vox--2020-04-19--How to fix the WHO, according to an expert

Share All sharing options for : How to fix the WHO , according to an expert “ The W.H.O .
really blew it , ” President Donald Trump tweeted on April 7 , referring to the World Health Organization .
“ For some reason , funded largely by the United States , yet very China centric .
We will be giving that a good look.
” Trump ’ s tweet , coincidentally , came on World Health Day , which honors health care workers around the world and celebrates the 1948 founding of the World Health Organization .
The global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War II world , based on the belief the planet had to work together to fight diseases and promote the health of all citizens .
And when a pandemic like the coronavirus happens , it ’ s obvious why the world needs an institution to help coordinate resources and distribute information .
But the WHO has come under pressure for its handling of the coronavirus , including whether it was too slow to declare a global health emergency and too generous in its praise of China for its handling of the outbreak .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for debate .
But President Trump , at least , has decided that the WHO failed to do enough , and this week announced his intention to halt funding for the agency .
The WHO is made up of member states , meaning it is only as effective as the countries that make up that body , and that definitely includes superpowers like the United States .
As Kelley Lee , research chair in global health governance at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia , Canada , told me , you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t empower it to begin with .
“ To say , ‘ WHO should do this , WHO should do that.
’ Well , WHO is the member states , ” Lee said .
“ So if you want WHO to do something , then the member states have to get together and say : ‘ Do this.
’ ” Lee studied WHO reform efforts in the 1990s , published a book on the organization , co-established the WHO Collaborating Centre on Global Change and Health , and has chaired the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Health .
I spoke to her to get a better understanding of the WHO ’ s mission , why the WHO is facing criticism , how the organization got to this point — and , whether and how the World Health Organization ’ s shortcomings can be fixed before the next pandemic hits .
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity .
This is a very basic question , but what exactly is the World Health Organization ?
In a nutshell , it ’ s the United Nations ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO is the coordinating body for international cooperation in the health sphere .
It was created in 1948 , after the Second World War .
It had predecessors ; it was formed by bringing together some of the regional bodies that existed .
There was a League of Nations organization for health that didn ’ t go anywhere because the United States didn ’ t join , so they tried to make it more open and more member-state-oriented .
And what is the WHO ’ s role — or should be its role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs at the time , which were post-war outbreaks and trying to respond to humanitarian needs .
Over time , it ’ s evolved in different ways into an organization that provides both what they call “ normative functions ” — providing guidelines and technical advice , collecting data , statistics , and so on .
And then , I think increasingly member states wanted it to take a more active role in advocating for specific health issues .
So it got involved in things like Health for All and all sorts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at the WHO ’ s constitution , it is a member-state organization .
It doesn ’ t have independent authority to do what it likes .
The World Health Assembly meets every year .
And that is sort of the legislative body of WHO , and the secretariat carries out what is decided upon .
It doesn ’ t mean [ they don ’ t ] have any powers , the secretariat and the director-general , but it really has to go through all the member states .
So the way I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate committee-designed organization .
You know , when you try and do something by committee , it can end up a bit of a mess .
The other way I describe the WHO is like if you go into a restaurant , it ’ s got everything on the menu .
It ’ s one of those Gordon Ramsay moments where , “ You need to reduce this menu , you can ’ t do everything.
” And I think WHO has been like that because it ’ s had to respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with health .
And I don ’ t think that ’ s tenable for any organization , especially when you have frozen resources .
And so you ’ re spread more and more thin , and you ’ re trying to do everything .
That ’ s the perfect overview , and this idea that it ’ s a restaurant with everything being on the menu is an interesting one .
Is that because , after the WHO was founded in 1948 , it just kept adding new priorities , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ menu ?
Why does it just have such a massive mandate ?
It is a very cumbersome organization , lots of different parts , the way it ’ s structured , with headquarters and then regional offices and country offices .
But I think it really reflects the starting point in the organization , its constitution .
And if you look at the definition of health , it ’ s a very broad one .
It ’ s not just the absence of disease , but it ’ s all of these things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interpretation , over time , has led to everything under the sun [ being placed ] under what health is .
In a way , it ’ s right .
It ’ s that tension between a disease focus and a more clinical look at what health is , and broader , social determinants of health — the environment , education , and so on .
So there ’ s always been that tension and almost philosophy about what health is , and what creates good health and well-being .
And you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US versus some of the European countries .
That ’ s all played out at WHO .
WHO needs to accommodate all of these kind of philosophies about what health is and it ’ s responding to both high-income countries and low-income countries .
Trying to be everything to everyone , and that ’ s what the constitution laid out .
So from the beginning , I think its design was almost impossible to fulfill , unless you had the right resources .
Priority setting has always been a problem , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reform the organization to be better at priority setting ; when everything ’ s a priority , nothing ’ s a priority .
I ’ ve been in so many reform meetings where , it ’ s like , “ What do we cut ?
Mental health ?
Or do we cut road traffic accidents ?
” Everything is important .
It ’ s a Sophie ’ s Choice situation where , “ Which child do you give away ?
” Obviously when there ’ s an outbreak like this , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediate priority .
But these other issues are not less important , just because they ’ re chronic or long-term .
So how does the organization choose where to put its limited resources ?
And that ’ s been a real struggle .
With so many priorities , was the WHO caught in a similar situation where it had so many priorities , that it also wasn ’ t really prepared or had the resources to deal with a pandemic ?
So , WHO doesn ’ t have any resources to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s always been very much an advisory body , recommending what a country should do .
It doesn ’ t have the UNICEF [ United Nations Children ’ s Fund ] mode of operation where it can go in and vaccinate children , for example .
WHO has never done that , that ’ s not what its role is supposed to be , to get into countries and be boots on the ground .
And people probably wanted that to happen .
“ Oh , why isn ’ t WHO sending in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never its role .
Its role was to do intelligence-gathering , and then alert countries , and countries are the ones that act .
So there ’ s that .
The other thing is , to say , “ WHO should do this , WHO should do that.
” Well , WHO is the member states .
So if you want WHO to do something , then the member-states have to get together and say , “ Do this.
” And that is the other problem .
Countries are very divided about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a lot of difference of opinion .
Some people say some countries get their way more than others .
So there ’ s this kind of [ debate ] being played out : What is it that WHO should do ?
Countries are not agreeing , so then WHO ends up doing everything .
So it sounds like part of the problem is not just WHO ’ s mandate , but the dynamic of member states , which is a reflection of how the world operates .
I imagine member states who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or who give more funds , have a lot to do with shaping that agenda .
Given the current debate , I ’ m specifically thinking of the United States , or China .
It ’ s ironic that the US is accusing WHO of being China-centric , when actually for decades , it ’ s been accused of being very US-centric , if anything .
So it ’ s kind of interesting how it ’ s playing out , for sure .
The organization likes to be seen as scientific and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to keep politics out .
What I ’ ve written in the past is that it ’ s inherently political .
But the thing is , you want to have good politics , you want to have all countries being able to express their views .
Yes , we all have different interests .
But have a fair process , allocating resources or priorities accordingly , not having one or certain parties dominate .
When you have bad politics , when there ’ s unfairness and there ’ s a lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when problems happen .
It ’ s not like we can take politics out of WHO .
But what we want to do is take bad politics out of WHO .
And that ’ s the challenge .
And for an organization where the funding is so skewed toward voluntary contributions , this is the problem .
“ Whoever pays the piper , plays the tune ” type thing .
You have all these vested interests buying , basically , what WHO does .
It ’ s a very difficult situation .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened in a year , or two .
Can you point to a period in time when these politics really began to interfere in WHO ’ s mandate , and put it in the position it is today ?
Definitely , we have to take a historical perspective .
So this has been unfolding over decades .
The turning point was probably the late 1970s , when there was a historical movement for low- and middle-income countries , the New International Economic Order movement .
And they tried to challenge the world economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There were a lot of accusations at that time that the UN system was becoming politicized , and organizations like WHO were starting to recognize that it needed to address the developing world ’ s needs more effectively with the health for all movement and then the essential drugs list .
And then there were the breast milk substitutes guidelines that were adopted .
Those all upset certain interests , largely the US and big companies , which didn ’ t like WHO to stray beyond disease-control programs : things like smallpox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US thought that this was straying into territories where WHO shouldn ’ t be , asking for regulation of the industry , whether it ’ s food or pharma or so on .
So the US and some other countries — which were shifting to the right at that point under leaders like US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — they started to freeze WHO ’ s budget on the assessed contribution side .
And so you see the voluntary contributions growing from that point .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice , it had to take more voluntary contributions .
By the 1990s , which is when I come onto the scene and start to analyze this with my colleagues , we did this big study in the mid-90s about financing the WHO and it was about 50-50 at that time , between assessed and voluntary contributions .
And that , in itself , was alarming .
We said that had to stop .
We had to make sure the WHO could set the priorities , not all of these countries and donors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse .
I think it ’ s now up to 80 to 85 percent voluntary , and it just continued .
So you could see this upward trend .
