant hospitalization. It often comes to light later that other people were sick, too (just not sick enough to be hospitalized), so the math changes. Because the coronavirus first started spreading during the winter cold-and-flu season, there have been questions about how many minor ailments might really have been the coronavirus, as well as how many truly non-symptomatic people may have been infected nonetheless.
Covid-19 optimists have pointed to a couple of flawed studies from California, both of which suggested that infection has been much more widespread than commonly assumed, and that consequently, the virus is much less lethal than commonly assumed.
The new Spanish survey (which is still underway) has a much higher-quality research design, and unfortunately, it has a much less reassuring result at this point: Only about 5 percent of people in the study have tested positive for Covid-19 antibodies, suggesting that just 5 percent of the Spanish population has had the coronavirus.
Even Spain is far from “herd immunity”
The study was carried out by the Carlos III Institute for Health and Spain’s National Statistics Institute, and thanks to that official backing, researchers were able to obtain samples from more than 36,000 randomly selected households across the country. (They tested nearly 70,000 people in total, meaning it’s a robust sample.) And precisely because the outbreak in Spain has been very bad, there was a much lower risk of the preliminary results being twisted by false positives.
What they found was that about 10-14 percent of the population in and around Madrid has antibodies, along with about 7 percent of the population of Barcelona and smaller numbers outside of Spain’s two major cities. Across the country, it averages out to roughly 5 percent.
This means that even if the news is good and people with antibodies have a strong and long-lasting form of protection against reinfection, “there is no herd immunity” in the Spanish population, according to the country’s health minister.
Cases in Spain have dropped dramatically over the past month, and the country is moving to lift some restrictions on activities (its lockdown orders were much stricter than anything that has been done anywhere in America). But the vast majority of the population remains vulnerable to new waves of outbreaks. Spain has had one of the worst Covid-19 outbreaks to afflict a sizable country, but there’s no reason to think things couldn’t get much worse elsewhere if a region has bad luck and bad policy.
Things could get much worse
That is the fundamentally sobering lesson for America.
The US’s case volumes and daily death tolls have fallen over the course of May, which has generated lots of talk of bent curves and peaks. But there’s no mechanical reason that caseloads can’t rise as people start to travel again, as businesses reopen, and as even basic precautions like wearing a mask become fodder for culture wars.
Spain has suffered more than double America’s per-capita death toll, but that’s based on just 5 percent of the population becoming infected. If the US reaches infection rates of 10-20 percent — to say nothing of the 60 percent threshold some scientists think is necessary for herd immunity to kick in — there will likely be many more deaths.
The Spanish data suggests about 1.15 percent of those who got infected in Spain ended up dying. Spain has a significantly older age profile than the US, so Americans might be better off. But the fact remains that if the virus fully blows through our population, the US could end up with millions of deaths — there’s no secret pool of hidden infections to indicate the virus is much less deadly than assumed.
1 Number of folks infected about 10X official count
2 Infection fatality rate 1.15%
Prior Ab studies (NY, Miami) find # of infxns 10-20X official counts
IFR 1.15% higher than I'd expected (my priors were 0.8%)
Spain remains far from herd immunity
COVID19 a deadly disease
Fin — Ashish "Wear the mask, save lives" Jha (@ashishkjha) May 14, 2020
But fundamentally, unless the United States finds a way to genuinely suppress the virus’s spread, the move to “reopen” the country runs the persistent risk of sparking a genuinely catastrophic outcome. The Spanish experience has been horrific, but the new data confirms that the worst-case scenario is much worse than what Spain has endured.