vox--2020-03-20--What does “shelter in place” really mean?

On Thursday , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom announced a “ stay at home ” order for the state ’ s almost 40 million residents , in effect until further notice .
On Friday , New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo followed suit , saying “ we ’ re all under quarantine now.
” Illinois Gov .
J.B. Pritzker is expected to ask residents to do the same starting on Saturday .
All are examples of dramatic action , often called “ shelter in place , ” in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
It ’ s worth noting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use the words “ shelter in place , ” saying it caused more panic than was necessary .
“ Words matter , ” he said , according to the New York Times .
So what do these words , in particular , mean ?
Vox talked to Wendy Mariner , the Edward R. Utley professor of health law at Boston University School of Public Health , to help bring some clarity .
What exactly is “ shelter in place ” ?
While it sounds official , “ ‘ shelter in place ’ is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
It ’ s a shorthand for public announcements to convey a set of restrictions , but on its own , it has no set definition of what is allowed .
The terms of each shelter-in-place announcement are spelled out through the specific protocols of a city or state .
Keeping 6 feet apart is a good example of one instruction that might be included in such an announcement .
Ultimately , the intent of the protocols is to “ decide what people should and shouldn ’ t do based on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Mariner .
As an example , she says that after the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013 , while law enforcement searched for the suspects , there was a shelter-in-place protocol that people stay off the streets in order to be out of the line of fire .
With the coronavirus , the intent is to maintain social distance .
When thinking about what you can and can ’ t do in these instances , think about it through that lens .
Who can declare a shelter in place ?
Ultimately , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and towns can take individual action if they have prior authority from the state government .
For example , Los Angeles county officials had announced a “ safer at home ” order right before Newsom made one for the state of California .
Shelter-in-place protocols are an official order , but they ’ re not easy to enforce — in part because of the human capital that would be needed to check up on every single individual .
“ All large-scale measures present obstacles to enforcement , ” Mariner says .
California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will take steps to ensure compliance and that it ’ s enforceable pursuant to state law , but it makes no mention of penalties .
In a news conference quoted by the Associated Press , Newsom says he doesn ’ t expect police will be needed , as “ social pressure already has led to social distancing throughout the state.
” A shelter-in-place order doesn ’ t mean that everybody has to be strictly homebound .
Exemptions are usually made for essential services such as food , medicine , and health care , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations , like utility and communication companies , are still expected to go to work .
( There ’ s already jostling among companies for what counts as essential ; Polygon reported that GameStop is arguing it ’ s essential because it sells webcams and other tools useful for working from home . )
California ’ s order lays out what will remain open within the state : gas stations , banks , pharmacies , laundry services , and various food-related operations ( such as grocery stores , farmers markets , food banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivery restaurants ) .
It also says that if people need to go out , “ they should at all times practice social distancing.
” “ It doesn ’ t sound draconian because it allows people to do what they need to do , just not everything that they like to do , ” Mariner says .
Can people — like my babysitter — come to me ?
None of the current restrictions prevent you from having someone in your home or from driving to someone else ’ s , says Mariner .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ service in some orders , like New York ’ s .
That said , it ’ s up to you , your family , and your child care provider to decide how social distancing should work in this situation , and what ’ s ethically sound for everyone involved .
Does shelter in place prohibit long-distance travel , like driving , or prevent people from leaving the state ?
None of the recent orders have mentioned anything about prohibiting driving .
Essential workers still have to travel for their jobs and for services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enclosed space and maintains social distance , Mariner says .
The Chicago Tribune reported that per Pritzker ’ s Illinois orders , “ all local roads , including the interstate highways and tollways , will remain open to traffic.
” Cuomo also reiterated that roads would stay open .
What about things that are important but not necessarily essential ?
Can I walk my dog ?
Drive to my local park ?
Help a neighbor in need ?
Mariner says it ’ s about respecting the intent of the order and thinking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no reason a person couldn ’ t walk , since “ you won ’ t touch anyone , ” she says .
It ’ s the same with driving to the park .
It ’ s your car ; once you ’ re there , it ’ s about maintaining distance .
If your neighbor needs help , she says , “ then you help .
I can ’ t imagine anyone faulting you for that.
” As for the care of your pets , Newsom addressed that his press conference , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their kids outside .
… You can still walk your dog.
” For more about social distancing and the coronavirus pandemic , visit Vox ’ s guide .

On Thursday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a “stay at home” order for the state’s almost 40 million residents, in effect until further notice. On Friday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo followed suit, saying “we’re all under quarantine now.” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker is expected to ask residents to do the same starting on Saturday.
All are examples of dramatic action, often called “shelter in place,” in response to the coronavirus pandemic. It’s worth noting, though, that Cuomo specifically declined to use the words “shelter in place,” saying it caused more panic than was necessary. “Words matter,” he said, according to the New York Times.
So what do these words, in particular, mean? Vox talked to Wendy Mariner, the Edward R. Utley professor of health law at Boston University School of Public Health, to help bring some clarity.
What exactly is “shelter in place”?
While it sounds official, “‘shelter in place’ is not a legal term,” Mariner says. It’s a shorthand for public announcements to convey a set of restrictions, but on its own, it has no set definition of what is allowed.
The terms of each shelter-in-place announcement are spelled out through the specific protocols of a city or state. Keeping 6 feet apart is a good example of one instruction that might be included in such an announcement.
Ultimately, the intent of the protocols is to “decide what people should and shouldn’t do based on a particular threat to the public,” says Mariner.
As an example, she says that after the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, while law enforcement searched for the suspects, there was a shelter-in-place protocol that people stay off the streets in order to be out of the line of fire.
With the coronavirus, the intent is to maintain social distance. When thinking about what you can and can’t do in these instances, think about it through that lens.
The CDC and the WHO recommend several basic measures to help prevent the spread of Covid-19: Wash your hands often for at least 20 seconds.
Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects.
Practice social distancing, and stay home when you are sick.
Contact a health worker if you have symptoms; fever and a dry cough are most common. Guidance may change. Stay informed, and stay safe, with Vox’s coronavirus coverage hub.
Who can declare a shelter in place?
Ultimately, the state has the power. But cities and towns can take individual action if they have prior authority from the state government. For example, Los Angeles county officials had announced a “safer at home” order right before Newsom made one for the state of California.
How are shelter-in-place rules enforced?
Shelter-in-place protocols are an official order, but they’re not easy to enforce — in part because of the human capital that would be needed to check up on every single individual.
“All large-scale measures present obstacles to enforcement,” Mariner says. California’s order does mention that the state will take steps to ensure compliance and that it’s enforceable pursuant to state law, but it makes no mention of penalties. In a news conference quoted by the Associated Press, Newsom says he doesn’t expect police will be needed, as “social pressure already has led to social distancing throughout the state.”
Can I leave the house?
A shelter-in-place order doesn’t mean that everybody has to be strictly homebound. Exemptions are usually made for essential services such as food, medicine, and health care, Mariner says, and staff for essential operations, like utility and communication companies, are still expected to go to work. (There’s already jostling among companies for what counts as essential; Polygon reported that GameStop is arguing it’s essential because it sells webcams and other tools useful for working from home.)
California’s order lays out what will remain open within the state: gas stations, banks, pharmacies, laundry services, and various food-related operations (such as grocery stores, farmers markets, food banks, convenience stores, and takeout and delivery restaurants). It also says that if people need to go out, “they should at all times practice social distancing.”
“It doesn’t sound draconian because it allows people to do what they need to do, just not everything that they like to do,” Mariner says.
Can people — like my babysitter — come to me?
None of the current restrictions prevent you from having someone in your home or from driving to someone else’s, says Mariner. Child care is listed as an essential service in some orders, like New York’s. That said, it’s up to you, your family, and your child care provider to decide how social distancing should work in this situation, and what’s ethically sound for everyone involved.
Does shelter in place prohibit long-distance travel, like driving, or prevent people from leaving the state?
None of the recent orders have mentioned anything about prohibiting driving. Essential workers still have to travel for their jobs and for services. Plus, a car is an enclosed space and maintains social distance, Mariner says.
The Chicago Tribune reported that per Pritzker’s Illinois orders, “all local roads, including the interstate highways and tollways, will remain open to traffic.” Cuomo also reiterated that roads would stay open.
What about things that are important but not necessarily essential? Can I walk my dog? Drive to my local park? Help a neighbor in need?
Mariner says it’s about respecting the intent of the order and thinking about what enforcement mechanisms exist. There’s no reason a person couldn’t walk, since “you won’t touch anyone,” she says. It’s the same with driving to the park. It’s your car; once you’re there, it’s about maintaining distance.
If your neighbor needs help, she says, “then you help. I can’t imagine anyone faulting you for that.”
As for the care of your pets, Newsom addressed that his press conference, saying that people “can still take their kids outside. … You can still walk your dog.”
For more about social distancing and the coronavirus pandemic, visit Vox’s guide.