Also , other organizations were created at the time ; the Global Fund .
Gates came onto the scene , and so there ’ s been donors putting their money elsewhere , away from WHO .
And WHO said , “ We need to be the coordinating body .
There ’ s too many other players out there.
” It became a very fragmented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have this crazy , market-driven global health environment , where donors put their money where they want , and create other competing initiatives .
It ’ s [ been ] a long time happening , and so what we ’ re seeing now is , we want the WHO to coordinate , but we haven ’ t made it the coordinating body for decades .
So , it ’ s very difficult to then step in and get everybody to work together .
It sounds like this distrust has been building for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would make it harder for the WHO to inspire cooperation and marshal resources to fight a pandemic .
How much does this distrust play into why the WHO is floundering a bit — or at least is perceived to be by some ?
WHO has its faults , but I hesitate to say , WHO hasn ’ t done this , it hasn ’ t done that .
It ’ s really been like a ship in the stormy seas — with all the changes politically going on , it ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to cling onto the fact that it is a scientific organization .
They ’ ve got to wise up .
Clinging to this myth that somehow health is not political , it ’ s actually a losing game .
And if we got rid of WHO now , what do we have instead ?
We ’ d have to rebuild WHO or some global health organization .
And the question now is , what would that look like ?
How would that not be designed by committee , or who would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority ?
What would you want it to do ?
Then , the politics start again .
I ’ m finding it really a little bit worrying that we come out of this outbreak and we destroy WHO , and we have nothing for the next time .
There ’ s going to be a next time .
This is just a warmup .
I ’ m very concerned that we don ’ t destroy what little we already have .
Instead , go the other way , let ’ s see what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make it the organization we need it to be .
It might be tough to rebuild the WHO in the middle of the pandemic .
But how can WHO be fixed ?
This is something I ’ ve been teaching all term actually , so it ’ s great that you asked that .
I give my students this slide , which has four pictures on it .
The first one is an old computer that basically doesn ’ t work anymore , and you just need to replace it .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , it can ’ t be fixed , you ’ ve got to throw it away .
That ’ s , I guess , what President Trump wants to do .
The second one is to keep putting in new peripherals , so you ’ re plugging in the old extra hard drives .
WHO gets all these new programs plugged into an old laptop , and eventually , it can ’ t run all these things .
It ’ s overwhelmed .
That , to me , doesn ’ t work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an old infrastructure .
The third option is to look at what we have , which is a lot of different players out there , and create some sort of network .
Somebody has to be in the middle to coordinate , and we have to then strengthen that middle .
But to see what other organizations do best , what ’ s their functions , what are their spheres of expertise — and there are big gaps — so we ’ d have to create new organizations that do that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other is , if you could imagine an iPad , for example , it ’ s an innovative idea .
Integrate it all into a new product .
This picture of the iPad really helped because it ’ s about creating a new organization where it ’ s not networked , everything is under one roof , but you think of something very , very different from what the postwar period had .
The postwar period was very much about states , and we still are going to live in a system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going away .
But states alone are not the only important source of authority .
So creating something that shares authority in the world and recognizes that the world is changing .
It ’ s very interconnected .
It ’ s a kind of Star Trek model : we all think of this wonderful world where the world comes together and you have this different governance system .
I suspect we ’ re somewhere in between .
We ’ re still trying to figure out which is the best model to reform global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model for a new WHO ?
I would say that one of the things that WHO could benefit from — and people are thinking about this — is think about what the world values .
We created institutions , gave them power , according to what we value .
Over the last 20 years , you ’ ve seen , we ’ ve created the World Trade Organization because countries recognize that trade benefits , at least the powerful countries .
And probably most countries now want trade to happen in an organized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created , and then we have various treaties that countries abide by .
If they don ’ t abide by them , there are sanctions .
There are countermeasures that WTO has the power to enforce .
If you treat somebody unfairly , your country can go to WTO , make a complaint , if they win , you have either these extra tariffs , or you might not be able to export your goods .
There are these countermeasures .
Now , we ’ re coming out of a pandemic .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re recognizing , “ Yeah , we ’ ve ignored this , but health is really important because the world can ’ t function like this.
” This is just insane , is what we ’ ve realized .
We will all shut down if we don ’ t have a good global health security system .
So what powers do we need to give to this new organization — or reformed organization — to ensure that every country doesn ’ t go through this again ?
That means giving up some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WTO , which has some supranational authority .
What do we need to give WHO or something like it to enforce its requirements , and we all benefit from it ?
This is what the debate is .
What are we willing to give up to get security back ?
Some are more willing than others .
Some countries don ’ t want to give up anything .
Others are like , “ Yes , we would want to buy into this.
” But nobody ’ s escaping from this .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a global economy .
I think even the private companies would get on board with this .
They see they can ’ t operate in a world where there ’ s no global health security .
But this sounds like it can only exist in a perfect world — and maybe , in a post-pandemic society , things will be different , and people will reevaluate priorities .
But I think even the example of the WTO shows the problems with this type of model : we had a global trade war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority , refusing to appoint judges , which renders it ineffective .
Basically , it just sounds very idealistic .
And that ’ s why I say , it ’ s called a Star Trek kind of scenario .
We ’ re just not there yet .
I think it ’ s going to be an incremental path , and we ’ re not going to jump to something where we have a universal government .
What we do need to do is think about what do we value in this world ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world ?
What ’ s the infrastructure we need , and all of us have an interest in buying into ?
The global health security system has been underfunded , ignored , despite repeated warnings that we need this .
Just like we haven ’ t invested enough in public health systems nationally , we haven ’ t done that globally .
And I think it ’ s going to be a combination of carrots and sticks , to be honest .
It ’ s not just going to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think we have to create incentives , as well .
Whether it ’ s financial assistance , technical support , public shaming , I don ’ t know .
Just a real range of things .
But certainly , there ’ s no use accusing WHO of not doing enough .
There ’ s no teeth .
The organization has no teeth .
It ’ s just pointless .
It ’ s a balance that seems hard to strike .
This is what we ’ re all thinking about .
What is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would you do that ?
You ’ d need legal expertise , and what international law would offer .
You need diplomatic expertise , what could we negotiate ?
Russia is not going to just exactly jump on board , or China , or the US , either .
These three countries , who are protecting their sovereignty fiercely , are not going to want the rest of the world to tell them what to do .
But there are other countries who are more willing and might go ahead of these three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be all or nothing .
I think we ’ re going to have to get like-minded countries together .
I think Canada will be one of them , to move and to have a multilateral approach .
It feels a bit as if the coronavirus pandemic has put the world at a crossroads .
Countries could turn even more inward , or , more hopefully , they might start looking outward and revive global cooperation .
It sort of seems like there ’ s two ways to go right now .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
There ’ s a real tension , and I don ’ t know which way it ’ s going to go .
I ’ m concerned , and I give these interviews because I want people to go the international route .
I really feel that that is the way forward .
But you ’ re right .
Some countries may decide that , no , we ’ re going to retreat into our castles .
It ’ s kind of a medieval analogy .
And obviously that didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Essentially , we ’ ll learn all the wrong lessons from this pandemic .
You can ’ t hide from these kinds of outbreaks .
This is the thing .
People thinking that they can somehow quarantine themselves from these risks is really a dream .
So , countries might say , “ Okay , we ’ re going to retreat from globalization .
We ’ re just going to disconnect and become national economies.
” And that , of course , is not going to happen .
The global economy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We can ’ t dial it back .
But we have to recognize that we need to invest , as much as we ’ ve invested in markets , we need investing in strong government and strong multilateral capacity .
So , we are definitely at a crossroads .
We ’ re also at a point in history , I think , where the world has never been as interconnected as it is now .
And so the institutions that we built after the Second World War are really out of date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being obsolete , like the Maginot line during the Second World War , when the French thought they could stop Germany from invading and built these fortifications .
Now we ’ re having that same Maginot line moment .
We need to think more forward-looking .
Does humanity have this in our brains to design something very different ?
We certainly did after the Second World War .
There was nothing like the United Nations .
There was the League of Nations , which didn ’ t really work .
So they designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t perfect , but it got us through a period of crisis .
It generally was a good thing that it was created .
Now , we ’ re at that historic moment .
Do we need another global conference ?
I think we need leadership .
Whatever countries are doing well , it ’ s because they have good leadership .
This is such a test .
You mentioned the WTO , but are there any other models or proposals — even on a smaller scale — that could be a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the WHO ?
I wish I did .
And if I did , I ’ d probably be very famous .
I think there are parts of different organizations that might be kind of ideas .
Like the International Labor Organization brings in non-state actors and state actors within its decision-making body .
I think we do need to think beyond states .
I don ’ t mean by bringing in just big companies .
I mean civil society .
We have to see , okay , “ how do we politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” There have been ideas put forward over the last few years about how to adapt WHO .
But what I think what will happen is that some countries will get together and plug the financial hole for WHO , and it ’ ll just continue to lumber on .