vox--2020-03-20--Senators allegedly dumping stock as the market tanks is why some people think senators shouldn’t own

Senators allegedly dumping stock as the market tanks is why some people think senators shouldn’t own stock

Multiple US senators are coming under fire for selling off their personal stocks before the coronavirus outbreak cratered the stock market , prompting questions about what they knew — and when .
Sen. Richard Burr ( R-NC ) is under particular scrutiny , after the Center for Responsive Politics and ProPublica reported he sold between $ 628,000 and $ 1.7 million of his holdings in mid-February .
That ’ s spurred questions about whether Burr , as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee , was acting on classified information about the coming coronavirus threat ( something he vehemently denies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only one feeling the heat .
Per her financial disclosures , Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) reported selling millions in stock she jointly owned with her husband ( who is the president of the New York Stock Exchange ) in January .
And one new acquisition in Loeffler ’ s portfolio raised eyebrows : stock in a teleworking company called Citrix , according to the Daily Beast , which broke that story .
Both Burr and Loeffler are adamant they did not engage in insider trading , the buying or selling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside information .
And two other senators — Dianne Feinstein ( D-CA ) and Jim Inhofe ( R-OK ) — who reported large trades around the same time also say the sales were unrelated to coronavirus .
There ’ s a long history of lawmakers profiting off stock trades , possibly from information they gleaned from their roles in Congress .
So much so that Congress passed the Stock Act in 2012 , which spelled out that lawmakers were expressly prohibited from insider trading and gave the House and Senate ethics committees the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least one lawmaker has received jail time in recent years over insider trading charges .
The reason these disclosures are getting so much attention now is that it ’ s happening at a particularly tense time : The stock market is in free fall , the economy appears headed for a steep recession , and thousands of Americans are getting laid off .
Even if senators are not technically engaged in illegal activity , selling off hundreds of thousands or millions of personal stock right before the stock market craters is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to figure out how they will pay for rent or groceries .
What we know about the reported trades Reports about Burr and Loeffler stock sell-offs landed one after the other Thursday night .
For Burr , the sudden sell-off of his personal stocks came on February 13 — when he dumped holdings worth between $ 628,000 and $ 1.7 million in 33 separate transactions , per recent financial disclosures with the Senate .
Burr ’ s personal financial activity came days after he publicly projected confidence about the US response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as his committee was receiving daily briefings about the worldwide spread of the virus , according to a Reuters report .
For Loeffler , the sell-off of between $ 1.3 million and $ 3.1 million worth of stock she owned with her husband came starting on January 24 , the same day the Senate Health Committee hosted an all-members briefing on the coronavirus ( Loeffler sits on the committee ) .
Loeffler ’ s husband , Jeffrey Sprecher , is the chair of the New York Stock Exchange .
Burr ’ s spokesperson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply concerned by the steep and sudden toll this pandemic is taking on our economy ” while defending the transactions : Burr tweeted that he “ relied solely on public news reports to guide my decision ” to sell his stocks .
Loeffler also pushed back in a statement on Twitter , saying she doesn ’ t have a hand in investment decisions for her portfolio and was informed of the stock sale two weeks after it happened .
Financial disclosures show other senators and their families sold stock around the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Armed Services Committee , sold up to $ 750,000 worth of stock , saying it was related to a “ continuing divestiture plan.
” And Feinstein , the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee , reported a stock sell-off in the millions , which she said was made by her husband .
“ Under Senate rules I report my husband ’ s financial transactions , ” Feinstein said in a statement .
“ I have no input into his decisions .
My husband in January and February sold shares of a cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to any work on the coronavirus and the sale was unrelated to the situation.
” Members of Congress are privy to information the rest of us are typically not .
They are expressly not supposed to use that information for personal gain .
But insider trading allegations can be extremely complicated and cases difficult to prosecute , one expert told Vox .
“ The line between illegal trading and innocuous trading is not bright — it ’ s often a murky line , ” said Robert Long , a former senior attorney at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Subtle facts and legal issues can make the difference between having an insider trading investigation closed and being prosecuted and going to jail.
” At Burr ’ s request , his case will be looked into by the Senate Ethics Committee .
It ’ s unclear whether it will get any more increased scrutiny , or a criminal investigation .
What the law says about insider trading — and what some lawmakers want to do to strengthen it Members of Congress are bound by the Stock Act , which prohibits members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2012 , after it became clear some members of Congress were using the classified information they were getting in briefings to get personally wealthy .
Burr was one of just three senators at the time to vote against it .
“ Any insider trading investigation involving the Stock Act will likely focus on did the member of Congress obtain ‘ material ’ ‘ non-public ’ information during the course of his or her official duties , did the member place the trades or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or , alternatively , were the trades done through a blind trust with zero involvement by the member , ” Long told Vox .
As the Atlantic ’ s Annie Lowrey wrote recently , there was plenty of evidence that members of Congress were profiting on stock trades in the early 2000s , before the bill was passed : Initially , the Stock Act had two major provisions .
In addition to banning insider trading , it also beefed up transparency rules designed to require financial disclosures be posted online in searchable databases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was signed into law with lots of pomp and circumstance in April 2012 , it was quietly defanged — with the searchable financial disclosures stripped out — about a year later .
Members of Congress quietly passed that bill by unanimous consent , and Obama signed it into law .
Former Rep. Chris Collins ( R-NY ) pleaded guilty to insider trading last year and was sentenced to 26 months in prison .
Collins actively encouraged family members and friends to buy stock in an Australian drug company after receiving inside information on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , including former Georgia Congress member and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price , have been accused of it .
But as Long noted , prosecuting lawmakers is often difficult .
Now some Democratic lawmakers want to go a step further and ban lawmakers from owning individual stocks altogether .
That ’ s what Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) proposed when she introduced a wide-ranging anti-corruption bill back in 2018 .
“ Enough of the spectacle of HHS secretaries and herds of congressmen caught up in insider trading schemes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Club speech in 2018 unveiling her legislation .
“ They can put their savings in conflict-free investments like mutual funds , or they can pick a different line of work.
” While House Democrats ’ massive anti-corruption bill HR 1 also has some provisions tightening conflict of interest rules , it doesn ’ t go quite as far as Warren ’ s bill does .
While HR 1 says no member should use their official position to introduce or pass legislation to further their own monetary interests , it doesn ’ t explicitly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban it outright — and after the fresh outrage surrounding Burr and other senators selling off stocks as millions of Americans prepare for the effects of a financial crisis , her bill could get a new look .
“ We have laws to prevent insider trading , but members of Congress are inherently insiders , ” Warren said in a recent interview .
“ So why should we let members of Congress trade individual stocks in the first place ?
”