But we need to think , after the pandemic , about , hopefully , a different model .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a @ @ @ @ @

Share All sharing options for: How to fix the WHO, according to an expert
“The W.H.O. really blew it,” President Donald Trump tweeted on April 7, referring to the World Health Organization. “For some reason, funded largely by the United States, yet very China centric. We will be giving that a good look.”
Trump’s tweet, coincidentally, came on World Health Day, which honors health care workers around the world and celebrates the 1948 founding of the World Health Organization. The global health institution was created in a post-World War II world, based on the belief the planet had to work together to fight diseases and promote the health of all citizens.
And when a pandemic happens, it’s obvious why the world needs an institution to help coordinate resources and distribute information.
But the WHO has come under pressure for its handling of the coronavirus, including whether it was too slow to declare a global health emergency and too generous in its praise of China for its handling of the outbreak.
Whether or how the WHO misstepped is up for debate. But President Trump, at least, has decided it failed to do enough, and on Friday, he announced his intention to withdraw from the agency completely.
Whether Trump has the power to do that unilaterally is still unclear, but if the US does pull out, it could cripple the organization. The WHO is made up of member states, meaning it is only as effective as the countries that make up that body, and that definitely includes superpowers like the United States. As Kelley Lee, research chair in global health governance at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, said in April, you can’t blame the WHO for failing to act if you don’t empower it to begin with.
“To say, ‘WHO should do this, WHO should do that.’ Well, WHO is the member states,” Lee said. “So if you want WHO to do something, then the member states have to get together and say: ‘Do this.’”
Lee studied WHO reform efforts in the 1990s, published a book on the organization, co-established the WHO Collaborating Centre on Global Change and Health, and has chaired the WHO Resource Group on Globalization, Trade and Health.
I spoke to her in April — after Trump threatened to withdraw funding to the agency — to get a better understanding of the WHO’s mission, why the WHO is facing criticism, how the organization got to this point — and, whether and how the World Health Organization’s shortcomings can be fixed before the next pandemic hits.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Jen Kirby
This is a very basic question, but what exactly is the World Health Organization?
Kelley Lee
In a nutshell, it’s the United Nations’s specialized agency for health. So the WHO is the coordinating body for international cooperation in the health sphere.
It was created in 1948, after the Second World War. It had predecessors; it was formed by bringing together some of the regional bodies that existed. There was a League of Nations organization for health that didn’t go anywhere because the United States didn’t join, so they tried to make it more open and more member-state-oriented.
Jen Kirby
And what is the WHO’s role — or should be its role?
Kelley Lee
It was created to balance those needs at the time, which were post-war outbreaks and trying to respond to humanitarian needs. Over time, it’s evolved in different ways into an organization that provides both what they call “normative functions” — providing guidelines and technical advice, collecting data, statistics, and so on. And then, I think increasingly member states wanted it to take a more active role in advocating for specific health issues. So it got involved in things like Health for All and all sorts of campaigns.
But essentially, if you look at the WHO’s constitution, it is a member-state organization. It doesn’t have independent authority to do what it likes. The World Health Assembly meets every year. And that is sort of the legislative body of WHO, and the secretariat carries out what is decided upon. It doesn’t mean [they don’t] have any powers, the secretariat and the director-general, but it really has to go through all the member states.
So the way I describe WHO is it’s the ultimate committee-designed organization. You know, when you try and do something by committee, it can end up a bit of a mess.
The other way I describe the WHO is like if you go into a restaurant, it’s got everything on the menu. It’s one of those Gordon Ramsay moments where, “You need to reduce this menu, you can’t do everything.” And I think WHO has been like that because it’s had to respond to 194 countries. So it has everything to do with health. And I don’t think that’s tenable for any organization, especially when you have frozen resources. And so you’re spread more and more thin, and you’re trying to do everything.
Jen Kirby
That’s the perfect overview, and this idea that it’s a restaurant with everything being on the menu is an interesting one. Is that because, after the WHO was founded in 1948, it just kept adding new priorities, and didn’t take anything off the menu? Why does it just have such a massive mandate?
Kelley Lee
It is a very cumbersome organization, lots of different parts, the way it’s structured, with headquarters and then regional offices and country offices. But I think it really reflects the starting point in the organization, its constitution. And if you look at the definition of health, it’s a very broad one. It’s not just the absence of disease, but it’s all of these things like well-being and so on. That interpretation, over time, has led to everything under the sun [being placed] under what health is.
In a way, it’s right. It’s that tension between a disease focus and a more clinical look at what health is, and broader, social determinants of health — the environment, education, and so on. So there’s always been that tension and almost philosophy about what health is, and what creates good health and well-being.
And you see this across the different countries even: the US versus some of the European countries. That’s all played out at WHO. WHO needs to accommodate all of these kind of philosophies about what health is and it’s responding to both high-income countries and low-income countries. Trying to be everything to everyone, and that’s what the constitution laid out.
So from the beginning, I think its design was almost impossible to fulfill, unless you had the right resources. Priority setting has always been a problem, and it’s been an ongoing effort to reform the organization to be better at priority setting; when everything’s a priority, nothing’s a priority.
I’ve been in so many reform meetings where, it’s like, “What do we cut? Mental health? Or do we cut road traffic accidents?” Everything is important. It’s a Sophie’s Choice situation where, “Which child do you give away?”
Obviously when there’s an outbreak like this, of course, this is everybody’s immediate priority. But these other issues are not less important, just because they’re chronic or long-term. So how does the organization choose where to put its limited resources? And that’s been a real struggle.
Jen Kirby
With so many priorities, was the WHO caught in a similar situation where it had so many priorities, that it also wasn’t really prepared or had the resources to deal with a pandemic?
Kelley Lee
So, WHO doesn’t have any resources to be the action on the ground. It’s always been very much an advisory body, recommending what a country should do. It doesn’t have the UNICEF [United Nations Children’s Fund] mode of operation where it can go in and vaccinate children, for example.
WHO has never done that, that’s not what its role is supposed to be, to get into countries and be boots on the ground. And people probably wanted that to happen. “Oh, why isn’t WHO sending in people into Wuhan?” That was never its role. Its role was to do intelligence-gathering, and then alert countries, and countries are the ones that act. So there’s that.
The other thing is, to say, “WHO should do this, WHO should do that.” Well, WHO is the member states. So if you want WHO to do something, then the member-states have to get together and say, “Do this.”
And that is the other problem. Countries are very divided about what WHO should do. So there’s a lot of difference of opinion. Some people say some countries get their way more than others. So there’s this kind of [debate] being played out: What is it that WHO should do? Countries are not agreeing, so then WHO ends up doing everything.
Jen Kirby
So it sounds like part of the problem is not just WHO’s mandate, but the dynamic of member states, which is a reflection of how the world operates. I imagine member states who have more leverage on the international stage, or who give more funds, have a lot to do with shaping that agenda. Given the current debate, I’m specifically thinking of the United States, or China.
Kelley Lee
It’s ironic that the US is accusing WHO of being China-centric, when actually for decades, it’s been accused of being very US-centric, if anything. So it’s kind of interesting how it’s playing out, for sure.
The organization likes to be seen as scientific and medical, and that it’s trying to keep politics out. What I’ve written in the past is that it’s inherently political. But the thing is, you want to have good politics, you want to have all countries being able to express their views. Yes, we all have different interests. But have a fair process, allocating resources or priorities accordingly, not having one or certain parties dominate.
When you have bad politics, when there’s unfairness and there’s a lack of transparency and accountability, that’s when problems happen. It’s not like we can take politics out of WHO. But what we want to do is take bad politics out of WHO. And that’s the challenge.
And for an organization where the funding is so skewed toward voluntary contributions, this is the problem. “Whoever pays the piper, plays the tune” type thing. You have all these vested interests buying, basically, what WHO does. It’s a very difficult situation.
Jen Kirby
But I imagine this difficult situation has not happened in a year, or two. Can you point to a period in time when these politics really began to interfere in WHO’s mandate, and put it in the position it is today?
Kelley Lee
Definitely, we have to take a historical perspective. So this has been unfolding over decades. The turning point was probably the late 1970s, when there was a historical movement for low- and middle-income countries, the New International Economic Order movement. And they tried to challenge the world economy and how the United Nations system worked. There were a lot of accusations at that time that the UN system was becoming politicized, and organizations like WHO were starting to recognize that it needed to address the developing world’s needs more effectively with the health for all movement and then the essential drugs list. And then there were the breast milk substitutes guidelines that were adopted.
Those all upset certain interests, largely the US and big companies, which didn’t like WHO to stray beyond disease-control programs: things like smallpox eradication, which was uncontroversial. But the US thought that this was straying into territories where WHO shouldn’t be, asking for regulation of the industry, whether it’s food or pharma or so on.
So the US and some other countries — which were shifting to the right at that point under leaders like US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — they started to freeze WHO’s budget on the assessed contribution side. And so you see the voluntary contributions growing from that point. This is where WHO didn’t have a choice, it had to take more voluntary contributions.
By the 1990s, which is when I come onto the scene and start to analyze this with my colleagues, we did this big study in the mid-90s about financing the WHO and it was about 50-50 at that time, between assessed and voluntary contributions. And that, in itself, was alarming. We said that had to stop. We had to make sure the WHO could set the priorities, not all of these countries and donors, and that’s actually gotten worse.
I think it’s now up to 80 to 85 percent voluntary, and it just continued. So you could see this upward trend. Also, other organizations were created at the time; the Global Fund. Gates came onto the scene, and so there’s been donors putting their money elsewhere, away from WHO.
And WHO said, “We need to be the coordinating body. There’s too many other players out there.” It became a very fragmented, uncoordinated space for action. So we have this crazy, market-driven global health environment, where donors put their money where they want, and create other competing initiatives.
It’s [been] a long time happening, and so what we’re seeing now is, we want the WHO to coordinate, but we haven’t made it the coordinating body for decades. So, it’s very difficult to then step in and get everybody to work together.
Jen Kirby
It sounds like this distrust has been building for some time with the WHO, which would make it harder for the WHO to inspire cooperation and marshal resources to fight a pandemic. How much does this distrust play into why the WHO is floundering a bit — or at least is perceived to be by some?
Kelley Lee
WHO has its faults, but I hesitate to say, WHO hasn’t done this, it hasn’t done that. It’s really been like a ship in the stormy seas — with all the changes politically going on, it’s been just buffeted about.
It’s tried to cling onto the fact that it is a scientific organization. They’ve got to wise up. Clinging to this myth that somehow health is not political, it’s actually a losing game.
And if we got rid of WHO now, what do we have instead?
We’d have to rebuild WHO or some global health organization. And the question now is, what would that look like? How would that not be designed by committee, or who would be in charge? Who would have the authority? What would you want it to do?
Then, the politics start again. I’m finding it really a little bit worrying that we come out of this outbreak and we destroy WHO, and we have nothing for the next time. There’s going to be a next time. This is just a warmup.
I’m very concerned that we don’t destroy what little we already have. Instead, go the other way, let’s see what we can do to build up WHO and make it the organization we need it to be.
Jen Kirby
It might be tough to rebuild the WHO in the middle of the pandemic. But how can WHO be fixed?
Kelley Lee
This is something I’ve been teaching all term actually, so it’s great that you asked that. I give my students this slide, which has four pictures on it. The first one is an old computer that basically doesn’t work anymore, and you just need to replace it. That’s retiring WHO: in this case, it can’t be fixed, you’ve got to throw it away. That’s, I guess, what President Trump wants to do.
The second one is to keep putting in new peripherals, so you’re plugging in the old extra hard drives. WHO gets all these new programs plugged into an old laptop, and eventually, it can’t run all these things. It’s overwhelmed. That, to me, doesn’t work because you have just too much demand on an old infrastructure.
The third option is to look at what we have, which is a lot of different players out there, and create some sort of network. Somebody has to be in the middle to coordinate, and we have to then strengthen that middle. But to see what other organizations do best, what’s their functions, what are their spheres of expertise — and there are big gaps — so we’d have to create new organizations that do that, but a network model.
And then the other is, if you could imagine an iPad, for example, it’s an innovative idea. Integrate it all into a new product. This picture of the iPad really helped because it’s about creating a new organization where it’s not networked, everything is under one roof, but you think of something very, very different from what the postwar period had.
The postwar period was very much about states, and we still are going to live in a system of individual states that’s not going away. But states alone are not the only important source of authority. So creating something that shares authority in the world and recognizes that the world is changing.
It’s very interconnected. It’s a kind of Star Trek model: we all think of this wonderful world where the world comes together and you have this different governance system. I suspect we’re somewhere in between. We’re still trying to figure out which is the best model to reform global health governance.
Jen Kirby
What might be a model for a new WHO?
Kelley Lee
I would say that one of the things that WHO could benefit from — and people are thinking about this — is think about what the world values. We created institutions, gave them power, according to what we value. Over the last 20 years, you’ve seen, we’ve created the World Trade Organization because countries recognize that trade benefits, at least the powerful countries. And probably most countries now want trade to happen in an organized, legal framework.
So WTO was created, and then we have various treaties that countries abide by. If they don’t abide by them, there are sanctions. There are countermeasures that WTO has the power to enforce. If you treat somebody unfairly, your country can go to WTO, make a complaint, if they win, you have either these extra tariffs, or you might not be able to export your goods. There are these countermeasures.
Now, we’re coming out of a pandemic. I think we all value health. We’re recognizing, “Yeah, we’ve ignored this, but health is really important because the world can’t function like this.” This is just insane, is what we’ve realized. We will all shut down if we don’t have a good global health security system.
So what powers do we need to give to this new organization — or reformed organization — to ensure that every country doesn’t go through this again? That means giving up some power at the state level, like the WTO, which has some supranational authority. What do we need to give WHO or something like it to enforce its requirements, and we all benefit from it?
This is what the debate is. What are we willing to give up to get security back? Some are more willing than others. Some countries don’t want to give up anything. Others are like, “Yes, we would want to buy into this.”
But nobody’s escaping from this. We all suffer because we are all interconnected as a global economy. I think even the private companies would get on board with this. They see they can’t operate in a world where there’s no global health security.
Jen Kirby
But this sounds like it can only exist in a perfect world — and maybe, in a post-pandemic society, things will be different, and people will reevaluate priorities. But I think even the example of the WTO shows the problems with this type of model: we had a global trade war, and the US has bucked its authority, refusing to appoint judges, which renders it ineffective. Basically, it just sounds very idealistic.
Kelley Lee
And that’s why I say, it’s called a Star Trek kind of scenario. We’re just not there yet. I think it’s going to be an incremental path, and we’re not going to jump to something where we have a universal government.
What we do need to do is think about what do we value in this world? What keeps us all working and moving around the world? What’s the infrastructure we need, and all of us have an interest in buying into?
The global health security system has been underfunded, ignored, despite repeated warnings that we need this. Just like we haven’t invested enough in public health systems nationally, we haven’t done that globally.
And I think it’s going to be a combination of carrots and sticks, to be honest. It’s not just going to be a WHO with enforcement powers to punish. I think we have to create incentives, as well. Whether it’s financial assistance, technical support, public shaming, I don’t know. Just a real range of things.
But certainly, there’s no use accusing WHO of not doing enough. There’s no teeth. The organization has no teeth. It’s just pointless.
Jen Kirby
It’s a balance that seems hard to strike.
Kelley Lee
This is what we’re all thinking about. What is it going to look like? How would you do that? You’d need legal expertise, and what international law would offer. You need diplomatic expertise, what could we negotiate?
Russia is not going to just exactly jump on board, or China, or the US, either. These three countries, who are protecting their sovereignty fiercely, are not going to want the rest of the world to tell them what to do.
But there are other countries who are more willing and might go ahead of these three countries. It’s not going to be all or nothing. I think we’re going to have to get like-minded countries together. I think Canada will be one of them, to move and to have a multilateral approach.
Jen Kirby
It feels a bit as if the coronavirus pandemic has put the world at a crossroads. Countries could turn even more inward, or, more hopefully, they might start looking outward and revive global cooperation. It sort of seems like there’s two ways to go right now.
Kelley Lee
That’s how I read it as well. There’s a real tension, and I don’t know which way it’s going to go. I’m concerned, and I give these interviews because I want people to go the international route. I really feel that that is the way forward.
But you’re right. Some countries may decide that, no, we’re going to retreat into our castles. It’s kind of a medieval analogy. And obviously that didn’t work when the black plague came along.
Jen Kirby
Essentially, we’ll learn all the wrong lessons from this pandemic.
Kelley Lee
You can’t hide from these kinds of outbreaks. This is the thing. People thinking that they can somehow quarantine themselves from these risks is really a dream. So, countries might say, “Okay, we’re going to retreat from globalization. We’re just going to disconnect and become national economies.” And that, of course, is not going to happen.
The global economy has moved so much. We are interconnected. We can’t dial it back. But we have to recognize that we need to invest, as much as we’ve invested in markets, we need investing in strong government and strong multilateral capacity.
So, we are definitely at a crossroads. We’re also at a point in history, I think, where the world has never been as interconnected as it is now. And so the institutions that we built after the Second World War are really out of date.
I talked to my students about being obsolete, like the Maginot line during the Second World War, when the French thought they could stop Germany from invading and built these fortifications.
Now we’re having that same Maginot line moment. We need to think more forward-looking. Does humanity have this in our brains to design something very different? We certainly did after the Second World War. There was nothing like the United Nations. There was the League of Nations, which didn’t really work. So they designed the UN system. It wasn’t perfect, but it got us through a period of crisis. It generally was a good thing that it was created.
Now, we’re at that historic moment. Do we need another global conference? I think we need leadership. Whatever countries are doing well, it’s because they have good leadership. This is such a test.
Jen Kirby
You mentioned the WTO, but are there any other models or proposals — even on a smaller scale — that could be a good model for this new, iPad version of the WHO?