Multiple US senators are coming under fire for selling off their personal stocks before the coronavirus outbreak cratered the stock market, prompting questions about what they knew — and when.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is under particular scrutiny, after the Center for Responsive Politics and ProPublica reported he sold between $628,000 and $1.7 million of his holdings in mid-February. That’s spurred questions about whether Burr, as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was acting on classified information about the coming coronavirus threat (something he vehemently denies).
But Burr isn’t the only one feeling the heat. Per her financial disclosures, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) reported selling millions in stock she jointly owned with her husband (who is the chair of the New York Stock Exchange) in January. And one new acquisition in Loeffler’s portfolio raised eyebrows: stock in a teleworking company called Citrix, according to the Daily Beast, which broke that story.
Both Burr and Loeffler are adamant they did not engage in insider trading, the buying or selling of stocks based on private or classified inside information. And two other senators — Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — who reported large trades around the same time also say the sales were unrelated to coronavirus.
There’s a long history of lawmakers profiting off stock trades, possibly from information they gleaned from their roles in Congress. So much so that Congress passed the Stock Act in 2012, which spelled out that lawmakers were expressly prohibited from insider trading and gave the House and Senate ethics committees the ability to implement new ethics rules. At least one lawmaker has received jail time in recent years over insider trading charges.
The reason these disclosures are getting so much attention now is that it’s happening at a particularly tense time: The stock market is in free fall, the economy appears headed for a steep recession, and thousands of Americans are getting laid off.
Even if senators are not technically engaged in illegal activity, selling off hundreds of thousands or millions of personal stock right before the stock market craters is not a good look as many Americans scramble to figure out how they will pay for rent or groceries.
What we know about the reported trades
Reports about Burr and Loeffler stock sell-offs landed one after the other Thursday night.
For Burr, the sudden sell-off of his personal stocks came on February 13 — when he dumped holdings worth between $628,000 and $1.7 million in 33 separate transactions, per recent financial disclosures with the Senate. Burr’s personal financial activity came days after he publicly projected confidence about the US response to the coronavirus, and around the same time as his committee was receiving daily briefings about the worldwide spread of the virus, according to a Reuters report.
For Loeffler, the sell-off of between $1.3 million and $3.1 million worth of stock she owned with her husband came starting on January 24, the same day the Senate Health Committee hosted an all-members briefing on the coronavirus (Loeffler sits on the committee). Loeffler’s husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is the chair of the New York Stock Exchange.
Burr’s spokesperson told ProPublica that he “has been deeply concerned by the steep and sudden toll this pandemic is taking on our economy” while defending the transactions:
“Senator Burr filed a financial disclosure form for personal transactions made several weeks before the U.S. and financial markets showed signs of volatility due to the growing coronavirus outbreak,” his spokesperson said.
Burr tweeted that he “relied solely on public news reports to guide my decision” to sell his stocks.
My statement in response to reports about recent financial disclosures: pic.twitter.com/J4kye5a4ok — Richard Burr (@SenatorBurr) March 20, 2020
Loeffler also pushed back in a statement on Twitter, saying she doesn’t have a hand in investment decisions for her portfolio and was informed of the stock sale two weeks after it happened.
This is a ridiculous and baseless attack. I do not make investment decisions for my portfolio. Investment decisions are made by multiple third-party advisors without my or my husband's knowledge or involvement. — Senator Kelly Loeffler (@SenatorLoeffler) March 20, 2020
Financial disclosures show other senators and their families sold stock around the same time. Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, sold up to $750,000 worth of stock, saying it was related to a “continuing divestiture plan.” And Feinstein, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, reported a stock sell-off in the millions, which she said was made by her husband.
“Under Senate rules I report my husband’s financial transactions,” Feinstein said in a statement. “I have no input into his decisions. My husband in January and February sold shares of a cancer therapy company. This company is unrelated to any work on the coronavirus and the sale was unrelated to the situation.”
Members of Congress are privy to information the rest of us are typically not. They are expressly not supposed to use that information for personal gain. But insider trading allegations can be extremely complicated and cases difficult to prosecute, one expert told Vox.
“The line between illegal trading and innocuous trading is not bright — it’s often a murky line,” said Robert Long, a former senior attorney at the US Securities and Exchange Commission. “Subtle facts and legal issues can make the difference between having an insider trading investigation closed and being prosecuted and going to jail.”
At Burr’s request, his case will be looked into by the Senate Ethics Committee. It’s unclear whether it will get any more increased scrutiny, or a criminal investigation.
What the law says about insider trading — and what some lawmakers want to do to strengthen it
Members of Congress are bound by the Stock Act, which prohibits members of Congress from insider trading.
The bipartisan act was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2012, after it became clear some members of Congress were using the classified information they were getting in briefings to get personally wealthy. Burr was one of just three senators at the time to vote against it.
“Any insider trading investigation involving the Stock Act will likely focus on did the member of Congress obtain ‘material’ ‘non-public’ information during the course of his or her official duties, did the member place the trades or cause the trades to be placed, or, alternatively, were the trades done through a blind trust with zero involvement by the member,” Long told Vox.
As the Atlantic’s Annie Lowrey wrote recently, there was plenty of evidence that members of Congress were profiting on stock trades in the early 2000s, before the bill was passed:
One analysis of 61,998 stock trades made between 2004 and 2010, for instance, showed that politicians outperformed the market by 20 percent, with the portfolios of high-ranking Republicans beating the market by a whopping 35 percent.
Initially, the Stock Act had two major provisions. In addition to banning insider trading, it also beefed up transparency rules designed to require financial disclosures be posted online in searchable databases.
But just as the Stock Act was signed into law with lots of pomp and circumstance in April 2012, it was quietly defanged — with the searchable financial disclosures stripped out — about a year later. Members of Congress quietly passed that bill by unanimous consent, and Obama signed it into law.
Former Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) pleaded guilty to insider trading last year and was sentenced to 26 months in prison. Collins actively encouraged family members and friends to buy stock in an Australian drug company after receiving inside information on it. And other former members of Congress, including former Georgia Congress member and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, have been accused of it. But as Long noted, prosecuting lawmakers is often difficult.
Now some Democratic lawmakers want to go a step further and ban lawmakers from owning individual stocks altogether. That’s what Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) proposed when she introduced a wide-ranging anti-corruption bill back in 2018.
“Enough of the spectacle of HHS secretaries and herds of congressmen caught up in insider trading schemes,” Warren said at a National Press Club speech in 2018 unveiling her legislation. “They can put their savings in conflict-free investments like mutual funds, or they can pick a different line of work.”
While House Democrats’ massive anti-corruption bill HR 1 also has some provisions tightening conflict of interest rules, it doesn’t go quite as far as Warren’s bill does. While HR 1 says no member should use their official position to introduce or pass legislation to further their own monetary interests, it doesn’t explicitly mention insider trading:
No Member, officer, or employee of a committee or Member of either House of Congress may knowingly use his or her official position to introduce or aid the progress or passage of legislation, a principal purpose of which is to further only his or her pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his or her immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited class of persons or enterprises, when he or she, or his or her immediate family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the affected class.
Warren wants to ban it outright — and after the fresh outrage surrounding Burr and other senators selling off stocks as millions of Americans prepare for the effects of a financial crisis, her bill could get a new look.
“We have laws to prevent insider trading, but members of Congress are inherently insiders,” Warren said in a recent interview. “So why should we let members of Congress trade individual stocks in the first place?”