Kelley Lee
I wish I did. And if I did, I’d probably be very famous. I think there are parts of different organizations that might be kind of ideas. Like the International Labor Organization brings in non-state actors and state actors within its decision-making body.
I think we do need to think beyond states. I don’t mean by bringing in just big companies. I mean civil society. We have to see, okay, “how do we politically organize our world and who has authority?”
There have been ideas put forward over the last few years about how to adapt WHO. But what I think what will happen is that some countries will get together and plug the financial hole for WHO, and it’ll just continue to lumber on.
But we need to think, after the pandemic, about, hopefully, a different model.


vox--2020-04-19--What the anti-stay-at-home protests are really about

Anti-social distancing and stay-at-home order rallies are cropping up across the country , reminiscent of the early days of the Tea Party , when well-funded right-leaning groups lit a fire under an already outraged Republican base and helped to ignite a political movement .
In fact , Adam Brandon , president of FreedomWorks , a right-leaning advocacy group that helped support the Tea Party movement back in 2009 , said in an interview that “ this has the same DNA [ as ] the Tea Party movement.
” The events — some , like in Michigan , featuring thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups calling state-based measures too draconian .
Some of the groups have posted links and images on Facebook that downplay the seriousness of the virus .
And other leaders have advocated against following CDC guidelines , like a ban on big gatherings and wearing face masks ( because wearing them would be “ counterproductive.
” ) Some of the protests have taken on the feel of 2016 Trump campaign rallies , with participants wearing Make America Great Again hats and waving flags emblazoned with the president ’ s face .
And Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the protests , even promoting the protests on air .
President Donald Trump spent part of Friday tweeting about them , just minutes after a protest segment aired on Fox News ’ America ’ s Newsroom .
The displays are tapping into Trump ’ s main message on the coronavirus pandemic : governors are to blame for the crisis , not him .
As the president ratchets up his reelection efforts , his argument is an effort to simultaneously put the brunt of responsibility for the coronavirus catastrophe on the shoulders of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he holds “ total authority ” over the pandemic and the states facing it .
It ’ s an argument that resonates best in rural , redder parts of the country , which have not been hit as hard by the pandemic as blue , urban areas .
Trump himself has said , “ We ’ ll be opening some states much sooner than others , ” despite pushback from legislators and business leaders alike about the current lack of mass testing .
And it ’ s a message of division , designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their Democratic-voting neighbors , even rural Republicans against urban Republicans .
All this to activate white rural voters who supported Trump in 2016 and whom he ’ ll need again in 2020 .
For some on the right , the plan seems simple : vilify Democratic governors and agitate for the end of shutdown orders .
Then , “ reopen the economy ” and spur a massive turnaround in the nation ’ s economic prospects just in time for Trump to be reelected in November .
If the pandemic recedes , he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if people continue to die , he can place the blame on Democratic governors .
Theda Skocpol , a professor of government and sociology at Harvard University , put it this way : “ That ’ s ... Trump ’ s entire strategy , and you can see it in the way he talks about this.
” Skocpol is the editor of the upcoming book , Upending American Politics : Polarizing Parties , Ideological Elites , and Citizen Activists from the Tea Party to the Anti-Trump Resistance .
She added , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ middle income people , particularly living in whiter , less metropolitan parts of these key states ” about stay-at-home orders , but “ it ’ s being goosed along by some of the same advocacy groups on the free market right.
” But there ’ s a problem for Trump : the public , including the vast majority of Republicans , largely supports social distancing measures , and new polling shows that half of Republicans are concerned stay-at-home orders and social distancing measures will be lifted too quickly .
Research shows that many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so by the government , and likely wouldn ’ t stop even if such orders were lifted .
In short , the anti-shutdown-order protests don ’ t mirror public opinion .
And in order for Trump to benefit from their potential impact , they need to — and coronavirus needs to spare rural America ( which it isn ’ t . )
Coronavirus has now become part of the fabric of Trump ’ s 2020 reelection campaign — one aimed largely at dividing Americans on sociopolitical and cultural lines .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work ?
Trump ’ s primary objective in 2020 is to win the White House , and he hoped to do so using a strong economy as an ally .
But coronavirus has put that effort in jeopardy .
About 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment and expected GDP has dropped at least 10 percent , leading to Trump arguing earlier this month that the pandemic “ artificially stopped ” his administration ’ s forward economic progress .
The case for Trump ’ s response to the pandemic is thin at best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump admittedly downplayed it because , in his words , “ You know I ’ m a cheerleader for the country.
” While states hold the primary responsibility for public health under the aegis of the Constitution , the federal government , and Trump , repeatedly ignored opportunities to mitigate the virus ’ s spread through extensive testing .
Rather , Trump said of the virus in early March , “ It will go away .
Just stay calm .
It will go away.
” Polling indicates that most Americans disapprove of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With little federal success in stopping the virus on which to lean politically , Trump has shifted to another tactic : putting the blame for the pandemic on Democratic governors , many with higher approval ratings than the president .
Skocpol told me , “ The anger is being directed at the governors and Trump is trying to put the governors front and center as targets.
” The shift is taking place as states like Michigan and New York work with other governors in their regions to develop their own plans to fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As my colleague Aaron Rupar wrote in late March , Trump ’ s ire at Democratic governors has been a major facet of his daily interactions with the press : But Michigan isn ’ t just a state with a Democratic governor ( a potential vice presidential candidate at that ) — it ’ s a state Trump won in 2016 by a slim margin , the first Republican to win the state since George H.W .
Bush did so in 1988 .
And in order to win reelection in 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s 16 electoral votes once again , with coronavirus , and the federal government ’ s failed response , standing in his way .
In order to win Michigan , Trump needs to not only gain the support of the same rural and suburban voters who elected him in 2016 , he needs to depress support for Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , who currently enjoys high approval ratings for her response to the coronavirus .
Skocpol told me that he could take advantage of in-state tensions that have festered for decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s residents against one another .
The Detroit area is not only more heavily populated and less white than the north and west of the state ( 77 percent of Detroit residents are black ) , but is being hit far harder than the rest of the state by the coronavirus pandemic , with 582 deaths reported as of April 18 .
But when I spoke with Michigan Conservative Coalition president Rosanne Ponkowski about the situation in Detroit and the city ’ s surrounding counties , she told me , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that live in Traverse City [ a city in the state ’ s less populated north ] .
Let ’ s talk about people that live north of Lansing .
That ’ s a whole other half of the state.
” Grand Traverse County , which includes Traverse City , currently has 18 cases of coronavirus .
“ Trump always knows how to get at exactly the fault lines of class and ethnic tension , ” Skocpol said , “ and there ’ s plenty of tension in Michigan between the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peninsula and even some of the western parts of the state and Detroit.
” And that ’ s where the rise of anti-stay-at-home-order protests comes in , protests that don ’ t necessarily reflect the will of the vast majority of Americans , or even conservatives , but do reflect the intentions of the president of the United States and some of his biggest supporters .
Some conservative groups also want to reelect Trump As I detailed earlier this week , the protests in Michigan originated in part from the extension of Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus .
But many of those involved in the protests are connected not by mere concern regarding Whitmer ’ s policies , but by their own efforts to reelect the president .
Take the Michigan Conservative Council , for example .
As the Associated Press detailed : Another in-state group helping organize protests against the shutdown order is the Michigan Freedom Fund , led by Greg McNeilly .
McNeilly is a longtime Republican operative ( formerly serving as executive director of the Michigan GOP ) and a friend of the powerful DeVos family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Dick DeVos ’ s 2006 gubernatorial campaign — Betsy DeVos , Dick DeVos ’ s wife , currently serves as US Secretary of Education .
In Wisconsin , the main anti-shutdown group , Open Wisconsin Now , was organized by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and FreedomWorks .
The Committee to Unleash Prosperity was founded by Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore , coauthors of Trumponomics : Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy .
Moore also served as president of the Club for Growth and was nominated by the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Reserve before withdrawing after misogynistic remarks Moore made in the early 2000s were surfaced by reporters .
In an interview with the Washington Post , Moore spoke of the protests his group was helping to organize , saying , “ There ’ s a massive movement on the right now , growing exponentially .
In the next two weeks , you ’ ll see protests in the streets of conservatives ; you ’ ll see a big pushback against the lockdown in some states.
” When I spoke with Brandon , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was similar to that of the group ’ s involvement in the Tea Party protests ; he said it “ just so happened a lot of our activists were organizers.
” “ We ’ re not organizing any of these events , but we do know a lot of people who have come through our training and who are part of our community , ” Brandon said .
In response to questions about the group ’ s involvement in Wisconsin , FreedomWorks ’ Peter Vicenzi told me that while they supported those protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I spoke with Angelo Carusone , president and CEO of Media Matters , a left-leaning group that tracks right-leaning media .
To him , the anti-shutdown protests bear striking similarities to the early days of the Tea Party movement , with smaller events promoted by radio show hosts and local conservative figures that are then “ heavily promoted and amplified by Fox News and the rest of the right-wing echo chamber , ” in his view .
While he told me many of these groups were “ very real ” — “ they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operatives , necessarily ” — they are receiving additional amplification through Fox News , “ throwing some kindling ” on the protests , in his words .
Carusone told me that in contrast to how Fox News reports on left-leaning protests ( for example , this 2017 Fox News report that blames a Black Lives Matter effort to encourage black Americans to shop only at black-owned businesses on billionaire George Soros ) , the anti-stay-at-home-order protests are being covered approvingly , with any extremism ( or violations of social distancing taking place ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re in the “ proto stage ” of these protests currently as they gain wider attention , Carusone described the effort as a three-step process for Fox News : “ Raise awareness about it to make it into like a broad national movement , a cauldron of energy .
Carry some of the water for [ the protests ] .
And don ’ t mention any of the extremist ties.
” Michigan ’ s protests , for example , featured militias and members of the Michigan chapter of the Proud Boys , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of anti-Semitic and racist statements .
( When I spoke with an MCC spokesperson , he said he had asked the police to remove the Proud Boys and militia members from the protests . )
Protests in Texas have featured conspiracy theorist Alex Jones , who recently settled a defamation lawsuit after repeatedly claiming that the Sandy Hook school shootings were a hoax .
And the website for protests against Idaho ’ s stay-at-home order links to a site for readers to learn “ what is really going on ” that compares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguing that both are the creation of “ propaganda ” ) and that coronavirus is the “ scam of 2020.
” And Carusone told me , “ The other thing that [ Fox News ] does that I think is more important in some ways is they provide the narrative framework ” for the protests — making them about liberty in the face of “ martial law ” or a “ police state , ” for example .
But these protests aren ’ t reflective of public opinion — far from it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support social distancing policies and are more worried about stay-at-home restrictions being lifted too soon .
As conservative writer Matthew Continetti wrote in the Washington Free Beacon : In fact , many Americans would continue to avoid crowded events and social gatherings even if stay-at-home orders were lifted , “ police state ” or no .
In a recent poll by Seton Hall , 72 percent of Americans , for example , say they will not attend sporting events until a vaccine for coronavirus is identified .
Coronavirus , not “ martial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act .
As Alan Blinder wrote in the Wall Street Journal , “ Swaths of the economy—restaurants , travel , retail shops—were already shrinking before governments ordered them shut , because people were afraid to dine , travel or shop .
These fears will abate gradually , with the pace dictated by the course of the virus , not by anybody ’ s decree.
” When I spoke to conservatives about the issue , even those who have voiced some support for the protests said the fight against coronavirus was more complicated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loesch , a conservative radio host and a former spokesperson for the NRA who interviewed GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel about the protests .
“ Trump always knows how to get at exactly the fault lines of class and ethnic tension ” When we discussed rural conservatives arguing that their regions remained unaffected by the pandemic , she said , “ They can ’ t really necessarily discount that this is just a Detroit problem or just a New York problem because it really isn ’ t .
It will affect them .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know that they want to get back to work and maybe they ’ re not affected .
And maybe there ’ s a way that that can be figured out.
” But even in rural areas where the economic impact of coronavirus may be more searing than the disease itself , cases of coronavirus are beginning to escalate .
States like South Dakota and Idaho are beginning to see increasing infection rates and deaths , and in many rural areas , even a relatively small number of coronavirus cases could stretch rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s political gambit requires that coronavirus becomes a pandemic of Democratic governors and the fault of blue states while other states get right back to business as usual , but the virus refuses to listen — and so do the vast majority of Americans .
That doesn ’ t mean the efforts to further spur division will stop , particularly from those who believe such a strategy will lead to a Trump victory in November .
Skocpol told me , “ I think we ’ re in for a hellish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attempts to stoke the ethnically and racially charged geopolitical divisions that are built into American federalism are going to be off the scale for the next six months.
” And a deadly pandemic will continue to kill Americans , regardless of political party .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Anti-social distancing and anti-stay-at-home order rallies are cropping up across the country, reminiscent of the early days of the Tea Party, when well-funded right-leaning groups lit a fire under an already outraged Republican base and helped ignite a political movement.
In fact, Adam Brandon, president of FreedomWorks, a right-leaning advocacy group that helped support the Tea Party movement back in 2009, said in an interview that “this has the same DNA [as] the Tea Party movement.”
The events — some, like in Michigan, featuring thousands of attendees — are organized largely by conservative groups calling state-based measures too draconian. Some of the groups have posted links and images on Facebook that downplay the seriousness of the virus. And other leaders have advocated against following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, like a ban on big gatherings and the recommendation to wearing face masks in certain public settings (because wearing them would be “counterproductive”). Some of the protests have taken on the feel of 2016 Trump campaign rallies, with participants wearing Make America Great Again hats and waving flags emblazoned with the president’s face.
And Fox News is helping to get the word out about the protests, even promoting the protests on air. President Donald Trump spent part of Friday tweeting about them, just minutes after a protest segment aired on Fox News’s America’s Newsroom.
LIBERATE MICHIGAN! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2020
The displays are tapping into Trump’s main message on the coronavirus pandemic: Governors are to blame for the crisis, not him. As the president ratchets up his reelection efforts, his argument is an effort to simultaneously put the brunt of responsibility for the coronavirus catastrophe on the shoulders of his political opponents while maintaining that he holds “total authority” over the pandemic and the states facing it.
It’s an argument that resonates best in rural, redder parts of the country, which have not yet been hit as hard by the pandemic as blue, urban areas. Trump himself has said, “We’ll be opening some states much sooner than others,” despite pushback from legislators and business leaders alike about the current lack of mass testing.
And it’s a message of division, designed to pit Republican-voting areas of states against their Democratic-voting neighbors, even rural Republicans against urban Republicans. All this is to activate white rural voters who supported Trump in 2016 and who he’ll need again in 2020.
For some on the right, the plan seems simple: vilify Democratic governors and agitate for the end of shutdown orders. Then “reopen the economy” and spur a massive turnaround in the nation’s economic prospects just in time for Trump to be reelected in November. If the pandemic recedes, he can claim he was entirely responsible; but if people continue to die, he can place the blame on Democratic governors.
Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology at Harvard University, put it this way: “That’s ... Trump’s entire strategy, and you can see it in the way he talks about this.” Skocpol is the editor of the book Upending American Politics: Polarizing Parties, Ideological Elites, and Citizen Activists from the Tea Party to the Anti-Trump Resistance.
She added, “I think there really is popular anger among middle-income people, particularly living in whiter, less metropolitan parts of these key states,” about stay-at-home orders, but “it’s being goosed along by some of the same advocacy groups on the free market right.”
But there’s a problem for Trump: The public, including the vast majority of Republicans, largely supports social distancing measures, and new polling shows that half of Republicans are concerned stay-at-home orders and social distancing measures will be lifted too quickly. Research shows that many Americans began social distancing before they were urged to do so by the government, and likely wouldn’t stop even if such orders were lifted. In short, the anti-shutdown-order protests don’t mirror public opinion. And in order for Trump to benefit from their potential impact, they need to — and coronavirus needs to spare rural America (which it isn’t).
Coronavirus has now become part of the fabric of Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign — one aimed largely at dividing Americans along sociopolitical and cultural lines. But the biggest question remains: Will it work?
Trump’s strategy: Blame the governors
Trump’s primary objective in 2020 is to win the White House, and he hoped to do so using a strong economy as an ally. But the coronavirus has put that effort in jeopardy. About 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment, and expected GDP has dropped at least 10 percent, leading to Trump arguing earlier this month that the pandemic “artificially stopped” his administration’s forward economic progress.
Trump's case for his own reelection is all about what he did before the pandemic he wasn't prepared for hit, as well as weak Obama whataboutism. Doesn't bode great for him. pic.twitter.com/K8ZoQO7xDw — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 6, 2020
The case for Trump’s response to the pandemic is thin at best, particularly early in the pandemic when Trump admittedly downplayed it because, in his words, “You know I’m a cheerleader for the country.” While states hold the primary responsibility for public health under the aegis of the Constitution, the federal government, and Trump, repeatedly ignored opportunities to mitigate the virus’s spread through extensive testing. Rather, Trump said of the virus in early March, “It will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.” Polling indicates that most Americans disapprove of Trump’s response to the pandemic.
With little federal success in stopping the virus on which to lean politically, Trump has shifted to another tactic: putting the blame for the pandemic on Democratic governors, many with higher approval ratings than the president. Skocpol told me, “The anger is being directed at the governors, and Trump is trying to put the governors front and center as targets.”
The shift is taking place as states like Michigan and New York work with other governors in their regions to develop their own plans to fight the coronavirus and plan for an economic reopening.