vox--2020-03-20--What you need to know about hydroxychloroquine, Trump’s new favorite treatment for Covid-19

In one of the key moments of his March 20 press conference about the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic , President Trump touted hydroxychloroquine , a common anti-malaria drug , as a potential treatment for the illness , even while the top health official beside him urged caution about it .
“ This is prescribed for many years for people to combat malaria , which was a big problem and it ’ s very effective , ” Trump said .
“ It was a strong drug.
” He later added , “ I sure as hell think we ought to give it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a beacon of evidence-based policy in the administration ’ s botched pandemic response , had been asked by a reporter whether hydroxychloroquine could be used against Covid-19 after reports surfaced this week of doctors using it in other countries to treat patients .
Fauci was clear : The evidence was thin and anecdotal .
( Their extended exchange was bizarre and revealing , as my colleague German Lopez reported . )
But what is the deal with hydroxychloroquine , you ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the world and increasing numbers of infected people , there ’ s now an international race to develop effective treatments for Covid-19 .
And hydroxychloroquine , a less-toxic derivative of chloroquine , another malaria drug , has emerged as one of the frontrunners .
( Chloroquine itself is related to quinine , an ingredient in tonic water . )
Hydroxychloroquine , the less toxic version , is an appealing option mainly because it ’ s an off-the-shelf drug .
Companies know how to make it , there are low-cost generic versions available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested and approved for use against malaria and to treat inflammation in conditions like arthritis .
But as Fauci noted , it has not been approved as a treatment for Covid-19 , and right now , the evidence for its effectiveness is sparse .
Chinese researchers showed in lab cell culture tests that hydroxychloroquine can slow infections from the virus behind Covid-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , blocking it from entering cells .
Some doctors in China and South Korea have also used it to treat patients .
And a recent study by researchers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efficient ” in clearing upper airways from the virus in three to six days in most patients .
That timing is important because an untreated infected person can transmit the virus for 20 days or more , even without showing symptoms .
So it ’ s important to shrink the amount of time a person carries the virus in order to limit its spread .
“ Such results are promising and open the possibility of an international strategy to decisionmakers to fight this emerging viral infection in real-time even if other strategies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective , but only in the future , ” the French researchers wrote .
“ We therefore recommend that COVID-19 patients be treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to cure their infection and to limit the transmission of the virus to other people in order to curb the spread of COVID-19 in the world.
” But the researchers only looked at 36 patients and only 26 actually received hydroxychloroquine in the study — a tiny sample size .
Hydroxychloroquine can also have side effects like headaches , dizziness , and diarrhea , so it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blanketly prescribe .
And the study wasn ’ t blinded , meaning the patients knew what they were getting , nor was it randomized .
That limits the scientific merit of the study .
That said , there are plans for wider testing .
At least six clinical trials for hydroxychloroquine are recruiting patients or in planning stages around the world .
In the meantime , health officials are scrambling to get enough Covid-19 tests and to build up the capacity to care for a looming surge in patients .
Right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus remains not getting infected in the first place , which means using good personal hygiene like handwashing and social distancing measures .

In one of the key moments of his March 20 press conference about the Covid-19 pandemic, President Trump touted hydroxychloroquine, a common anti-malaria drug, as a potential treatment for the illness, even while the top health official beside him urged caution about it.
“This is prescribed for many years for people to combat malaria, which was a big problem and it’s very effective,” Trump said. “It was a strong drug.” He later added, “I sure as hell think we ought to give it a try.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, and a beacon of evidence-based policy in the administration’s botched pandemic response, had been asked by a reporter whether hydroxychloroquine could be used against Covid-19 after reports surfaced this week of doctors using it in other countries to treat patients. Fauci was clear: The evidence was thin and anecdotal. (Their extended exchange was bizarre and revealing, as my colleague German Lopez reported.)
But what is the deal with hydroxychloroquine, you ask? With the spread of the coronavirus across the world and increasing numbers of infected people, there’s now an international race to develop effective treatments for Covid-19. And hydroxychloroquine, a less-toxic derivative of chloroquine, another malaria drug, has emerged as one of the frontrunners. (Chloroquine itself is related to quinine, an ingredient in tonic water.)
Hydroxychloroquine, the less toxic version, is an appealing option mainly because it’s an off-the-shelf drug. Companies know how to make it, there are low-cost generic versions available, and the drug has already been tested and approved for use against malaria and to treat inflammation in conditions like arthritis.
But as Fauci noted, it has not been approved as a treatment for Covid-19, and right now, the evidence for its effectiveness is sparse.
Chinese researchers showed in lab cell culture tests that hydroxychloroquine can slow infections from the virus behind Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, blocking it from entering cells. Some doctors in China and South Korea have also used it to treat patients. And a recent study by researchers in France found that the drug was “efficient” in clearing upper airways from the virus in three to six days in most patients. That timing is important because an untreated infected person can transmit the virus for 20 days or more, even without showing symptoms. So it’s important to shrink the amount of time a person carries the virus in order to limit its spread.
“Such results are promising and open the possibility of an international strategy to decisionmakers to fight this emerging viral infection in real-time even if other strategies and research including vaccine development could be also effective, but only in the future,” the French researchers wrote. “We therefore recommend that COVID-19 patients be treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to cure their infection and to limit the transmission of the virus to other people in order to curb the spread of COVID-19 in the world.”
But the researchers only looked at 36 patients and only 26 actually received hydroxychloroquine in the study — a tiny sample size. Hydroxychloroquine can also have side effects like headaches, dizziness, and diarrhea, so it’s not something that doctors can blanketly prescribe. And the study wasn’t blinded, meaning the patients knew what they were getting, nor was it randomized. That limits the scientific merit of the study.
That said, there are plans for wider testing. At least six clinical trials for hydroxychloroquine are recruiting patients or in planning stages around the world. In the meantime, health officials are scrambling to get enough Covid-19 tests and to build up the capacity to care for a looming surge in patients.
Right now, the most effective way to fight the virus remains not getting infected in the first place, which means using good personal hygiene like hand-washing, and social distancing measures.


vox--2020-03-20--This charity is giving cash directly to Americans suffering during the coronavirus crisis