As my colleague Aaron Rupar wrote in late March, Trump’s ire at Democratic governors has been a major facet of his daily interactions with the press:
When Trump isn’t attacking Democratic governors — already this month he’s described Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as “failing,” accused Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker of “blaming the Federal Government for [his] own shortcomings,” and smeared Washington Gov. Jay Inslee as “a snake” — the president has been insisting that it’s up to them to procure the supplies they need to prevent their hospitals from being overwhelmed. “They have to get that gear themselves,” Trump told Fox News on Tuesday, referring to Democratic governors, adding that “they shouldn’t be hitting us.”
But Michigan isn’t just a state with a Democratic governor (and a potential vice presidential candidate, at that) — it’s a state Trump won in 2016 by a slim margin, the first Republican to win there since George H.W. Bush in 1988. And in order to win reelection in 2020, Trump will likely need to claim the state’s 16 electoral votes once again, with the coronavirus and the federal government’s failed response standing in his way.
To win Michigan, Trump needs to not only gain the support of the same rural and suburban voters who elected him in 2016, he needs to depress support for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who currently enjoys high approval ratings for her response to the coronavirus.
Skocpol told me he could take advantage of in-state tensions that have festered for decades by vilifying the governor and pitting the state’s residents against one another. The Detroit area is not only more heavily populated and less white than the north and west of the state (77 percent of Detroit residents are black) but is being hit far harder than the rest of the state by the coronavirus pandemic, with more than 580 deaths reported as of April 18.
But when I spoke with Michigan Conservative Coalition president Rosanne Ponkowski about the situation in Detroit and the city’s surrounding counties, she told me, “Okay, let’s talk about people that live in Traverse City [a city in the state’s less populated north]. Let’s talk about people that live north of Lansing. That’s a whole other half of the state.” Grand Traverse County, which includes Traverse City, currently has 18 cases of coronavirus.
“Trump always knows how to get at exactly the fault lines of class and ethnic tension,” Skocpol said, “and there’s plenty of tension in Michigan between the middle part of the state and the Upper Peninsula and even some of the western parts of the state and Detroit.”
And that’s where the rise of anti-stay-at-home-order protests comes in, protests that don’t necessarily reflect the will of the vast majority of Americans, or even conservatives, but do reflect the intentions of the president of the United States and some of his biggest supporters.
Some conservative groups also want to reelect Trump
As I wrote earlier this week, the protests in Michigan originated in part from the extension of Michigan’s stay-at-home order in response to the coronavirus:
Conservatives in Michigan were already growing agitated with Whitmer’s aggressive response to the virus when she took another step that seemed nonsensical: Big-box hardware stores (larger than 50,000 square feet) were told they must close off aisles dedicated to paint supplies and lawn care until the end of April. They can still sell other goods deemed essential. “If you’re not buying food or medicine or other essential items, you should not be going to the store,” Whitmer said in a press conference earlier this month. Some rally attendees complained to Fox News that Whitmer’s order seemed arbitrary. They can’t buy lawn fertilizer from Home Depot, visit siblings, or get their hair done, but lottery tickets are still for sale and liquor stores remain open. Seely told Vox, “Do you want people to leave their homes and risk infecting themselves and other people to get a lottery ticket? But I can’t go to the hardware store and buy grass seed for my lawn, buy a gallon of paint so that I can find myself doing a home project so I don’t go absolutely insane being locked at home. I mean, none of that makes any sense.”
But many of those involved in the protests are connected not by mere concern regarding Whitmer’s policies, but by their efforts to reelect the president.
Take the Michigan Conservative Council, for example. As the Associated Press detailed:
The protest there was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, a group founded by a pro-Trump state representative and his wife, Meshawn Maddock, who is on the advisory board for an official Trump campaign group called “Women for Trump” and is also the co-founder of Michigan Trump Republicans. Their daughter is a field organizer for the Michigan Republican Party.
Another in-state group helping organize protests against the shutdown order is the Michigan Freedom Fund, led by Greg McNeilly. McNeilly is a longtime Republican operative (formerly serving as executive director of the Michigan GOP) and a friend of the powerful DeVos family. He worked as campaign manager for Republican Dick DeVos’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign; Betsy DeVos, Dick DeVos’s wife, currently serves as US secretary of education.
In Wisconsin, the main anti-shutdown group, Open Wisconsin Now, was organized by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and FreedomWorks. The Committee to Unleash Prosperity was founded by Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore, co-authors of Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy. Moore also served as president of the Club for Growth and was nominated by the president to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve before withdrawing after misogynistic remarks Moore made in the early 2000s were surfaced by reporters.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Moore spoke of the protests his group was helping to organize, saying, “There’s a massive movement on the right now, growing exponentially. In the next two weeks, you’ll see protests in the streets of conservatives; you’ll see a big pushback against the lockdown in some states.”
When I spoke with Brandon, he said FreedomWorks’ involvement with anti-shutdown protests was similar to that of the group’s involvement in the Tea Party protests; he said it “just so happened a lot of our activists were organizers.”
“We’re not organizing any of these events, but we do know a lot of people who have come through our training and who are part of our community,” Brandon said. In response to questions about the group’s involvement in Wisconsin, FreedomWorks’ Peter Vicenzi told me that while they supported those protests, they were not providing funding.
I spoke with Angelo Carusone, president and CEO of Media Matters, a left-leaning group that tracks right-leaning media. To him, the anti-shutdown protests bear striking similarities to the early days of the Tea Party movement, with smaller events promoted by radio hosts and local conservative figures that are then “heavily promoted and amplified by Fox News and the rest of the right-wing echo chamber,” in his view.
While he told me many of these groups were “very real” — “they’re not being driven by sophisticated operatives, necessarily” — they are receiving additional amplification through Fox News, “throwing some kindling” on the protests, in his words.
Carusone told me that in contrast to how Fox News reports on left-leaning protests (for example, this 2017 Fox News report that blames a Black Lives Matter effort to encourage black Americans to shop only at black-owned businesses on billionaire George Soros), the anti-stay-at-home-order protests are being covered approvingly, with any extremism (or violations of social distancing taking place) minimized.
Telling me that we’re in the “proto stage” of these protests currently as they gain wider attention, Carusone described the effort as a three-step process for Fox News: “Raise awareness about it to make it into like a broad national movement, a cauldron of energy. Carry some of the water for [the protests]. And don’t mention any of the extremist ties.”
Michigan’s protests, for example, featured militias and members of the Michigan chapter of the Proud Boys, an extremist group whose former leader made a series of anti-Semitic and racist statements. (When I spoke with an MCC spokesperson, he said he had asked the police to remove the Proud Boys and militia members from the protests.)
Protests in Texas have featured conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who recently settled a defamation lawsuit after repeatedly claiming that the Sandy Hook school shootings were a hoax. And the website for protests against Idaho’s stay-at-home order links to a site for readers to learn “what is really going on” that compares the coronavirus to “white racists” (arguing that both are the creation of “propaganda”) and claims the coronavirus is the “scam of 2020.”
And Carusone told me, “The other thing that [Fox News] does that I think is more important in some ways is they provide the narrative framework” for the protests — making them about liberty in the face of “martial law” or a “police state,” for example.
It was great to join @DLoesch from the police state of Michigan today.
Under Gretchen Whitmer’s power grab, you can’t mow your grass but you can smoke it.
We all want safety, but her authoritarian measures have gone way too far. pic.twitter.com/rev63tj3Ep — Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) April 16, 2020
There’s no silent majority
But these protests aren’t reflective of public opinion — far from it. The vast majority of Americans are continuing to support social distancing policies and are more worried about stay-at-home restrictions being lifted too soon. As conservative writer Matthew Continetti wrote in the Washington Free Beacon:
Americans are not avoiding unnecessary physical proximity to people outside their household for the fun of it. Nor have they radically altered their daily routines because Gretchen Whitmer said so. They have seen the rate at which the coronavirus spreads. They have read or watched the virus kill young and old, black and white, rich and poor. They do not need Hobbes to remind them of their fear of violent death. It was not media-induced panic but common sense that modified American behavior. The public is split on whether to trust the media. It is united in its embrace of social distancing.
In fact, many Americans would continue to avoid crowded events and social gatherings even if stay-at-home orders were lifted, “police state” or no. In a recent poll by Seton Hall, 72 percent of Americans, for example, say they will not attend sporting events until a vaccine for the coronavirus is identified. The coronavirus, not “martial law,” is guiding how people act. As Alan Blinder wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Swaths of the economy—restaurants, travel, retail shops—were already shrinking before governments ordered them shut, because people were afraid to dine, travel or shop. These fears will abate gradually, with the pace dictated by the course of the virus, not by anybody’s decree.”
When I spoke to conservatives about the issue, even those who have voiced some support for the protests said the fight against the coronavirus was more complicated. For example, I talked to Dana Loesch, a conservative radio host and a former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association who interviewed GOP Chair Ronna McDaniel about the protests.
“Trump always knows how to get at exactly the fault lines of class and ethnic tension”
When we discussed rural conservatives arguing that their regions remained unaffected by the pandemic, she said, “They can’t really necessarily discount that this is just a Detroit problem or just a New York problem because it really isn’t. It will affect them. So everyone is dependent upon each other. I know that they want to get back to work and maybe they’re not affected. And maybe there’s a way that that can be figured out.”
But even in rural areas where the economic impact of the pandemic shutdown may be more searing than the disease itself, cases of the coronavirus are beginning to escalate. States like South Dakota and Idaho are beginning to see increasing infection rates and deaths, and in many rural areas, even a relatively small number of coronavirus cases could stretch rural hospitals and health networks to their limits.
Trump’s political gambit requires that the coronavirus becomes a pandemic of Democratic governors and the fault of blue states while other states get right back to business as usual, but the virus refuses to listen — and so do the vast majority of Americans.
That doesn’t mean the efforts to further spur division will stop, particularly from those who believe such a strategy will lead to a Trump victory in November. Skocpol told me, “I think we’re in for a hellish period in this country. I think the attempts to stoke the ethnically and racially charged geopolitical divisions that are built into American federalism are going to be off the scale for the next six months.” And a deadly pandemic will continue to kill Americans, regardless of political party.


vox--2020-04-19--South Korea has brought its spread of new coronavirus infections to single digits per day

South Korea ’ s public health agency , Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , said on Sunday that the country reported just eight new cases of coronavirus in the last 24 hours , the lowest new case number since the country experienced an explosive outbreak two months ago .
The South Korean government said it will extend its social distancing policies until May 5 to prevent a new surge in cases , but that as a result of declining cases , it will also relax some of its restrictions as risk has become more manageable .
In March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious and entertainment facilities suspend operations .
Reuters reports that language has been relaxed now , “ allowing facilities to restart operations as long as they comply with disinfection guidelines.
” In addition , the Korea Baseball Organization will be able to hold games again — albeit without an audience — and churches will also face fewer restrictions .
“ It is safest to maintain the intensive social distancing , but it isn ’ t easy realistically .
We need to find a middle ground , ” South Korean Prime Minister Chung Sye-kyun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials .
The reduction of new cases in South Korea is a striking achievement for a country that earlier this year had the largest number of confirmed cases in Asia outside China .
On February 20 , confirmed infections skyrocketed exponentially after a parishioner of a megachurch in the southern city of Daegu infected other congregants during services , but the government ’ s aggressive testing and contact-tracing regime seems to have played a significant role in counteracting this rapid spike in cases quickly .
Jeong Eun-kyeong , director of the country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the numbers as a sign that the worst was over , however .
“ We remain nervous as we could be missing some infection cases and those with no or few symptoms could come in close contact with others , for a possible spike in new cases later , ” she said at a news briefing .
Minister of Health and Welfare Park Neung-hoo has told the press that the government expects to reassess risk every two weeks and to revise social distancing guidelines in accordance with those assessments .
President Moon Jae-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the first national elections globally since the pandemic began , said South Korea ’ s example should give hope to the world that the pandemic is “ surmountable.
” “ The government will prepare for new daily lives and the new world order ‘ post-Covid ’ with the unified power of the citizens , ” he said .
South Korea has been approaching coronavirus differently than many countries South Korea ’ s rapid reduction of its new infection rate has caught the eye of governments and public health officials around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of measures it ’ s taken to achieve its results , including building a highly organized and massive testing capacity , and the government institution of tracing and isolation measures for people who have been in contact with the infected .
Notably , South Korea has generally avoided the wide-scale shutdowns that China and the US have pursued , according to Business Insider .
It has shut down schools and imposed a curfew in some cities , but the government has sought primarily , in a highly targeted fashion , to isolate groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been exposed .
The New York Times ’ Max Fisher and Choe Sang-Hun wrote a thorough explainer in late March about what makes the South Korean model effective .
Among other things , they highlight the fact that the government organized mass production of coronavirus test kits earlier than many other hard-hit countries , which meant that in late March the country had a per-capita test rate “ more than 40 times that of the United States.
” They also point to an astonishingly extensive surveillance and contact-tracing infrastructure : South Koreans ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases are discovered in their districts .
Websites and smartphone apps detail hour-by-hour , sometimes minute-by-minute , timelines of infected people ’ s travel — which buses they took , when and where they got on and off , even whether they were wearing masks .
People who believe they may have crossed paths with a patient are urged to report to testing centers .
South Koreans have broadly accepted the loss of privacy as a necessary trade-off .
People ordered into self-quarantine must download another app , which alerts officials if a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for violations can reach $ 2,500 .
The government has also taken measures to try to comfort people in the chaos by doing things like sending comfort packages with food and cleaning supplies to people who are under quarantine .
Approval of the government ’ s response to the pandemic was so widespread that the country saw its largest turnout in nearly three decades during national elections held last week , and the ruling party won reelection by a landslide .
South Korea ’ s management of the spread of the virus does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the woods .
Places like Hong Kong and Singapore have seen resurgences of cases , in part due to people entering the country from abroad .
But South Korea does seem to have some tools — and a plan — in place to manage the spread for now .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

South Korea’s public health agency, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said on Sunday that the country reported just eight new cases of coronavirus in the last 24 hours, the lowest new case number since the country experienced an explosive outbreak two months ago.
The South Korean government said it will extend its social distancing policies until May 5 to prevent a new surge in cases, but that as a result of declining cases, it will also relax some of its restrictions as risk has become more manageable.
In March the government recommended that indoor sports, religious and entertainment facilities suspend operations. Reuters reports that language has been relaxed now, “allowing facilities to restart operations as long as they comply with disinfection guidelines.” In addition, the Korea Baseball Organization will be able to hold games again — albeit without an audience — and churches will also face fewer restrictions.
“It is safest to maintain the intensive social distancing, but it isn’t easy realistically. We need to find a middle ground,” South Korean Prime Minister Chung Sye-kyun said at a televised meeting of government officials.
The reduction of new cases in South Korea is a striking achievement for a country that earlier this year had the largest number of confirmed cases in Asia outside China. On February 20, confirmed infections skyrocketed exponentially after a parishioner of a megachurch in the southern city of Daegu infected other congregants during services, but the government’s aggressive testing and contact-tracing regime seems to have played a significant role in counteracting this rapid spike in cases quickly.
Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the country’s CDC, expressed caution about interpreting the numbers as a sign that the worst was over, however.
“We remain nervous as we could be missing some infection cases and those with no or few symptoms could come in close contact with others, for a possible spike in new cases later,” she said at a news briefing.
Minister of Health and Welfare Park Neung-hoo has told the press that the government expects to reassess risk every two weeks and to revise social distancing guidelines in accordance with those assessments.
President Moon Jae-in said South Korea’s example should give hope to the world that the pandemic is “surmountable.”
“The government will prepare for new daily lives and the new world order ‘post-Covid’ with the unified power of the citizens,” he said.
South Korea has been approaching coronavirus differently than many countries
South Korea’s rapid reduction of its new infection rate has caught the eye of governments and public health officials around the world.
Experts say there are a number of measures it’s taken to achieve its results, including building a highly organized and massive testing capacity, and the government institution of tracing and isolation measures for people who have been in contact with the infected.
Notably, South Korea has generally avoided the wide-scale shutdowns that China and the US have pursued. Instead, the government has sought primarily, in a highly targeted fashion, to isolate groups of people who are suspected to have been exposed.
The New York Times’s Max Fisher and Choe Sang-Hun wrote a thorough explainer in late March about what makes the South Korean model effective. Among other things, they highlight the fact that the government organized mass production of coronavirus test kits earlier than many other hard-hit countries, which meant that in late March the country had a per-capita test rate “more than 40 times that of the United States.”
They also point to an astonishingly extensive surveillance and contact-tracing infrastructure:
South Koreans’ cellphones vibrate with emergency alerts whenever new cases are discovered in their districts. Websites and smartphone apps detail hour-by-hour, sometimes minute-by-minute, timelines of infected people’s travel — which buses they took, when and where they got on and off, even whether they were wearing masks. People who believe they may have crossed paths with a patient are urged to report to testing centers. South Koreans have broadly accepted the loss of privacy as a necessary trade-off. People ordered into self-quarantine must download another app, which alerts officials if a patient ventures out of isolation. Fines for violations can reach $2,500.
The government has also taken measures to try to comfort people in the chaos by doing things like sending comfort packages with food and cleaning supplies to people who are under quarantine.
Approval of the government’s response to the pandemic was so widespread that the country saw its largest turnout in nearly three decades during national elections held last week, and the ruling party won reelection by a landslide.
South Korea’s management of the spread of the virus does not mean that it’s out of the woods. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore have seen resurgences of cases, in part due to people entering the country from abroad. But South Korea does seem to have some tools — and a plan — in place to manage the spread for now.
Correction, June 18: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that President Moon Jae-in was recently reelected in nationwide elections. The elections were legislative, and presidents are limited to one five-year term under South Korea’s constitution.
The article also incorrectly stated that the South Korean government had imposed a curfew in some cities to curb the spread of the coronavirus. According to a South Korean government official, while the government did issue “stay at home” advice, no curfews were issued by the South Korean government for any regions in the country following the coronavirus pandemic.
We regret the errors.