If you ’ re one of the millions of Americans who have been laid off as the coronavirus pandemic brings many businesses to the brink of collapse , the upcoming months look terrifying .
That ’ s why policy think tanks and economists across the political spectrum ( and even many lawmakers ) have rallied around the same solution : sending you a lot of money , right away .
Now , a nonprofit that pioneered large-scale direct cash transfers to people is moving fast to do just that .
GiveDirectly is a charity that takes donor money and gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who live in sub-Saharan Africa .
In the last 10 years , the organization has moved $ 140 million to people in need .
The principle behind the charity is simple : Instead of deciding for people in a poor area whether they need a cow or a water pump or a textbook , why not put cash in their hands and let them figure it out ?
In recent years , GiveDirectly has branched out into disaster relief in the US , too , with efforts in Puerto Rico following Hurricane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now it ’ s doing the same for coronavirus relief : sending cash right away to hard-hit households in regions of the US with an active outbreak .
“ Needs are fairly diverse , ” Joe Huston , chief financial officer of GiveDirectly , told me .
“ For any given budget that you have , when you ’ re trying to use that money to help people , cash lets those people use the money where needed .
Cash helps nonprofits or governments respond with one intervention that meets a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis has deepened , the idea of giving cash directly to Americans has become more mainstream .
Twenty percent of Americans work in retail and hospitality , sectors that have been devastated overnight as the coronavirus pandemic sweeps the country .
Experts are estimating that the economy could lose as many as 1 million jobs in the month of March .
Even if we manage to swiftly get the pandemic itself under control , the shock will continue to reverberate throughout the entire economy .
Laid-off workers will cut back on their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly afraid of losing their jobs .
So , as my colleague Dylan Matthews has argued , we need to send every American a check right now .
This financial crisis is unlike any other we ’ ve weathered .
It is caused by the necessity of shutting down major economic activities for months .
But the damage to the economy can be temporary , if we can keep all the people affected out of poverty until it ’ s safe for economic activity to resume .
GiveDirectly ’ s move seems aimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will start its coronavirus relief efforts by targeting vulnerable Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP ) recipients in affected areas ( it ’ ll have to pick just a few of them to start ) and either mailing them debit cards or setting up a digital wallet for them .
Right now , GiveDirectly only has the funding to do this for a few hundred people , and it ’ s choosing the initial recipients right now .
But if more people donate , it will be able to funnel the money to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic-driven downturn , you have to do this without being in contact with any of the people , ” Huston told me — a departure from GiveDirectly ’ s usual face-to-face outreach strategy .
It ’ s figuring out how to best get that done .
Studies have shown that when given cash , people mostly put the money to good use and are less likely to go hungry or live in inadequate shelter .
GiveDirectly has helped drive the movement to compare the success rates of other charitable interventions with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving people money works better than some complicated intervention to help them , it argues , let ’ s just give them money .
The charity has dabbled in using these ideas in the United States , too .
For instance , GiveDirectly has handed out prepaid debit cards to victims of natural disasters .
The idea is that official federal aid , insurance payouts , and relief programs are often slow and inflexible .
Cash is fast .
GiveDirectly can ’ t move nearly as much money as the US government can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mailed to every American , only the government can do it .
( For context , if CEO Jeff Bezos sold all of Amazon and spent his entire fortune , he could send us roughly $ 300 each , while Congress is considering payments between $ 600 and $ 2,500 per person . )
But GiveDirectly argues there ’ s a place for small-scale cash to bridge the gaps before cash from the government comes .
“ We recognize that gov ’ t responses , while large in scale , can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excluding some of the most vulnerable ( e.g.
, elderly , undocumented , etc . )
, not providing sufficient resources , or simply being delayed .
To that end , we ’ re planning to launch a public cash transfer program in the U.S. , leveraging our experience with cash in disasters and contactless operations , ” the nonprofit wrote in a blog post .
If you ’ re looking to help people affected by the crisis , GiveDirectly is a good place to start .
It has a long , impressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that most needs doing right now : giving people money .
And its advocacy for direct cash transfers may have played a role in the concept ’ s rise in political prominence , from a weird fringe idea to one that the world ’ s biggest economy is seriously considering .
The research GiveDirectly has enabled , and the influence its simple idea has gained , might ultimately do even more good than the money it ’ s given .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

If you’re one of the millions of Americans who have been laid off as the coronavirus pandemic brings many businesses to the brink of collapse, the upcoming months look terrifying. That’s why policy think tanks and economists across the political spectrum (and even many lawmakers) have rallied around the same solution: sending you a lot of money, right away.
Now, a nonprofit that pioneered large-scale direct cash transfers to people is moving fast to do just that.
GiveDirectly is a charity that takes donor money and gives it straight to poor people, typically those who live in sub-Saharan Africa. In the last 10 years, the organization has moved $140 million to people in need. The principle behind the charity is simple: Instead of deciding for people in a poor area whether they need a cow or a water pump or a textbook, why not put cash in their hands and let them figure it out?
In recent years, GiveDirectly has branched out into disaster relief in the US, too, with efforts in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Marie and in Houston after Hurricane Harvey. Now it’s doing the same for coronavirus relief: sending cash right away to hard-hit households in regions of the US with an active outbreak.
“Needs are fairly diverse,” Joe Huston, chief financial officer of GiveDirectly, told me. “For any given budget that you have, when you’re trying to use that money to help people, cash lets those people use the money where needed. Cash helps nonprofits or governments respond with one intervention that meets a lot of different needs.”
As the coronavirus crisis has deepened, the idea of giving cash directly to Americans has become more mainstream. Twenty percent of Americans work in retail and hospitality, sectors that have been devastated overnight as the coronavirus pandemic sweeps the country. Experts are estimating that the economy could lose as many as 1 million jobs in the month of March. Even if we manage to swiftly get the pandemic itself under control, the shock will continue to reverberate throughout the entire economy. Laid-off workers will cut back on their own purchases, as will workers who are newly afraid of losing their jobs.
So, as my colleague Dylan Matthews has argued, we need to send every American a check right now. This financial crisis is unlike any other we’ve weathered. It is caused by the necessity of shutting down major economic activities for months. But the damage to the economy can be temporary, if we can keep all the people affected out of poverty until it’s safe for economic activity to resume.
GiveDirectly’s move seems aimed at meeting that need. The group will start its coronavirus relief efforts by targeting vulnerable Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients in affected areas (it’ll have to pick just a few of them to start) and either mailing them debit cards or setting up a digital wallet for them.
Right now, GiveDirectly only has the funding to do this for a few hundred people, and it’s choosing the initial recipients right now. But if more people donate, it will be able to funnel the money to more recipients. “Because this is a pandemic-driven downturn, you have to do this without being in contact with any of the people,” Huston told me — a departure from GiveDirectly’s usual face-to-face outreach strategy. It’s figuring out how to best get that done.
Studies have shown that when given cash, people mostly put the money to good use and are less likely to go hungry or live in inadequate shelter. GiveDirectly has helped drive the movement to compare the success rates of other charitable interventions with the successes of cash transfers. If just giving people money works better than some complicated intervention to help them, it argues, let’s just give them money.
The charity has dabbled in using these ideas in the United States, too. For instance, GiveDirectly has handed out prepaid debit cards to victims of natural disasters. The idea is that official federal aid, insurance payouts, and relief programs are often slow and inflexible. Cash is fast.
Scaling up cash transfers
GiveDirectly can’t move nearly as much money as the US government can. If we want a sizable check mailed to every American, only the government can do it. (For context, if CEO Jeff Bezos sold all of Amazon and spent his entire fortune, he could send us roughly $300 each, while Congress is considering payments between $600 and $2,500 per person.) But GiveDirectly argues there’s a place for small-scale cash to bridge the gaps before cash from the government comes.
“We recognize that gov’t responses, while large in scale, can’t meet the full need — whether by excluding some of the most vulnerable (e.g., elderly, undocumented, etc.), not providing sufficient resources, or simply being delayed. To that end, we’re planning to launch a public cash transfer program in the U.S., leveraging our experience with cash in disasters and contactless operations,” the nonprofit wrote in a blog post.
If you’re looking to help people affected by the crisis, GiveDirectly is a good place to start. It has a long, impressive track record of doing the single thing that most needs doing right now: giving people money.
And its advocacy for direct cash transfers may have played a role in the concept’s rise in political prominence, from a weird fringe idea to one that the world’s biggest economy is seriously considering. The research GiveDirectly has enabled, and the influence its simple idea has gained, might ultimately do even more good than the money it’s given.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-03-20--How to watch Emma, Onward, and other new movies you can suddenly view at home

The Covid-19 coronavirus threw Hollywood into a tailspin , leading to movie theaters and productions across the country to shut down .
With them , movies that had recently opened in theaters ( or were hoping to premiere in the coming weeks ) were left with dismal box-office results and no road forward .
Hoping to recoup costs while entertaining Americans who find themselves stuck at home , several studios ( beginning with NBC Universal ) announced plans to rush their films to digital release ahead of schedule .
In some cases , they ’ re releasing them digitally mere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of the customary handful of months .
The first wave of those early digital releases began today , March 20 , and the second will follow hot on its heels .
Most movies will be available on various on-demand platforms , including services like iTunes and Amazon Prime , some gaming platforms like Xbox and PlayStation , and some cable providers .
But most of them carry a higher price point than usual ( about $ 20 per purchase or rental ) — albeit still less than going to the movies in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re trying to decide which of the newly available bounty to watch , here ’ s a guide to the first week of these quick-turnaround digital releases .
Jane Austen practically invented the romantic comedy , but few adaptations of her books lean into the wicked satire that drips from nearly every page .
Emma , helmed by photographer and music video director Autumn de Wilde , gets the balance just right .
With a delightful Anya Taylor-Joy performance at its center , this new Emma doesn ’ t play too fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most familiar beats .
It instead digs out the absurdities of being wealthy ( or adjacent to wealth ) around the turn of the 19th century — the affectations , the frills that cover up the crudeness of real life , and above all , the vast , unmitigated boredom .
How to watch it : Emma is available to digitally rent or buy on a wide variety of on-demand services , including iTunes , Google Play , Amazon Prime , and FandangoNow .
Here ’ s the setup for The Hunt : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a field and quickly realize they ’ re being hunted for sport by globalist elites .
Or are they ?
The Hunt bills itself as a satirical romp taking pot shots at everyone , but it fundamentally misunderstands what satire can do , the function it fills , and the way it works .
Rather than exaggerate the ideas it aims to skewer , it just repeats them doggedly , like a parrot without comprehension .
Rather than dig at a particular behavior or mindset causing our national division , The Hunt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — as if the slogans and bywords and hot-button phrases we slog through in the media are what deserve ridicule , in equal measure .
It verges , if not plunges , straight into nihilism .
What a waste .
How to watch it : The Hunt is available to digitally rent or buy on a wide variety of on-demand services , including iTunes , Google Play , Amazon Prime , and FandangoNow .
The Invisible Man seemed eerily well-timed , releasing in theaters mere days after Harvey Weinstein ’ s conviction on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the third degree .
Elisabeth Moss stars as a woman trying to escape the clutches of her abusive husband , who has found a way to turn himself invisible .
Living inside The Invisible Man for two hours , we get to experience the existential terror of being a survivor of abuse who isn ’ t believed , as well as witness the many ways that crafty predators can manipulate their prey , making it seem as though they ’ re the victim , and the accuser is the one who ought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an old , old story , and an all-too-familiar one .
How to watch it : The Invisible Man is available to digitally rent or buy on a wide variety of on-demand services , including iTunes , Google Play , Amazon Prime , and FandangoNow .
Onward is the charming tale of two brothers on a quest to spend time with their late father , set in a world that was once ruled by magic but is now pretty normal , even boring .
The movie ’ s plot cleverly employs the structure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play in a fantasy role-playing game such as Dungeons & Dragons .
But in Onward , the fantastical , Tolkien-lite elements are mixed with more banal workaday realities .
Yet its true strength is in how it portrays the love between brothers , which brings its own kind of magic .
One of Pixar ’ s most profound abilities has always been confronting the bittersweet along with the purely sweet and funny , in stories that kids and parents can watch together — and Onward delivers on that promise .
How to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rent or buy on a wide variety of on-demand services , including iTunes , Google Play , Amazon Prime , and FandangoNow .
It will begin streaming on Disney+ on April 3 .
Vin Diesel stars in Bloodshot as Ray Garrison , a former soldier traversing the world in a quest for revenge following his wife ’ s death .
Based on the Valiant Comics series created by Kevin VanHook , Don Perlin , and Bob Layton , Bloodshot is not particularly good action cinema , but it ’ s a big , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gunfights .
For those in the mood for a mindless , trashy flick , it ’ s just the ticket .
Polygon contributor Jesse Hassenger calls it the “ ultimate Vin Diesel vehicle.
” How to watch it : Bloodshot will be available to digitally buy on a wide variety of on-demand services , including iTunes , Google Play , Amazon Prime , and FandangoNow , starting March 24 .
Birds of Prey is a candy-colored violent romp of a movie , with Margot Robbie starring as Harley Quinn , fresh out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to shake him out of her system .
The movie is devilishly fun , if you ’ re up for watching Harley and her gang — Black Canary ( Jurnee Smollett-Bell ) , police detective Renee Montoya ( Rosie Perez ) , assassin Huntress ( Mary Elizabeth Winstead ) , and street urchin Cassandra Cain ( Ella Jay Basco ) — wreak bloody havoc on bad men for a few hours , chief among them Ewan McGregor ’ s crime boss Roman Sionis .
Its bone-cracking attempts at feminist substance are less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie worth watching .
How to watch it : Birds of Prey will be available digitally buy on a wide variety of on-demand services , including iTunes , Google Play , Amazon Prime , and FandangoNow , starting March 24 .
It will be available for digital rental beginning April 7 .
Guy Ritchie returns — along with a bevy of handsome men — for The Gentlemen , a tale of crime populated by scamps played by Hugh Grant , Jeremy Strong , Charlie Hunnam , Matthew McConaughey , Colin Farrell , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Han of Polygon writes that “ Ritchie is no longer the strongest beast in the forest , and he ’ s aging out of the game , too ... his brand of humor , which might have flown in the late ’ 90s and early 2000s , has aged in an ugly way .
Every part of The Gentlemen is classic Ritchie : Scoundrels of all sorts cross paths in an ever-widening web of crime , with sequences full of fast dialogue and fast cuts .
And it comes with a racist streak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch it : The Gentlemen will be available digitally buy on a wide variety of on-demand services , including iTunes , Google Play , Amazon Prime , and FandangoNow , starting March 24 .
Many Americans still favor the death penalty , but that ’ s precisely what Just Mercy , a true story that will set viewers ’ sense of injustice ablaze , aims to change .
Based on Bryan Stevenson ’ s bestselling 2014 memoir of the same name , Just Mercy tells the story of Stevenson ( played by Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early career as an attorney working to reverse wrongful convictions in Alabama ; it also details the founding of his organization , the Equal Justice Initiative .
The film focuses on the case of Walter “ Johnny D ” McMillian ( Jamie Foxx ) , a poor black man who was arrested in 1987 for the murder of an 18-year-old white girl and convicted based on testimony that later turned out to be fabricated .
It ’ s a rousing , passionate tale with a true hero at its center .
How to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available to digitally buy on a wide variety of on-demand services , including iTunes , Google Play , Amazon Prime , and FandangoNow .
It will be available for digital rental beginning March 24 .
Ben Affleck turns in a terrific performance in The Way Back as Jack , a grieving alcoholic loner who suddenly finds himself coaching basketball at his alma mater .
That sounds like a recipe for a clichéd sports movie , but The Way Back never gets too comfortable in one place ; it ’ s a movie about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school basketball , and the latter never overtakes the former .
It hearkens back to the kind of original mid-budget films that were rampant in Hollywood in the 1990s , serious dramas for adults that aren ’ t necessarily hunting for awards-season glory .
And the seriousness of The Way Back — its unwillingness to take the easy road , and Affleck ’ s total commitment to letting his personal rawness inform performed pain — should ensure those audiences find what they ’ re looking for .
How to watch it : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or purchase on a wide variety of on-demand services , including iTunes , Google Play , Amazon Prime , and FandangoNow , starting March 24 .

The Covid-19 coronavirus threw Hollywood into a tailspin, leading to movie theaters and productions across the country to shut down. With them, movies that had recently opened in theaters (or were hoping to premiere in the coming weeks) were left with dismal box-office results and no road forward.
Hoping to recoup costs while entertaining Americans who find themselves stuck at home, several studios (beginning with NBC Universal) announced plans to rush their films to digital release ahead of schedule. In some cases, they’re releasing them digitally mere weeks after they came to theaters, instead of the customary handful of months.
Related How the coronavirus outbreak is roiling the film and entertainment industries
The first wave of those early digital releases began on March 20, and the second followed hot on its heels on March 24. Most movies will be available on various on-demand platforms, including services like iTunes and Amazon Prime, some gaming platforms like Xbox and PlayStation, and some cable providers.
But most of them carry a higher price point than usual (about $20 per purchase or rental) — albeit still less than going to the movies in many metropolitan areas. So if you’re trying to decide which of the newly available bounty to watch, here’s a guide to the first week of these quick-turnaround digital releases.
Available Friday, March 20:
Jane Austen practically invented the romantic comedy, but few adaptations of her books lean into the wicked satire that drips from nearly every page. Emma, helmed by photographer and music video director Autumn de Wilde, gets the balance just right. With a delightful Anya Taylor-Joy performance at its center, this new Emma doesn’t play too fast and loose with the story or its most familiar beats. It instead digs out the absurdities of being wealthy (or adjacent to wealth) around the turn of the 19th century — the affectations, the frills that cover up the crudeness of real life, and above all, the vast, unmitigated boredom.
How to watch it: Emma is available to digitally rent or buy on a wide variety of on-demand services, including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, and FandangoNow.
Here’s the setup for The Hunt: A group of salt-of-the-earth hicks wake up in a field and quickly realize they’re being hunted for sport by globalist elites. Or are they? The Hunt bills itself as a satirical romp taking pot shots at everyone, but it fundamentally misunderstands what satire can do, the function it fills, and the way it works. Rather than exaggerate the ideas it aims to skewer, it just repeats them doggedly, like a parrot without comprehension. Rather than dig at a particular behavior or mindset causing our national division, The Hunt acts like the symptoms are the problem — as if the slogans and bywords and hot-button phrases we slog through in the media are what deserve ridicule, in equal measure. It verges, if not plunges, straight into nihilism. What a waste.
How to watch it: The Hunt is available to digitally rent or buy on a wide variety of on-demand services, including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, and FandangoNow.
The Invisible Man seemed eerily well-timed, releasing in theaters mere days after Harvey Weinstein’s conviction on two sex crimes charges, including rape in the third degree. Elisabeth Moss stars as a woman trying to escape the clutches of her abusive husband, who has found a way to turn himself invisible. Living inside The Invisible Man for two hours, we get to experience the existential terror of being a survivor of abuse who isn’t believed, as well as witness the many ways that crafty predators can manipulate their prey, making it seem as though they’re the victim, and the accuser is the one who ought to be punished. It’s an old, old story, and an all-too-familiar one.
How to watch it: The Invisible Man is available to digitally rent or buy on a wide variety of on-demand services, including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, and FandangoNow.
Related The Invisible Man gives a classic horror story new life in a fable about abusers
Onward is the charming tale of two brothers on a quest to spend time with their late father, set in a world that was once ruled by magic but is now pretty normal, even boring. The movie’s plot cleverly employs the structure of the sort of campaign you might play in a fantasy role-playing game such as Dungeons & Dragons. But in Onward, the fantastical, Tolkien-lite elements are mixed with more banal workaday realities. Yet its true strength is in how it portrays the love between brothers, which brings its own kind of magic. One of Pixar’s most profound abilities has always been confronting the bittersweet along with the purely sweet and funny, in stories that kids and parents can watch together — and Onward delivers on that promise.
How to watch it: Onward is available to digitally rent or buy on a wide variety of on-demand services, including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, and FandangoNow. It will begin streaming on Disney+ on April 3.
Available March 24:
Bloodshot
Vin Diesel stars in Bloodshot as Ray Garrison, a former soldier traversing the world in a quest for revenge following his wife’s death. Based on the Valiant Comics series created by Kevin VanHook, Don Perlin, and Bob Layton, Bloodshot is not particularly good action cinema, but it’s a big, bombastic popcorn movie full of guns and gunfights. For those in the mood for a mindless, trashy flick, it’s just the ticket. Polygon contributor Jesse Hassenger calls it the “ultimate Vin Diesel vehicle.”
How to watch it: Bloodshot will be available to digitally buy on a wide variety of on-demand services, including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, and FandangoNow, starting March 24.
Related Bloodshot is the ultimate Vin Diesel vehicle
Birds of Prey
Birds of Prey is a candy-colored violent romp of a movie, with Margot Robbie starring as Harley Quinn, fresh out of a bad relationship with the Joker and trying to shake him out of her system. The movie is devilishly fun, if you’re up for watching Harley and her gang — Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), police detective Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez), assassin Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and street urchin Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco) — wreak bloody havoc on bad men for a few hours, chief among them Ewan McGregor’s crime boss Roman Sionis. Its bone-cracking attempts at feminist substance are less successful, but Robbie alone makes the movie worth watching.
How to watch it: Birds of Prey will be available digitally buy on a wide variety of on-demand services, including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, and FandangoNow, starting March 24. It will be available for digital rental beginning April 7.
The Gentlemen
Guy Ritchie returns — along with a bevy of handsome men — for The Gentlemen, a tale of crime populated by scamps played by Hugh Grant, Jeremy Strong, Charlie Hunnam, Matthew McConaughey, Colin Farrell, and Henry Golding, and more. Karen Han of Polygon writes that “Ritchie is no longer the strongest beast in the forest, and he’s aging out of the game, too ... his brand of humor, which might have flown in the late ’90s and early 2000s, has aged in an ugly way. Every part of The Gentlemen is classic Ritchie: Scoundrels of all sorts cross paths in an ever-widening web of crime, with sequences full of fast dialogue and fast cuts. And it comes with a racist streak that feels severely antiquated.”
How to watch it: The Gentlemen will be available digitally buy on a wide variety of on-demand services, including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, and FandangoNow, starting March 24.
Related The Gentlemen turns Guy Ritchie into his own worst enemy
Many Americans still favor the death penalty, but that’s precisely what Just Mercy, a true story that will set viewers’ sense of injustice ablaze, aims to change. Based on Bryan Stevenson’s bestselling 2014 memoir of the same name, Just Mercy tells the story of Stevenson (played by Michael B. Jordan) as he navigates his early career as an attorney working to reverse wrongful convictions in Alabama; it also details the founding of his organization, the Equal Justice Initiative. The film focuses on the case of Walter “Johnny D” McMillian (Jamie Foxx), a poor black man who was arrested in 1987 for the murder of an 18-year-old white girl and convicted based on testimony that later turned out to be fabricated. It’s a rousing, passionate tale with a true hero at its center.
How to watch it: Just Mercy is currently available to digitally buy on a wide variety of on-demand services, including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, and FandangoNow. It will be available for digital rental beginning March 24.
Ben Affleck turns in a terrific performance in The Way Back as Jack, a grieving alcoholic loner who suddenly finds himself coaching basketball at his alma mater. That sounds like a recipe for a clichéd sports movie, but The Way Back never gets too comfortable in one place; it’s a movie about an addict who happens to coach high school basketball, and the latter never overtakes the former. It hearkens back to the kind of original mid-budget films that were rampant in Hollywood in the 1990s, serious dramas for adults that aren’t necessarily hunting for awards-season glory. And the seriousness of The Way Back — its unwillingness to take the easy road, and Affleck’s total commitment to letting his personal rawness inform performed pain — should ensure those audiences find what they’re looking for.
How to watch it: The Way Back will be available digitally rent or purchase on a wide variety of on-demand services, including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, and FandangoNow, starting March 24.


vox--2020-03-20--Netflix’s Feel Good is a rom-com about what happens after the rom-com

I fall in love easily .
A couple of weeks after I met my wife , I was “ joking ” with her about moving into married student housing on campus .
And before that , my dating history was full of women I met a couple of times then decided were probably the one for me .
I ’ ve been happily with my wife for two decades now — but I shudder to think of what sort of chaos I would have gotten up to if I hadn ’ t met her the first day of college .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I am less interested in the “ falling in love ” part of romantic stories than I am the “ staying in love ” part .
What I ’ m drawn to are stories about couples who have been married two years and are starting to realize that “ as long as we both shall live ” can be a really , really long time .
Netflix ’ s new series Feel Good ( a British show produced by Channel 4 over there ) gets me .
The first episode ( of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mae ( series co-creator and co-writer Mae Martin ) and George ( Charlotte Ritchie ) .
The two fall hard and fast for each other — even though George has never dated a woman before meeting Mae — and after that , a montage rockets us past the early parts of their relationship to the point where they ’ re moving in together .
Yet things have been so good between them for those first few months that they don ’ t realize how little they actually know about each other .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ fun ” begins .
And to be clear , by “ fun , ” I mean the toxic codependency that has to be navigated to find something resembling a healthy relationship .
Picture me rubbing my hands together and saying , “ Excellent !
” with glee .
You ’ ve likely never heard of Mae Martin , but she ’ s astonishingly good in this .
Refreshingly , both Mae and George have huge roadblocks to overcome if they ’ re going to be the best versions of themselves in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dated a woman , is still reluctant to tell anybody that her new romantic partner is actually her girlfriend , a lie that only grows more untenable as she starts inviting Mae to parties with her friends , then expects Mae to keep up the pretense that the two of them are just “ good friends.
” Mae , meanwhile , has an addiction and is committed to a 12-step program but never forgets that just over a decade of her life was lost not just to her addiction but also to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
She keeps her addiction a secret from George until the two have moved in together and Mae ’ s mother ( Lisa Kudrow ! )
lets slip her daughter ’ s status on a video chat with the two .
( Feel Good was made before our current quarantine began , but with the way so many of its characters stay locked away at home and spend so much of their time with videoconferencing software , it might feel a little bit prescient . )
I wasn ’ t aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but she ’ s really astonishing here .
Mae is frequently funny , almost lacerating when she talks .
She is a would-be comedian , after all .
But she also underlines the ways in which Mae is hard to bear and tricky to handle .
She still fixates on some things in the way she once fixated on drugs , and now , her fixation has shifted to George .
When George goes away for a wedding weekend ( with the friends she still hasn ’ t told about Mae ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ text pings when trying to have a conversation with her mother , and she finally has to ask Mae to just give it a rest .
What ’ s smart about Feel Good is the way that neither of these women is in the right or the wrong for the extremely toxic ways their relationship develops .
The connection and love between them is real , but that allows each of them to too easily and too readily take advantage of each other .
I ’ ll leave it for you to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them together or apart , but after watching the finale , I was fascinated by all of the ways I could have interpreted the series ’ title .
Feel Good has earned comparisons to Fleabag in some quarters .
I don ’ t think it ’ s quite as good , but that I had to think about whether the comparison was justified indicates that this is a worthy watch indeed .
And since the season is just six 25-minute episodes , it ’ ll take you about as long to watch as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in together .
You , too , might fall in love so fast , you feel a little queasy .
One Good Thing is Vox ’ s recommendations feature .
In each edition , find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend .

I fall in love easily. A couple of weeks after I met my wife, I was “joking” with her about moving into married student housing on campus. And before that, my dating history was full of women I met a couple of times then decided were probably the one for me. I’ve been happily with my wife for two decades now — but I shudder to think of what sort of chaos I would have gotten up to if I hadn’t met her the first day of college.
It’s maybe for this reason that I am less interested in the “falling in love” part of romantic stories than I am the “staying in love” part. What I’m drawn to are stories about couples who have been married two years and are starting to realize that “as long as we both shall live” can be a really, really long time.
Netflix’s new series Feel Good (a British show produced by Channel 4 over there) gets me. The first episode (of six) shows us a meet-cute between Mae (series co-creator and co-writer Mae Martin) and George (Charlotte Ritchie). The two fall hard and fast for each other — even though George has never dated a woman before meeting Mae — and after that, a montage rockets us past the early parts of their relationship to the point where they’re moving in together.
Yet things have been so good between them for those first few months that they don’t realize how little they actually know about each other. And that, for me, is when the “fun” begins.
And to be clear, by “fun,” I mean the toxic codependency that has to be navigated to find something resembling a healthy relationship. Picture me rubbing my hands together and saying, “Excellent!” with glee.
You’ve likely never heard of Mae Martin, but she’s astonishingly good in this.
Refreshingly, both Mae and George have huge roadblocks to overcome if they’re going to be the best versions of themselves in this relationship. George, having never dated a woman, is still reluctant to tell anybody that her new romantic partner is actually her girlfriend, a lie that only grows more untenable as she starts inviting Mae to parties with her friends, then expects Mae to keep up the pretense that the two of them are just “good friends.”
Mae, meanwhile, has an addiction and is committed to a 12-step program but never forgets that just over a decade of her life was lost not just to her addiction but also to the terrible ways she treated people during that time. She keeps her addiction a secret from George until the two have moved in together and Mae’s mother (Lisa Kudrow!) lets slip her daughter’s status on a video chat with the two. (Feel Good was made before our current quarantine began, but with the way so many of its characters stay locked away at home and spend so much of their time with videoconferencing software, it might feel a little bit prescient.)
I wasn’t aware of Martin before I started watching this show, but they’re really astonishing here. Mae is frequently funny, almost lacerating when she talks. She is a would-be comedian, after all. But Martin also underlines the ways in which Mae is hard to bear and tricky to handle. She still fixates on some things in the way she once fixated on drugs, and now, her fixation has shifted to George. When George goes away for a wedding weekend (with the friends she still hasn’t told about Mae), her phone starts blowing up with text pings when trying to have a conversation with her mother, and she finally has to ask Mae to just give it a rest.
What’s smart about Feel Good is the way that neither of these two is in the right or the wrong for the extremely toxic ways their relationship develops. The connection and love between them is real, but that allows each of them to too easily and too readily take advantage of each other. I’ll leave it for you to find out if the first season ends with them together or apart, but after watching the finale, I was fascinated by all of the ways I could have interpreted the series’ title.
Feel Good has earned comparisons to Fleabag in some quarters. I don’t think it’s quite as good, but that I had to think about whether the comparison was justified indicates that this is a worthy watch indeed. And since the season is just six 25-minute episodes, it’ll take you about as long to watch as it took Mae and George to move in together. You, too, might fall in love so fast, you feel a little queasy.
Feel Good is streaming on Netflix.
One Good Thing is Vox’s recommendations feature. In each edition, find one more thing from the world of culture that we highly recommend.
Update: Mae Martin uses both she and they pronouns. The article has been updated to use both pronouns when referring to Mae Martin, the performer and writer. (The character of Mae, so far as the show indicates, still uses feminine pronouns, but late in season developments suggest that will change.)